My experience/thoughts on *taming* a clipped vs. flighted bird.

[Ariahna]

There has been a lot of discussion and many personal experiences are valid. I think we all need to step back and realize that there are several variables that determine whether clipping would help with taming, the most important are probably the individual bird's personality and the owners experience. Clipping in and of itself is not going to guarantee that the bird will become more tame, it will just make it easier for you to catch it, handle it, and move it around. If that is the definition of "tame" then I guess it accomplishes that goal. If however, your definition of tame includes that the animal is no longer afraid or timid, than that requires trust and a bond. As others mentioned, clipping may give the illusion of making it easier to tame, but limiting it's mobility to control it, and alleviating it's fear are two different things.

As I mentioned before, there are some valid reasons for clipping, I just don't think in all cases that clipping a bird's wings is going to greatly assist in the taming process of a scared/timid bird. For some owners and birds though, it might help.

 

[LivingFiction]

As for is it natural to cage a bird or to have a bird living in the house that's debatable. We are at a place in history where all the birds being bred are bred in captivity...they truly cannot live in a wild environment for the most part. They are no longer fully wild and yes, our living room is their norm. I would love to go cage free and I think you can do so successfully in many instances. I do choose to cage because if I didn't, my Cockatoos would eat my house. That doesn't mean that I can't let them have their ability to fly if at all possible. And once again, what I'm talking about isn't about whether or not clipping is ok, it's just a discussion of why the word "handicapped" truly does apply.

I'm glad you posted again Jen, I feel I have a better understanding of what you are saying. I absolutely agree that there are many health benefits to flight, and it is very valuable to birds on many levels, physical, mental, and emotional. I think preserving these things as much as possible is absolutely preferable to removing the ability.

Handicapped is fine. Handicapped means: having a condition that markedly restricts one's ability to function physically, mentally, or socially. That fits fine. That's not the word I would personally choose, but I don't feel it's inflammatory, accusatory, or entirely inappropriate.

Mutilate is not. Mutilate means: to inflict a violent and disfiguring injury. Applying this to the practice of safe and calculated wing clipping is not appropriate. If someone were to do a hack job and remove all the flights causing the wings to be completely useless, then that may be an accurate description, but otherwise no. Language like that is inflammatory, and accusatory. Making that association to a measured step taken by a loving caretaker with the best interest of it's family in mind is offensive.

What I am going to say next is not to you Jen, nor is it an inditement or an accusation toward anyone on this board, it is only an observation regarding human tendencies.

Human beings love to be right. The only thing as good as being right, is feeling right, which we are able to do much more often than we can actually be right. So it can be very satisfying to sit in a position where one feels one has the moral high ground. But from that position of perceived power one sometimes gets caught up in the righteous indignation of their perceived "rightness", and enjoys casting aspersions upon anyone not completely on board with their position. This is often done by labeling what anyone not agreeing with them as evil in any and all circumstances. They feel safe doing this, because they are so morally superior in their rightness!

Clipping is one such issue. And the authority on which this position's immutable rightness is based is that it's "natural". Who can argue that right? Birds are built to fly. You'd be a fool to claim anything else. Who are any of us to take from them what nature provided. That's how one knows one is right to demand no tolerance of clipping, and argue against any claims of it's benefit regardless of evidence.

But there's a problem with that. The authority desired from nature can only be claimed by those with absolute adherence to all of it's elements, and flight isn't the only one of them. Freedom is a big one, as is reproduction. All bird owners take freedom, and most of them insist their birds live a life free from the joys of sex, mating, and offspring.

Citing the fact that most companion birds are captive bred is really just a way of appreciating that someone else did the dirty work for us.

If we really wanted to have relationships with bird on their own terms with full and total respect for nature, we'd move to where they natively exist, and spend our lives sitting below their trees with treats and snacks hoping one day they'd be interested in getting to know us.

I can imagine a few temperatures are rising at this point, and that's only partially my intention. I do intend to provoke by stating these things, not to anger, but to bring to our attention that demonizing a safe practice used for a variety of purposes based on an authority that NONE of us is qualified to invoke is inappropriate.

How can we discuss our experiences with wing clipping, nail trimming, beak trimming, forage feeding, cage-less keeping, outdoor aviaries, hybridization, mutation breeding, or any other issue where experiences and opinions will differ with honest reporting of one's own experiences if we are in constant intimidation by some high and mighty disapproval?

Can't we disagree?

Of course we can. Tell what you KNOW from what you've SEEN. Cite studies, provide links, help us all educate each other. None of you need me to list these things, this forum was doing a great job of all of this before I ever came along. But what we can't do, what we must not do, is silence anyone's voice by intimidation via the threat of being looked down on by an imagined moral majority.

That's why we don't use the word "cult"

That's why using a word like "mutilate" must be done mindfully. There are places where it belongs, using it where it does not will either destroy it's power, or silence those who need not be silenced. If someone makes a thread condoning the practice of amputating or breaking wings, I'll whip out "mutilate" as fast as I can type it!

I love aviculture, I love having birds in my life, and in my home. I personally feel it's a VERY "natural" state for them to be in for reasons I will not endeavor to convey in this post. But I think as we explore ways to improve our experience of them, and their experience of us, let's take the claim to "natural" authority very carefully, if we use it at all. Because by most measures, we're already a good several steps away from truly "natural" as most people understand it.

 

[Coco's Momma]

Michael, I would have to wholeheartedly agree with your assessment on human beings as to loving to be right. Because if we thought we were wrong, we would do something differently!
What we also have a tendency to like to do is to convince others who disagree with us to change their position, and this bolsters our sense that we were right to begin with.
I believe there is nothing wrong, and actually a very healthy exchange (called a debate vs. an argument) to try to demonstrate to others the value of one's position, or the benefits. And conversely the other person takes a turn. But even in debates there are rules, objectives and the absence of personalization, name calling, aspersions judgments, etc.

I keep Coco cage free (I keep the budgies in a very large enclosure, but it still does not qualify as 'cage free for the budgies). While I try to give her the next best thing I am personally able to provide short of living in the jungle where she is at this point incapable of surviving, I still recognize that on a daily basis there are things I can do to better her life and our relationship. To the extent someone learns something new about their bird, the relationship, nutrition or whatever topic, they have the ability to grow, adjust and further promote their welfare of their bird. It would be wrong of me to suggest that anyone who does not keep their parrot cage-free is wrong or harming them... although I certainly see benefits of cage-free if it can be set up safely. Not every bird or every home is suited to this. But I do not view birds in a cage as being handicapped by the bars. They certainly have "less freedom to move" than a parrot kept cage-free.

Words are powerful things and may be used intentionally or unintentionally to conjure up emotions. It is great practice and a healthy relationship building to practice stating what works for one, even giving examples, demonstrations and evidence while still making an effort to leave the same room for others to make a decision for themselves that they feel is best for their situation and bird. So I really liked what you brought forward, Michael, about the nature of the human condition.

I want to bring out one more point - also another 'human condition' consideration: It seems almost natural, or certainly we strive for, to work with our birds using positive reinforcement. This is the least obtrusive method of behavior change, and least likely to have an adverse affect on the relationship between human and bird. The problem is that our society is surrounded with behavior change that is wrought through positive punishment (the most obtrusive). From childhood, this is a commonly used method for many. The police officer giving a ticket for speeding: behavior change through positive punishment. The seat belt buzzer sounds incessantly until we buckle up: presenting us with an aversive, and obtaining a behavior change through (if successful) through negative reinforcement. And the list goes on. Our society as a whole is based on positive punishment in many respects, and I find that myself and most humans gravitate to it easily and naturally. We have to work at interacting with people with positive reinforcement. If we really want someone to change their mind on a topic, punishment, shame, and judgment are not really good choices. Information, support, and space to consider options are a much better approach. Ultimately, we each decide was is best for ourselves and our birds.

 

[Stevo]

Here is some background as to my choice of word, because it appears that I need to explain myself.

mutilate
1530s, of things; 1560s, of persons;, from L. mutilat-, pp. stem of mutilare, from mutilus (see mutilation). Technically, to deprive of some principal part, especially by cutting off. Related: Mutilated; mutilating.


A birds ability to fly has been deprived by the action of cutting off the fight enabling feather parts (the extremis of the primary flight feathers). Whilst not permanent, it can be for a lengthy period of time (up to 12months) or in the case of a bad cut, irritating the bird to the point of plucking/self mutilation (sic), it can be permanent.

My choice of words are done carefully - not to enflame a discussion but rather to stimulate it... Much like other people here..