Thinking...

[LaSelva]

"I'm seeing an annoying tendency not to make connections or see beyond the written word in you."

Sorry it annoys you but I'm simply looking for a basis for an opinion, some sort of foundation in a study, research, etc. As I said above, any parrot owner who's hobby it is to learn more about their birds will encounter lots of opinions. Those truly curious about the nature of life, animal behavior, etc. or who want to better know their birds will look deeper. Not settle on the opinions of others but strive for factual knowledge. I've said throughout this thread that there are some enlightening studies and research out there. And they form the basis of my opinions, sometimes reinforcing what I had already suspected. I quote the studies of others at times when I feel they said it better than I could have, but primarily to inspire others to read their works where I feel they could benefit by doing so. And, individuals getting defensive or hostile when their beliefs are challenged for proof is certainly not a new thing for me over the years.

But the support of studies has a practical implication as well. Temple would not have been able to change handling practices in meat plants if she didn't "prove" her point. She wouldn't have been taken seriously, instead being accused of being anthropomorphic, etc. The "written word" as you put it, as borne out by fact, studies, is very important. I can, once again, refer you to most books that I own that are extensively referenced, that either quote or repeat the work of other authors, researchers, etc. For example, everyone is familiar with the studies done on New Caledonian Crows that illustrates tool making ability in these birds. Several books I own on animal intelligence reference these studies. As well as those of Dr. Pepperberg, referenced in countless works, who took great pains to be objective - to come up with solid evidence and not portray it in any kind of personal, opinionated manner. Because of this, her scientific papers read very differently than her book "Alex and Me." Dr. Jaak Panksepp, who I've also mentioned, is cited heavily in books on ethology as he's considered the father of the neuroscience of animal emotions. His work is the foundation of entire books written by other authors.

 

[Shastasmom]

What was the original thread about??? Actually, I have enjoyed reading the opinions and dialogues exchanged.

 

[95talongirl]

You know what "grinds my gears"?

How people have becomes obsessed with how "evil" we are. "We" as in humanity. It seems that every day there's something out there ranting about how we shouldn't be keeping animals, shouldn't be farming, or driving cars, or doing this or that because it's bad for the planet in some way, or bad for the animals, ect. I think we are the only species to constantly hate on ourselves. Why should we be ashamed of doing what every other living creature does: live. Just because we have evolved to to able to make and build things to make life more comfortable, so what? I'm pretty sure any animal out there would do the same thing if opportunity arises. The basic drive is survival, so whatever it takes to make that easier, it will be done. It just gets tiring to constantly read about terrible we are. When I don't think that we actually are, when you strip it down to the basics. So where am I going with this?

Well the people in academia tend to have very strong feelings on a subject and thus will exploit the negative emotions tied to it, rather just to get their point across, attention, or for grant money. And I'm sorry, just because you have a degree in something doesn't impress me, anymore. There's plenty of people out there with degrees. (congrats, you can read books, write papers and pass a test!) Degree or not, we are all human, and we all use our own experiences, intelligence and logic to come to conclusions. Those experiences can be just as valuable!

Science is an attempt to understand our world. It is ALWAYS changing. For example, I love the medical field. One day this will kill you, and the next day it's a superfood. Look at the "low-fat" push.... now they have done studies that show that living "low-fat" is really not the way to go, as fat is needed in your body. There's a billion other examples in that field to just drive one crazy. lol!

My whole point in this is that we can enjoy life and enjoy the fact that parrots and other animals have lent themselves to live along with us. Oh, back to the subject on changing the brain. That is something caused Neuroplasticy. Anything and everything can cause changes in the brain. I honestly think its more survival related than anything. Adaptation, as you will. I do not buy the propaganda that they are hating captivity, as they are anthropomorphized into. Negative emotions are used to paint ugly pictures to cause a reaction in people and thus get attention. If you apply adaptation, then certain animals have lent themselves to adapt to living with humans. I commented on a different thread about this subject. If you think about it, people have tried to keep all sorts of animals. Some work out, many have not. Would the parrot overpopulation problem be an actual problem if they were not able to live alongside us? I think not.

I know that was all over the place. I just don't understand why it's such a terrible thing to be able to live alongside an animal. It's a wonderful gift. If one takes care of the animal, gives it the best they can, I just don't see why it's so "evil".

BTW, I don't mean we shouldn't do things like recycle, or dump chemicals in the ocean, ect. lol!

 

[waterfaller1]

I did not read through this thread all the way, just a few posts. But the BEST way to be a good breeder is find one, then do an internship with them. At least a year or so, so everything is covered. Don't just try to 'wing it" or you can/will learn the hard way, and that means loss of life. Good luck.

 

[petiteoiseau]

I am not saying this to put you down, Marybeth, but I am a grandmother and you sound very young to me. Humanity has achieved great things and nobody is arguing that, but we are also the most cruel, invasive and destructive species on earth. So destructive, in fact, that we are literally killing our planet. In my case, it's not hate for all humanity but quite a lot of despair for the lack of empathy most people have for animals and the environment. And no, other animal species don't even begin to compare to us. They don't kill/torture/mutilate for the pleasure of it or destroy entire habitats so they can have more material (and completely unnecessary for survival) possessions than the next guy. We do. We think that we are superior to all other species, that we 'inherited the earth' and are entitled to have what makes us happy regardless of what we destroy or who/what we hurt in the process. That's what's evil about humanity.

And parrots did not 'lend themselves to live alongside us'. That's like saying that the African people that were brought to America as slaves 'lent themselves to it'. They did not and neither did parrots to become our pets. We stole the babies from the parents nests, we used traps that we baited with birds that had their wings broken or amputated and had their legs tied or glued to a branch, we crammed them into boxes without food or water for transport, etc. You don't think that qualifies as evil? How about poachers that hack off the horns of rhinos while still alive and leave them laying there bleeding and suffering? Or dog fighting? Or using crazy glue to hold the broken hoof of a racing horse together so he can race even though he is in terrible pain? Or keeping calves in boxes from the day they are born until the day they are killed so people can eat a tender veal cutlet? Or tube feeding geese until their liver becomes hugely enlarged so we can make pate out of it? Or putting sows in crates so small the poor animal cannot even turn around once in her entire life? Or crowding chickens until they start cannibalizing each other in their desperation? Or taking a newborn colt away from his mother as soon as it's born (and then sent to the slaughterhouse) so she would conceive again soon and we can collect her urine for our hormones? Or throwing baby chicks into a grinding machine still alive? Or playing football with a live turkey? How about bird or puppy mills and bear bile farms? None of these things sounds evil to you? They do to me (and I am not even going into what humans do to other humans!).

 

[95talongirl]

There's always going to be evil. And I am NOT talking about evil scenarios.

I also cannot keep a parrot and say that keeping them is not a good thing in the same sentence. That's hypocritical. Sorry.

For every "bad" thing, there's just as much good in the world. We just don't hear as much about it because the negative emotional response is stronger.

 

[Hankmacaw]

Nothing is an absolute.

Elephants are known for destroying their own habitat. Probably, bacteria are the most rampant about destroying their habitat.
Bears had to be trapped and moved out of N. Idaho because they were decimating the Elk herds. One bear would kill dozens of Elk calves in a herd of calving cows - they would just kill and kill and kill because they like to kill.

Over the past 200 years, humans have made significant changes to natural environments all over the globe, and most of these changes have negatively affected wildlife, forcing unprecedented numbers of species toward extinction. However, extinction is a natural biological process that has been a part of species' evolution since the beginning of time. Fossil records have shown that, even before humans were a part of the world's biota, natural factors such as overspecialization , competition, sudden climatic change, or catastrophic events like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes have driven species to endangerment and extinction.

Speciation and extinction are the processes by which new species arise and existing species decline and cease to exist. Speciation and extinction events are an integral part of evolution and are taking place all the time. At some points during evolutionary history, extinction or speciation rates become elevated, resulting in mass extinctions or bursts of rapid speciation.

-- Among Idaho's 29 elk management zones, wolves are the primary cause of mortality in the hardest-hit herds, he said. And those zones are the state's most remote. Winter calf survival in two of those zones, for example, is now 30 percent and 52 percent respectively, compared to 71 percent and 89 percent before 2004, when wolf densities were lower, state statistics show.

 

[DancingFeathers]

I've got to agree with you there, Hank. I don't like people calling humans an evil species. Yes, humans have caused massive changes to the world, but honestly, I'm sure any animal intelligent enough to do so has modified the world in order to survive. Humans are just another type of animal. There is just as much evil in other species, and just as much good. After all, what we define as good and evil is what we formed based off of species preservation. I'm sure that once we all die out, some other animal, far more intelligent than us, will be molding the world.

Species put themselves, and the individual at top priority. It's the way we survive. Any action could be viewed as right or wrong. It comes down to priorities and viewpoint. There aren't a lot of people who are purposefully being wicked. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intention.

 

[95talongirl]

Exactly.

 

[Hankmacaw]

One of the most tragic consequences of the constant drumbeat that humans are bad and are killing the Earth, is the effect on children. My good friend's sister is a child psychotherapist in Oregon, where these is excessive emphasis on the evil of humans vs the environment. She has told us (without breaking Dr./patient confidentiality) that she has several teenage patients every year who are suicidal because they have become convinced that they are personally destroying the Earth.

I would really like to see a lot more common sense and less screaming that the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

 

[Jan]

Why does this breeder forum always get so far off course?? So maybe I'll go on the course as well...

First thing, you can not talk to anti-breeders and get any real feedback or gratification from it. People here have their minds made up as to what they think is right. You know, like do not buy from breeders, buy/adopt from rescues... my thoughts are those birds in rescues really did originally come from a breeder.

I bred parrots for 22 years and I learned a lot of stuff along the way, it requires experience plus knowledge.

I do know because of mostly the economy it is hard to sell birds now. You will not get a full price value.

You just don't/never recoop your money back from all of what is put into setting up, whether it is a small or large set up.

Breeding is a lot of long hours and dedication especially when there are babies to be feed. Speaking of babies, I would not leave them in the nest any longer than 3 weeks old as at that age they do not adapt to you as easily as when they are 2 weeks old and yes that extra week being in the nest with the parents make a big difference as to how they react to you taking over.

Getting baby birds from a breeder is fine to do as long as you know how to hand feed and brood them properly... after all the babies may get more one on one attention from a dedicated hand feeder than the breeder as the breeder may have more attention on other areas and may not have the ample time to socialize with the babies as needed to make babies friendly and lovable. You also need to know about certain problems that can arise with a baby bird, don't try to learn as it happens.

 

[melissasparrots]

[quote="Hankmacaw, post: 1997938, member: 154"

I would really like to see a lot more common sense and less screaming that the sky is falling, the sky is falling.[/quote]

Yeah, I've seen that in my students. They've been preached at so long that humans are destroying the earth that they've become almost apathetic. On the one hand, we've learned from the mistakes of the past and are trying to fix things. Young people now are much more into recycling and much more aware of their impact on the earth. On the other hand, you start talking to them about humans are destroying the earth and they just tune out. Heard it a thousands times, no need to keep repeating it.

Now, if you start talking about how some of the programs to fix problems have been a success or showing preliminary improvement, then suddenly they feel empowered, start paying attention more, acting relieved that we are not doomed for all eternity and re-invigorated to go forth a make a difference.

There are a very few studies on the stress effects of birds in captivity. Everything from telomere shortening to cortisol levels. However, one thing they all have in common if you read the methods and materials section is that the the studies are poorly controlled. The birds come from diverse backgrounds, small sample sizes that can throw statistics WAY off, articles written by zoo keepers instead of PhDs, which is fine except it does tend to question the influence of bias. To me, I read those studies and think of more studies that need to be done. To figure out specifically what is causing the stress, what husbandry techniques cause the least amount of stress. I don't read those and think, gosh, I can practically hear Ariel's telomeres shorting as I sit here right now. I think how can we do it better. In the time I've had birds, we've gone from seeing most african greys and cockatoos plucked or over preened badly, to seeing birds that are either fully feathered or the problem managed well enough that the bird doesn't look nearly as ratty. 10 years ago when you got on cockatoo or grey message boards and people posted pictures of their birds that were over 3-5 years old, the bird was almost invariably plucked. Not so any more. I think we've made the most improvements with african greys. More work still needs to be done with cockatoos. However, I think with cockatoos its going to come down to vet care and more learning there since I think cockatoo are just a species that responds to pain by digging at the source of pain or pulling their feathers in an attempt to have control over the pain. I'm not convinced its all an emotional stress issue. Even when you read those papers, the authors themselves will suggest things that need further study. There is just a lot more to be learned here. We are getting there. Already showing improvement, but have more improvement to go. I refuse to criticize someone too much over their rearing methods with baby birds. Dealing with psychology is very much a soft science that comes down to the psychology of the individual. What works for one breeder with their birds, may not work for another breeder with a different species or just different individuals. Instead of focusing on all the bad, I'd rather see people look at how successful attempts have been to fix the problem and then take steps to continue that improvement. Now, back into lurk mode on this thread.

 

[LaSelva]

Petiteoisiau, thanks for taking the time to type out such a great post, I would have said many of those things in reply as well. Our use of animals is overwhelmingly one of exploitation. To answer your hypothetical question: "You don't think that qualifies as evil?"

Have to say I've thought about something a few times and that is this....If I feed a person I've done something "good," right? But if I have to slaughter an animal to do it then haven't I done something "evil" to that animal?...which, of course, doesn't want or may resist that fate. I think it's only one instance where it goes to show that terms like "good" and "evil" are human constructs, relative in this case. Non-human animals that live in societies have the equivalent of moral behavior but in their case it's called either "social" or "anti-social" behavior. For example, Chimpanzees might banish or put to death a group member that is behaving in an anti-social manner. Similar to our penal system but for ourselves we call it "morality." I don't think that overall people believe that hurting animals or the environment is "evil" simply because we've written an ideology that places no importance on such things. We've written animals "out" of our morality, so to speak. Therefore freeing us of any guilt associated with harming them. They were "put" here for us to use. I have a soul, they don't. My soul lives forever, they (as well as the environment) are temporary. Going back to Descartes, animals weren't afforded feelings or thoughts, they were considered mechanical. I think this plays a huge part in modern day thinking. I think this ideology, to a large extent (although we have advanced technology), is holding back a stewardship of this planet that's in our best interests. All the while we know what we're doing wrong.

 

[LaSelva]

-- Among Idaho's 29 elk management zones, wolves are the primary cause of mortality in the hardest-hit herds, he said. And those zones are the state's most remote. Winter calf survival in two of those zones, for example, is now 30 percent and 52 percent respectively, compared to 71 percent and 89 percent before 2004, when wolf densities were lower, state statistics show.

Saw something on this a while back. Seems this is a heated debate between hunters and activists. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the wolves that are being spoken of here artificially introduced? Specifically, invasive. As well as competing with local hunters for elk? That, to me, would generate a bias toward demonizing them.

Hankmakaw, I understand that factually what you're saying is biologically true about extinction and speciation. But it doesn't take into consideration the amount of damage that humans have done in an incredibly short periold of time. That is in terms of the earth's history as well as our own, since the industrial revolution for example (if one wants to start there). Also, consider that when we destroy habitat for urban development (because we are overpopulating) there's no room for other species to grow and thrive - speciation. Except for maybe the roaches and mice. Then there's our pollution. Suburban neighborhoods, such as on Long Island, NY no longer have frogs and therefore snakes because of toxic runoff into bodies of water. This is from all the chemicals we use, on lawns, etc. If an animal does thrive, more likelly than not, if we have no use for it it's considered a pest. Squirrels, raccoons, possum, come to mind.

 

[petiteoiseau]

Just a note on eating/killing animals: I have no moral issues with it. I would have no moral issues eating a human being if the corpse was the only source of protein available. Meat is meat and we evolved to eat it. What I do have a moral issue with is animals having a terrible life and inhumane death just because this way their meat, eggs or whatever is cheaper - or killing animals for stupid things (like an ivory figurine), ignorance (like bear bile or powdered rhino horn for male potency) or making them suffer for sport (horse racing, dog fighting and hunting them for the pleasure of it). I eat meat but it has to be from a place where the animal ate a natural diet and lived a 'normal' life, even if it's a short one. I also don't eat babies (so lamb and veal are out), highly intelligent animals (like dogs, horses, pigs, etc) or species that are becoming depleted in the wild because we over harvest them (like tuna). Ergo, even though I was born and raised in a country where every single meal has to feature meat or is not a meal (we have no such thing as spaghetti with meatless sauce) and I do love my steak, I eat vegetarian most of the time (with the corresponding vit B12 deficiency that this implies -sigh).

 

[LaSelva]

"Just a note on eating/killing animals: I have no moral issues with it.

Understood, neither do I. My commentary was on the idea that there's no moral consequence associated with the way we treat non-human animals at all. Looking at the institutions that define that morality and especially the historic resistance to relating us to them in any way. That we define good and evil based on what works for us. And that enables us to live our lives, oblivious to animals abused for various ends, guilt free. We eat meat and behave as they do although they have instincts but we have sins and virtues.

 

[DancingFeathers]

LaSelva, I think the animal morals has to do with upbringing and exposure. It would be rare that I could convince a veteran dog fighter to really feel guilt for what he's done, and I couldn't be convinced to be a dog fighter. People are set in their ways by the time they reach a certain age, I suppose. The people on this forum are a collection of people who are trying their best to live while not being at the expense of others.

 

[LaSelva]

I like what you said above about good and evil being a matter of perspective. It certainly is and that's why I don't put too much stock in a red guy with horns holding a pitchfork (or a fiery pit, or a heavy metal band...lol) as a symbol of evil. If only it were that easy to recognize - and yet people seem to think it is, black and white that is. I agree that it has to do with upbringing and exposure. I can tell personal stories of children in my parent's home country torturing animals where the adults can hear the animals cries and don't bat an eye. Although it's unfortunate that many people stop growing (i.e. keeping an open mind) after a certain age because, if not, they could grow out of it. I do think that morality is a function of maturity and openmindedness to some respect. Even though I was a quiet, introspective and empathetic child, my morality has certainly broadened with age.

"The people on this forum are a collection of people who are trying their best to live while not being at the expense of others."

I'm in the same boat. I think that the subject of how to define morality when it comes to animals is interesting but more so challenging. Especially when it comes to how we incorporate it in our lives. We've all benefitted from their use in some way so its hard not to feel hypocritical. For example, I can take an orphaned rabbit to a rehab center but without a thought as to how many have had their eyes burned out for the sake of simple household chemicals I use everyday. I have to admit that in my own personal life and how I live I haven't reached a compromise or reconciliation between things like that.

I think that what caused this latest turn in the thread is the idea that what we're doing constitutes "evil." Barring subjective terminology, fact is, our ability to mass consume resources on this planet had greatly surpassed our knowledge of how finite those resources were. Today we know much of the "what and why" of what we're doing wrong but economic interests for the short term generally win out. Sure there are people sounding the alarm (and this is what some get upset about). But it's companies that produce profit and create jobs that can hire and pay for feasability assessments that say whatever is in their best interest. Biologists for hire in other words. It's a common strategy to cast doubt on scientific studies so a company can go forward with it's plans, no matter how unsustainable or damaging to the ecology. In conservation there's a saying that I think is appropriate "bread today....hunger tomorrow." We're already seeing this in many countries that have not practiced sustainability over the years. Taking it back to breeding, we see this "casting of doubt" in an attitude above: "there aren't enough studies to confirm to me how parrots cope negatively with captivity so, in the meantime, we'll keep breeding."

Today it's breeding (an animal that is commonly relinquished) but if this was a different era, we might be having the same discussion but about whether importation of wild-caught parrots was right or wrong. It was made illegal, and today we know how many thousands of parrots were spared capture. As well as saved from extinction in the wild. We know what the result would have been had the importation continued for the populations in many countries. This may not have been the initial reason for the ban but because of that ban we can have the solutions of the type that give young people hope - in the form of ecotourism. The creation of local jobs, protected lands and the preservation of wildlife. Not to mention clean air. I can tell you that Costa Rica, and especially Peru, have initiated environmental studies programs in their colleges as a result -that young people are excited about. These are a trickle down effect of the initial efforts of Dr. Charles Munn PhD. He lobbied govts. to declare protected lands (which he got them to do), he built eco-lodges and in turn gave them back to local communities to run. He's one of the people who "sounded alarms." He left the world of academia, sitting at a desk, to go out into the field to see how many parrots were out there and where. He understood, as anyone else who wants to be informed does, that without knowing how we are hurting the environment we cannot take actions to bring about solutions. Yes, there are things we don't like to hear but it's a characteristic of being dysfunctional to force happiness and a bubbly attitude reagardless of what's going on in this world..imo. Yes, the mining of minerals for our cell phones is killing wild mountain gorillas in the DRC. The very ones Dian Fossey (of Gorillas in the Mist) died protecting. Unless we know, or want to know, how do we change it? If one wants to consider it preaching then they can just put their fingers in their ears and run away....and the problem continues. Or we can just say "so what, there are many problems in the world."

Now the industry is mass producing parrots. But the key term is the same “consumption.” What began this thread? Someone admitting they like raising baby birds. I think the industry can largely be classified as the consumption of baby birds. We enjoy bringing baby home…we enjoy what is fresh and new (the SEEKING emotion). But, once the novelty wears off, once human attention span runs out, once wild needs and behaviors kick-in, then it's an inconvenience. Parrots usually become more than what most people want to contend with.

 

[Birdlove]

I would say we're inconsiderate. And that's where we go wrong. We don't consider the cause and effect of our actions. P
One of my younger kids discovered yesterday, actually, that some people leave trash in the street (cigarette butts) and they were outraged. I mean, they stopped me and said, " Look what someone did! They left they're trash in the street!" I've never told them we're destroying the planet or anything of that sort but this kid, out of our entire brood is one of the sweetest and most considerate.

 

[LaSelva]

" I do not buy the propaganda that they are hating captivity, as they are anthropomorphized into. Negative emotions are used to paint ugly pictures to cause a reaction in people and thus get attention. "

This is why we need to reference studies, so it isn't propaganda. Of course, we can't use words like "love" or "hate" to describe how animals react to captivity. A human child growing up in a barren orphanage (in some third world country) doesn't know enough to hate it . But nonetheless we see infants and toddlers crying incessantly and swaying back and forth in their cribs (stereotypies). Somehow, overcrowded and understaffed, the withholding of a genetic emotional need - that parental deprivation - is bringing about an adverse reaction. As young adults we see them tugging at their hair or inflicting harm upon themselves. These places have been called breeding gounds for mental insanity. It's not hard to see the anaolgy to how many parrots end up, who also live lives of deprivation of what they are designed to be. Polar bears are notorious pacers in captivity, designed to roam hundreds of miles a day in their natural habitat. On the subject of anthropomorphism, one can believe it if they'd like. I cannot make a person learn the knowledge we have gained. That we no longer have to "morph" animals into human. But it's fact that as animals ourselves, and related to them, we share homologous features. Just as our shared skeletal structure, we share the anatomy, neurology and chemistry of emotions. Same, related, parts that play the same role. The amygdala or hypothalamus for example. We've actually been able to map the emotions of animals to a great degree.

You've brought up neuroplasticity but I feel that you're using it inappropriately. It's primarily associtated with learning (throughout life or after a brain injury). The strengthening of synapses between neurons that solidify memory of experiences, the purging of less important experiences during sleep, the integration of chemicals such as dopamine that give those experiences emotional context, muscle memory, etc. etc. All animals have the capacity to learn in this way - from life's experinences, their conspecifics, their actions and events. It could be as simple as a bird learning it's species song from another or a parrot learning to whistle a tune from it's owner. We can actually "see" the neural loop or repetition taking place as they practice. Not getting it just right on the first few attempts. Then more tries with closer and closer approximations to finally getting it. Studies on this have actually been carried out on crows in how they learn during play (another survival adaptation). How their brains strenghthen connections for attempted movements that work and purge those that fail, etc. But, just as the polar bear example, this has little to do with learning to cope with deprivation - in other words, learning to live in an environment not suited for them. That's entirely different. The changes in brain (and in terms of dendritic growth) brought about by deprivation, especially during juvenile/developmental stages, can lead to pathological behavior. As well as scar the brain for life - where PTSD behaviors can continue long after an animals welfare has been improved. Studies have proven this. The environmental, parental, etc. inputs that an animal's brain is meant to recieve in order to develop normally are governed by genetics. Human children, babies, need to be held and loved.

Which also leads to the idea of "adaptation." Technically, a "species" adapts not an individual, as in natural selection. Individuals show what could be called behavioral felxibility. Reminds me of my trips to see parrots in the wild. In how remote and specific their habitats are. Cut them down and they don't pick up and go elsewhere. They disappear. It illustrates that they are specialists.

"If you think about it, people have tried to keep all sorts of animals. Some work out, many have not. "

We've tried to "domesticate" all sorts of animals. We have succeeded with a select few.