“I'm not quite sure where to even begin.’
You took the words right out of my mouth!!! LOL.
One thing that I feel is happening in this thread is that, in an effort to justify the breeding of parrots, the scope of this discussion is ever broadening. For the sake of practicality, it makes it difficult to focus on the point at hand. I have to wonder, and I think it speaks to this justification, that one has to go to such great lengths and stretches. But I enjoy discussions and exchanges and would like to address some of what's being said, but I'll avoid doing so for points made that I feel are purely subjective. For example, use of terms such as a "good (human) home" as it pertains to a wild animal, or the "right person" for that animal...stuff like that that's also been addressed before. Even some of the qualities that make a parrot a "good-pet" because, as I've stated, some of those very qualities create issues in living with them.
A part of what makes it difficult for me to respond, though, to some of your points is that you tend to align things that I feel are very different from each other as one and the same. Below you mention parrot keepers and hunters/conservationists in the same sentence. It's historically true with hunters (as license fees go towards conservation) but I believe that parrot enthusiasts are more motivated to own them than they are to either visit them in the wild or to conserve them (I do not think of a life in perpetual captivity as true conservation). I think I can base this on what I know of the average parrot owner in addition to the lack of a "conservation issues" section on most parrot keeping forums. Nor do I see alot of parrot owners deciding to "roll up their sleeves" and become researchers out in the field, in the name of the academic knowledge you've spoken of. While there is some knowledge to be gained from keeping them captive, they are still under our control. And most scientists agree that the value of studying animals outside of their natural environment is severely limited. You talk about the ignorance of non-parrot owners and their media-promoted misconceptions, as opposed to the knowledge of those living with them. But I can point to so many misconceptions (such as height-dominance) that have been debunked over time, or many of which still persist, precicely because parrot-owners don't avail themselves of scientific or field research. Knowing them only as household pets. Or, because they simply find it easier to relate parrots to what they already understand, such as dogs or human children, and then base husbandry methods accordingly. Although I have to add, it's not always their fault as historically the knowedge of parrots was, and continues to be, lacking.
Another example is my response to one of your initial posts. Due to your personal experience you claimed to not see a difference between a mal-imprinted bird (human raised/co-raised) and a naturally imprinted bird (parent raised). Even though I felt you went on to contradict yourself with your parent-raised parrotlet that didn't want to be a "pet." But I had to point out that there is a biological difference that has a real impact on their future as pets. My posts cannot be all inclusive so, just as you've urged, I must urge people to fact check and use the ideas brought up to research further. But then you called it AR propaganda as well then I thought that was kind of “out of left field.” There's a subjectivity to many viewpoints particularly when it comes to the domesticating of parrots. I’ve always felt that parrot keeping was an unregulated “wild-west” type of environment where, at best, inadvertent selection is probably the most accurate description of what’s taking place. Yes, people can and do claim to be domesticating a species that they are breeding. But they can claim anything they want. And just as you've stated, one BOP breeder may focus on breeding for desirable traits, another may not be. Even where there is regulation practices and attitudes can differ.
“I think its neat when I'm out mowing my lawn and the local fly catchers and even the peaceful sparrows when feeding chicks will follow me around snatching up the bugs I reveal or force into the air. To me this is a natural partnership and I can see how the idea of falconry and partnership with birds could have begun. My point being that its not unnatural for birds to make use of people or for people to enjoy the relationship.”
The latter point equates people making use of birds to "people enjoying the relationship." Hypothetically can the same be said for parrots in the same situation - captivity? Because I know "people" enjoy it. But do birds? Do they enjoy being caged, having a human that can't spend 100% if his time with them, wont mate with them, do they enjoy being bred under artifical conditions, having their baby's taken away....or the myriad of things that constitute a captive life? So I do feel the choice of words, in a "back to square one" kind of way, is the original justification for breeding - I enjoy it.
You recall I mentioned I love gardening and the outdoors (hope my pictures on this forum illustrate this love). So I’ve absolutely noticed the American Robins that show up to pick insects out of my freshly upturned soil. But do I not view this as any kind of endorsement for me to breed parrots (to bring things back on track)….absolutely not. This is a relationship that birds have had with large mammals going back to prehistoric times. Parrots as well, had this symbiosis with large animals that have since gone extinct. But while on the subject, I can point out species such as the passenger pigeon, or the Carolina parakeet that have been entirely wiped out by ranchers. But before I digress too far, I believe that what you call a natural partnership is that, but I also think is more accurately described as birds being opportunistic. But, yes we can enjoy it and I think a birdfeeder for wild birds would accomplish this just the same. Falconry was a relationship between man and bird where the bird would bring down prey too large for it to carry away. Man would seize that prey, cut off a small piece, and reward the bird with it. Sadly, with the invention of the gun our partners in hunting became our competition and we began shooting them. Falconry has a long, interesting history, but due to time constraints I can't rewrite it most of it - you understand. It's interesting you bring up the Harris' hawk as they are considered the "wolves of the sky" because of their group hunting dynamics and social hierarchy. Could this be why people are finding it easier to work with and even "mold" them into the perfect game hawk? I do have to comment that the term “domestication” in breeding for falconry is defined uniquely. It differs greatly in what it attempts to do with what we’ve accomplished with other domestic pets or livestock. The breeding that does take place in falconry is consistent with what I’ve said in my above post. In the breeding of BOP what is considered “domesticated” is a bird reared by other birds but in the presence of humans. But, it’s important to note, that the human only remains (to the chick) as a harmless part of the scenery. This is done so that the chick does not fear the human and still imprints properly. Therefore the problems associated with mal-imprinting that I mentioned above are avoided. If, over generations, parent's rear their birds like this then this is considered domesticated.
But as far as other animals we've domesticated (from pets to livestock), Monica made a statement above about Temple Grandin's work that I'd like to quote: "It's definitely a good book, although there were some areas I did not enjoy reading." This was in reference to the adverse side effects we've created in those animals. Some have been touched upon briefly here. They span everything from altered social behaviors, less intelligence, physical discomfort, to an all around painful/uncomfortable life. Again, unpleasant to read about. There are many instances where, through single-trait selective breeding, we've pushed an animal to the very limits of it's biology. Sometimes on purpose, as the demands of an industry, and sometimes inadvertently, as when we're selecting for a particular color, temperament, or physical fearture and bring about unintended consequences. I can cite the English Budgie as a "parrot" that we've domesticaed. Already they are more prone to obesity related disorders such as fatty tumors.
I also think we often falsely use domestication as a term that means "better suited to a life with humans." It's a part of it but it's also a primarily genetic distinction. Going back to the same author, one of the points she makes has to do with environment. The most domesticated pet we have, in her view, has become more captive than companion. She cites how, decades ago, neighborhood dogs were allowed to roam and socialize with each other. Things they are designed to do as social/roaming animals. The direction that our lives have taken has moved away from such a rural atmosphere to one of compartmentalization. That neccesitates for example, fences, leashes, or a dog that remains indoors all day. It's no wonder that behavioral issues develop. The dogs are still domesticated and socialized, but the environment is all wrong. When we talk about a parrot going to a good home....granted there are differences uniuqe to each of our homes. But, there's also a template we can come up with for the typical home - which may include multiple family members, full time jobs, etc. Parrots are being mass produced and it's probably because of that that they are affordable as well as going to the typical home. But they are also being relinquished en masse. That we know.
