upatsix.com - Your Source For Pet Bird Information

greylover wrote:Nature knows what she is doing!!

What does this mean?

Irish wrote:For me, if it lives, it deserves to be treated with love and respect, whether it's purebred or hybrid, old, fat, ugly, beautiful, bald or crippled.

I can't imagine you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you, or thinks that the hybrid birds that are out there do not deserve care every bit as good as non-hybrids. However, just because I think that crippled birds deserve love, that does not mean that I think people should go out and cripple birds. Take care of the splay-legged ones, by all means, but try not to make any more of them.

Obviously, that's a much more clear-cut and less ambiguous example, and I do not mean to imply that breeding hybrid birds is as bad as crippling them (obviously not! -- a hybrid breeder is not a vicious bird-crippler); we could argue about whether it's a bad thing at all (I am weakly inclined to think that it is). The above is merely an example of how caring for them and promoting their breeding are entirely different things, with an extreme example chosen for clarity.

Petter wrote:

greylover wrote:Nature knows what she is doing!!

What does this mean?

Irish wrote:For me, if it lives, it deserves to be treated with love and respect, whether it's purebred or hybrid, old, fat, ugly, beautiful, bald or crippled.

I can't imagine you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you, or thinks that the hybrid birds that are out there do not deserve care every bit as good as non-hybrids. However, just because I think that crippled birds deserve love, that does not mean that I think people should go out and cripple birds. Take care of the splay-legged ones, by all means, but try not to make any more of them.

Obviously, that's a much more clear-cut and less ambiguous example, and I do not mean to imply that breeding hybrid birds is as bad as crippling them (obviously not! -- a hybrid breeder is not a vicious bird-crippler); we could argue about whether it's a bad thing at all (I am weakly inclined to think that it is). The above is merely an example of how caring for them and promoting their breeding are entirely different things, with an extreme example chosen for clarity.

It means, if it lives, love it. You would not believe the amount of hatred I've seen spewed by anti-hybrid people on many bird forums, and this one is one of the worst for inflammatory anti-hybrid postings, imho. To each their own opinion. I prefer to think of all life as deserving of acceptance and love, even hybrid birds. Even the people who breed them. Even the people who hate them, and even those who hate people like me--the people who buy them. Wild macaws will probably be extinct eventually. There are enough of ALMOST every pure breed in captivity (excepting RFs, Hys, and BTMs) to repopulate MOST of the different species in the wild (if captive-bred birds could survive), and STILL have well more than enough left over to go around for people who want pets. If this wasn't so, sanctuaries wouldn't be full, and perfectly good PUREBRED macaws wouldn't be euthanized in animal shelters--a phenomenon we're seeing more of all the time.

If it lives, love it. It may not be perfect in your eyes, but it probably is in God's. Who am I to reject His son's teachings to love all things? Please don't try to turn my words into a point of contention to your point of view. Be more creative and orginal than that, 'k? You know exactly what I meant. Twisting my words does not do your cause any good at all.

Irish wrote:You would not believe the amount of hatred I've seen spewed by anti-hybrid people on many bird forums, and this one is one of the worst for inflammatory anti-hybrid postings, imho. To each their own opinion. I prefer to think of all life as deserving of acceptance and love, even hybrid birds.

Yes, and I agree with you. But that is not the issue at all.

Please don't try to turn my words into a point of contention to your point of view. Be more creative and orginal than that, 'k? You know exactly what I meant. Twisting my words does not do your cause any good at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood -- sometimes I misread people because I tend to be very literal-minded. I certainly wasn't trying to twist anything into a bone of contention. My apologies if this seems excessively pedantic; please regard it only as a way of being explicit and weeding out any misunderstanding. What I understood or misunderstood was this:

1. My view is that hybrid birds (like one-winged, splay-legged, arthritic, albino, and abandoned birds) deserve every bit of care and love that any other bird deserves. I believe I share this view with most people on this board, "anti-hybrid sentiments" or not. I also believe that I share this view with you.

2. My view is, further, that while birds with negative traits, such as being one-winged, abandoned, or hybrid, deserve love and care, we should aspire not to make more of them. I believe that I share this view with everyone concerned, including you, although...

3. ...You may disagree with me, and disagree even more with others around here, on what constitutes a negative trait.

4. My interpretation, which may have been incorrect, was that you were conflating the two different issues above and implying that people who agree with me on point 2 don't agree with point 1 -- that is, that being against hybrids implies a lack of care for existing hybrids. That seemed an unfair accusation, hence my post. If I misread you, then -- well, mea culpa and I apologise.

Nature, alas, produces not only beautiful things (although I freely admit that Bowie is among the most beautiful animals of any kind I've ever seen! -- Do you have more pictures?). It is also where we get birth defects, sterile hybrids (along with the fertile ones); the excruciating toxins of stonefish and pufferfish; plagues; HIV; cancer; aortic aneurysms; and death -- and if we humans are capable of choosing among nature's outcomes, I'd say it's our responsibility to do so advisedly, rather than making ourselves victims of the naturalistic fallacy.

What about the hybrids that do naturally occur in the wild? It is rare, but harliquins do occur in the wild...

christie wrote:What about the hybrids that do naturally occur in the wild? It is rare, but harliquins do occur in the wild...

What about them? They weren't bred by human breeders, so there's no one to lambast with potential ethical issues, and I'm pretty sure no one is urging legislators to subject the macaws to sodomy laws.

1. The pictures of the hybrids are certainly interesting, and the military hybrid looks beautiful. Having gone that far in my comment, I should also say: been there; done that; learned something new; curiosity is satisfied.

2. I think that two blue & gold hybrids first appeared in the Tracy Aviaries in Utah about 20 years ago, and the hybrid was called a "Tracy". Overall, it was not really that appealing, and the parents were separated.

3. Interesting thought about chimpanzees. Among other differences, chimps have one more pair of chromosomes than humans, which could affect the development and health of any offspring. One BIG difference is that the male-determining chromosome (Y) is smaller and contains less genetic information than the human male chromosome, and its primary purpose might be just to produce a large amount of sperm, along with the increase in testosterone. This appears to be the reason why male chimps in captivity are dangerous to humans when they approach maturity.

4. If we repect the nature of this forum, and treat our differences and diversities with respect, we all gain. So far, we are doing really well on this thread !

Petter wrote:

Irish wrote:You would not believe the amount of hatred I've seen spewed by anti-hybrid people on many bird forums, and this one is one of the worst for inflammatory anti-hybrid postings, imho. To each their own opinion. I prefer to think of all life as deserving of acceptance and love, even hybrid birds.

Yes, and I agree with you. But that is not the issue at all.

Please don't try to turn my words into a point of contention to your point of view. Be more creative and orginal than that, 'k? You know exactly what I meant. Twisting my words does not do your cause any good at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood -- sometimes I misread people because I tend to be very literal-minded. I certainly wasn't trying to twist anything into a bone of contention. My apologies if this seems excessively pedantic; please regard it only as a way of being explicit and weeding out any misunderstanding. What I understood or misunderstood was this:

1. My view is that hybrid birds (like one-winged, splay-legged, arthritic, albino, and abandoned birds) deserve every bit of care and love that any other bird deserves. I believe I share this view with most people on this board, "anti-hybrid sentiments" or not. I also believe that I share this view with you.

2. My view is, further, that while birds with negative traits, such as being one-winged, abandoned, or hybrid, deserve love and care, we should aspire not to make more of them. I believe that I share this view with everyone concerned, including you, although...

3. ...You may disagree with me, and disagree even more with others around here, on what constitutes a negative trait.

4. My interpretation, which may have been incorrect, was that you were conflating the two different issues above and implying that people who agree with me on point 2 don't agree with point 1 -- that is, that being against hybrids implies a lack of care for existing hybrids. That seemed an unfair accusation, hence my post. If I misread you, then -- well, mea culpa and I apologise.

Nature, alas, produces not only beautiful things (although I freely admit that Bowie is among the most beautiful animals of any kind I've ever seen! -- Do you have more pictures?). It is also where we get birth defects, sterile hybrids (along with the fertile ones); the excruciating toxins of stonefish and pufferfish; plagues; HIV; cancer; aortic aneurysms; and death -- and if we humans are capable of choosing among nature's outcomes, I'd say it's our responsibility to do so advisedly, rather than making ourselves victims of the naturalistic fallacy.

Well written and debated. A coherent and intelligent response. I like that, although I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree in some areas--mostly in that I see no serious problems to existing or future wild populations of purebred birds in breeding hybrids, at least in the numbers that they're being bred at this point, and given the escalating number of unwanted and often euthanized purebred macaws in captivity that no one is trying to re-introduce into the wild (for valid reasons) to shore up populations there. The rarity of purebreds in captivity, and real efforts to introduce captive-bred birds into wild populations may change at some point in the future, at which point I may change my thoughts on the moral acceptability of breeding hybrids.

Lots of pix of Bowie, as well as our other birds, can be seen at http://www.colliecapers.com/gallery/ourbirds

Irish wrote:... given the escalating number of ... often euthanized purebred macaws in captivity ...

I've assumed this certainly would happen as the number of parrots being sold and abandoned continues to rise, but I didn't realize it was already happening Could you tell me where?

TIA, Paca

Irish wrote:...I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree in some areas--mostly in that I see no serious problems to existing or future wild populations of purebred birds in breeding hybrids, at least in the numbers that they're being bred at this point, and given the escalating number of unwanted and often euthanized purebred macaws in captivity that no one is trying to re-introduce into the wild (for valid reasons) to shore up populations there. The rarity of purebreds in captivity, and real efforts to introduce captive-bred birds into wild populations may change at some point in the future, at which point I may change my thoughts on the moral acceptability of breeding hybrids.

When I arrived at this board, I had no particular opinion about hybridisation, and entered at least one debate (here, if you're curious) questioning the aversion to the breeding of hybrids -- acknowledging that obviously, if conservation is a real goal and concern there is a real point to preserving "pure-bred" species, but opining as you do that conservation isn't really a major topic. Some people, whether here or elsewhere, seem to be against hybridisation because...because, which isn't a rationale that sways me very much. The naturalistic fallacy can cut both ways, and whether you call it natural or unnatural, I'll still call it irrelevant unless you can demonstrate otherwise...

What changed my mind were the data that indicate that real harm can come of cross-breeding, as examplified in the "confused nesting" behaviour of lovebirds cited in the thread referenced above. Obviously, a few occurrences do not equal a trend. However, with data that show that harm can occur, and no data to show how likely or unlikely that harm is, I take the position that it's best to be cautious -- hence what I describe as a weak stance against hybrid breeding.

I expect we will continue to agree to disagree, but this rationale is one I was not aware of when I first entered those discussions -- I suppose I thought that speciation would harm reproductive compatibility before any other behavioural or physiological problems could occur (which, in retrospect, was rather naive) -- and in the absence of data indicating prevalence, at least one to keep in mind.

ParrontPlus wrote:

Irish wrote:... given the escalating number of ... often euthanized purebred macaws in captivity ...

I've assumed this certainly would happen as the number of parrots being sold and abandoned continues to rise, but I didn't realize it was already happening Could you tell me where?

TIA, Paca

Good question. I'm looking for more (I have a lot of tabs open, but haven't read them all, yet, to see if they're relevant. I will add more links as I find them. Here is part of an article that starts partway down this url:

1) http://www.theangryparrot.org/puppy_and ... _mills.htm

[i]"Parrots are now facing the same fate. Euthanasia.

As for euthanasia, I'm all for euthanasia when it's done for reasons defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary; Main Entry: eu·tha·na·sia Pronunciation: "yü-th&-'nA- h(E-) & Function: noun Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos death more at THANATOS : the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. eu·tha·na·sic /-zik, -sik/ adjective.

Unwanted animals are not euthanized, they are killed.

When the only choice is a life of being miserably rehomed over and over again, to live in deplorable conditions perhaps some may choose to be humanely killed, if they could make that choice. Many of us might make a similar decision. The animals however cannot do that.

Relieving people from the responsibility they undertook when they purchased this animal are we not making the disposable pet mentality acceptable?

We need to focus on the big picture here, something that the dog and cat people were perhaps unable to do 50 years ago.

The humane orgs which kill MILLIONS of dogs and cats every year have made it oh so convenient for the public to never be tainted by the bloodshed. These pets are left at these shelters with the notion that their pet may be adopted. They leave content that Lady or Fluffy will soon be frolicking with children in a perfect home when the truth is that they are in body bags in the freezer.

We don’t want to make killing parrots this convenient. The people who purchased these parrots need to shoulder the responsibility of living with a captive wild animal and get really angry at the Pet Trade for deceiving them in the first place.

[b]From the Animal Rescue League of Boston in an email to us;

“Could you look at some of our problem birds with health/behavioral issues and recommend treat, re-home or euthanize.â€

Petter, I respect you and your opinion, because you have obviously thought your viewpoint through in a thorough and scientific manner. Perhaps someday I will share your view, as I find more information in the scientific community to support your (and others') theses.

For now, though, we'll agree to disagree on this particular issue, with, I hope, mutual respect and with the knowledge that when it comes right down to it, we both have a passionate love for these amazing feathered creatures, and wish only for the best for them, both in captivity and in the wild.

Irish wrote:

ParrontPlus wrote:

Irish wrote:... given the escalating number of ... often euthanized purebred macaws in captivity ...

I've assumed this certainly would happen as the number of parrots being sold and abandoned continues to rise, but I didn't realize it was already happening Could you tell me where?

TIA, Paca

Good question. I'm looking for more ...

I misunderstood you and assumed you meant that parrots were often being euthanized in shelters for lack of homes. Of course I've long known that birds with seemingly incurable feather destructive diseases to the point of mutilation and other illnesses are often euthanized in vet offices. I had one euthanized myself for TB (mycobacterium avium) in 1999. I had another euthanized in 2003 when exploratory surgery revealed an irreparable tear in her proventriculus. Had I realized how she would die, I'd have had another with aspergillosis euthanized in 2003.

In my ten years on Up at Six, I've heard of one (1) person who had 3 birds euthanized for severe behavioral issues that she felt made rehoming impossible, when she could no longer care for them herself. None were macaws FWIW. She received tremendous criticism and left. I've read of no one else doing this in all these years unless you consider mutilation a behavioral issue with other alternatives for restoring any quality to the bird's life.

In my 15 years of living with and loving birds and chatting, I've heard of maybe 2 dozen birds taken to vets for euthanasia who were adopted out due to the vets' efforts because they refused to euthanize them. I read a newspaper article 6-7 yrs ago about a woman who was buried with 2 parrots she had euthanized because she wanted to. These instances are very few and are recalled because they were rare and startling. I'm sure it's tragically common for people to open the door and release birds to their death, the cheapest form of euthanasia, but I seriously doubt m/any are macaws.

I'm feeling you had the intent to deceive the readers here by saying "... given the escalating number of ... often euthanized purebred macaws in captivity ..." in the context here of hybridizing. I'm very willing to continue to disagree with your assessment of all these issues.

Paca

There is no intent to deceive on my part. I post to several parrot boards, and am hearing the same thing all over--for whatever reason, shelters, due to overcrowding, or simply not knowing how to properly care for parrots--including how to treat certain behavioral issues (and I am not necessarily including feather plucking as one of the issues), are to the point where they find themselves euthanizing perfectly good birds more and more often.

So, to whomever first posted this thread, you can see what I mean. It's a polarizing issue. I have my opinion, some of whom share it, and some of whom do not, and neither side is likely to budge an inch, although if a particular thread goes on long enough, it's bound to get ugly, and someone is probably going to be compared to Nazis .. Do not feel as if you need to rationalize keeping your hybrid miligold. I proudly own 2 hybrids, and if I so desire, will proudly purchase or adopt more should the perfect opportunity present itself. Many people won't like it, some will undoubtedly vilify me (and the breeder) for owning one or more, but when it comes right down to it, the choice is mine, and people who don't agree with my choices don't have to live with them. They do, however, have to accept that I've made them based on my own beliefs and conscience.

Here, you have seen two sides (at least ) to the debate, and you'll find many similar threads here and on other parrot sites. In the end, you'll have to find your own way to the beliefs that best suit your lifestyle and the lifestyles of the people who matter to you.

Peace be with you all. You have my opinion and belief stated as well as I know how, and I will no longer continue to argue the point in this forum. Take care, and remember--in the end, only kindness matters.

Irish wrote:There is no intent to deceive on my part. I post to several parrot boards, and am hearing the same thing all over--for whatever reason, shelters...are to the point where they find themselves euthanizing perfectly good birds more and more often...

I hope you will begin asking for some evidence that such inflammatory charges have an inkling of truth to them. Maybe you'd even post here about that evidence.

Paca

My biggest worry is what we could unintentionally be doing to the birds that we hybridize... such as sun conure and green cheek conure hybrids. They have a high mortality rate because they are not closely enough related to produce healthy offspring, if they can even produce... If I remember correctly, it took 1 pair (sun conure and green cheek) 9 years before they produced one chick... one chick born with short toes (as if they were cut off). Last I heard, he was going healthy at about 7 months of age.

Although most of the debate I'm sure is over moral and ethics, there are far worse things that we could be doing to them without realising it... one of the simplest "deformities" that I know of, sterility... like mules. What causes sterility? When the number of chromosomes from the parents are different, and when an offspring is born, it is born with an odd number of chromosomes, even though the parents had an even amount.... say one had 20 chromosomes, the othe parent had 26. 20 plus 26 equal 46. 46 divided by two equals 23. This means that this particular creature with 23 chromosomes wont be able to reproduce. No big issue, but what other things are we causing in birds who aren't so closely related?