upatsix.com - Your Source For Pet Bird Information

I have read this topic here for the last few weeks. While every bird that is born deserves and should receive all the love ane respect that we the caregivers can give them, there are some very important issues that have been touched on but not pushed as major issues. RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS do NOT push hybreeding for a number of reasons. First off and I have brought this up before. GENETIC GENE POOL. Some one mentioned that we have bred enough birds to repopulate, but that is not true. We are going to run out of our existing gene pool at some point in time. And we definitely are not getting any new gene pool from the wild flocks. There are so many illnesses, genetic problems, and unforseen problems that are constantly attacking our breeding stock that we have. Have you forgotten about PDD. Macaw Wasting Disease, Just to name two very bad diseases and there is so much more. So, give me one really good reason to deliberately mess with what we have. Sure some of the hybreds are beautiful, but again responsible breeders do NOT mix and cross mix. We have enough problems with all the anti breeder propaganda, and agendas. We have enough problems with all those that want to take bird ownership away from us. Just enjoy the beauty that the Good Lord gave us and remember, you don't see hybreds in the wild. They were not meant to cross breed. Take all that excess energy and start thinking about how we are going to deal with some of the new bad laws that will be affecting bird ownership soon. Help find ways to protect what we have now so our future generations can enjoy what we take for granted.

Well if people like hybrids, if people breed hybrids, if people sell hybrids, and if there is a market for hybrids...thats one less bird taken out of the wild or smuggled.

I do think there are enough breeders out there breeding pure species to not loose a gene pool. If the need for purebreds becomes that high, the purebred can be re-paired up with purebreds.

I have to admit that I was anti-hybrid until I saw a third generation scarlet/B&G hybrid a few years back. An amazing looking hybrid that I just had to have.

With all the hybrids, some that are downright ugly but most are beautiful, not one surpasses the beauty of a purebred scarlet.

No matter how much someone loves their birds and loves breeding, if it is their business then they are going to produce what sells. No one is going to change that.

If you think it is because of hybridizing that is causing the new laws, then you are focusing on the wrong issues. It is because of the unscrupulous breeders that maintain their flocks in squalid conditions. It is because of the public outrage when bad aviaries are splashed across the 6 o'clock news.

It is caused by a couple of home-grown terrorist organizations that don't want anyone having animals as pets. You've got a couple of organizations out there that go after the animal owners rights at every opportunity. Right now they are getting laws passed in states where it doesn't matter.

Sound stupid?

Nope, actually pretty well thought out. I don't remember the states involved, you'll have to google that yourself BUT... One of the activists groups pursued a law that prohibits the use of farrowing pens for pigs. They did it in a state that didn't have any commercial pig farmers so the bill passed with no difficulty. Now they move on to the next state and site the last states laws as case history to support their new bill.

I think it is the HSUS that is trying to have horses designated as companion animals. Guess what happens if that passes?

My point is to not confuse the issue of hybridizing with the issue of animal owners rights.

r2r wrote:Well if people like hybrids, if people breed hybrids, if people sell hybrids, and if there is a market for hybrids...thats one less bird taken out of the wild or smuggled.

Nope. Since interspecific hybridisation -- the kind we are particularly interested in/perturbed by -- does not happen in the wild (except on such extremely rare occasions as cannot support a pet trade), hybrids will always be captive-bred. You can't capture and smuggle wild hybrids that don't exist.

I do think there are enough breeders out there breeding pure species to not loose a gene pool. If the need for purebreds becomes that high, the purebred can be re-paired up with purebreds.

The concern here is that purebreds may become so rare that this is no longer feasible. Although I'm not sure whether this is a valid concern, it's not quite so silly as it may seem at first; after all, the question is not "Are there any purebreds left?" but "Are there enough members of this species that they collectively form a valid genepool?"

I have to admit that I was anti-hybrid until I saw a third generation scarlet/B&G hybrid a few years back. An amazing looking hybrid that I just had to have.

This probably sounds confrontational, but bear with me one moment: It sounds like you opposed hybrids on principle, then made an exception for yourself, and lest you seem a hypocrite, changed your principles to fit your actions, rather than aligning your actions with your principles. (I presume your principles didn't change just because the bird was pretty!)

We are none of us perfect, and even if we take the position that hybrid breeding is a bad thing, well, from that point of view you made a mistake. That doesn't change what you "should" do henceforth: Having taken a bird in, of course the best thing to do is to treat it well. I have to ask you, though -- what is it about this one bird that made you change your mind about all hybrids?

With all the hybrids, some that are downright ugly but most are beautiful...

...And either way, appearance is much less importance than behaviour, health, and the genetic health of future generations!

No matter how much someone loves their birds and loves breeding, if it is their business then they are going to produce what sells. No one is going to change that.

That's a little too cynical: Some people may shape their business after what they think is moral. In fact, I daresay many bird breeders do, in being selective about whom they allow to purchase. However, it is true that if there is a market, there will be a supply.

But arguing against the breeding of hybrids is in fact an attempt to remove the demand as much as the supply. If prospective buyers are informed that (supposing this to be true -- I expect it is) hybrids have a higher risk of genetic and behavioural problems, there will be less demand. By discussing it, we are disseminating information. And if a disproportionate number of breeders rather than buyers are involved in the discussion, well, that may be unfortunate, but on the other hand those breeders are fairly likely to pass that information along.

Petter wrote:

r2r wrote:Well if people like hybrids, if people breed hybrids, if people sell hybrids, and if there is a market for hybrids...thats one less bird taken out of the wild or smuggled.

Nope. Since interspecific hybridisation -- the kind we are particularly interested in/perturbed by -- does not happen in the wild (except on such extremely rare occasions as cannot support a pet trade), hybrids will always be captive-bred. You can't capture and smuggle wild hybrids that don't exist.

I didn't mean one less hybrid from the wild. If the interest is there for hybrids, it will leave one more purebred in the wild.

I have to admit that I was anti-hybrid until I saw a third generation scarlet/B&G hybrid a few years back. An amazing looking hybrid that I just had to have.

This probably sounds confrontational, but bear with me one moment: It sounds like you opposed hybrids on principle, then made an exception for yourself, and lest you seem a hypocrite, changed your principles to fit your actions, rather than aligning your actions with your principles. (I presume your principles didn't change just because the bird was pretty!)

We are none of us perfect, and even if we take the position that hybrid breeding is a bad thing, well, from that point of view you made a mistake. That doesn't change what you "should" do henceforth: Having taken a bird in, of course the best thing to do is to treat it well. I have to ask you, though -- what is it about this one bird that made you change your mind about all hybrids?

The amazing coloration did it for me. I read all the info I could find on the problems associated with hybrids but still decided the risk was worth it to me.

Did my principles change? I'll need to put some more thought in before answering that question because I have a hybrid, I have a breeding pair of hybrids, I have a pet scarlet and I have a breeding pair of scarlets. I will say that I did not go out looking for a pair of breeding hybrids nor do I think I would intentionally set up purebreds to create hybrids. But again, I need to think longer on this answer.

That is a great question by the way.

With all the hybrids, some that are downright ugly but most are beautiful...

...And either way, appearance is much less importance than behaviour, health, and the genetic health of future generations!

This same argument can apply to dogs. It took many generations of hybridizing and selective breeding to get to all those cute little breeds we have today. It took generations to get to the desired temperments. Why do you feel so strongly that the same shouldn't be done for pet birds?

No matter how much someone loves their birds and loves breeding, if it is their business then they are going to produce what sells. No one is going to change that.

That's a little too cynical: Some people may shape their business after what they think is moral. In fact, I daresay many bird breeders do, in being selective about whom they allow to purchase. However, it is true that if there is a market, there will be a supply.

Yes some do. What one thinks is moral doesn't mean the next does. You're counting on the moral police to intervene and standardize what everyone should do. I don't see that as being a realistic venture. It hasn't worked for politics, religion, any other type of pet ownership, or human nature for that matter.

But arguing against the breeding of hybrids is in fact an attempt to remove the demand as much as the supply. If prospective buyers are informed that (supposing this to be true -- I expect it is) hybrids have a higher risk of genetic and behavioural problems, there will be less demand. By discussing it, we are disseminating information. And if a disproportionate number of breeders rather than buyers are involved in the discussion, well, that may be unfortunate, but on the other hand those breeders are fairly likely to pass that information along.

I'm all for full disclosure. discussion and dissemination of information.[/i]

r2r wrote:I didn't mean one less hybrid from the wild. If the interest is there for hybrids, it will leave one more purebred in the wild.

But purebreds can (obviously) be bred in captivity.

The amazing coloration did it for me. I read all the info I could find on the problems associated with hybrids but still decided the risk was worth it to me.

It sounds to me like you succumbed to a very human weakness, then, deciding to value appearance over a certain risk.

This same argument can apply to dogs. It took many generations of hybridizing and selective breeding to get to all those cute little breeds we have today. It took generations to get to the desired temperments. Why do you feel so strongly that the same shouldn't be done for pet birds?

I don't actually feel terribly strongly about it -- I'm against breeding hybrids as things now stand, but I don't know enough about the probability of the risks to make a strong stand one way or the other.

With respect to dogs, the hybrid issue doesn't exist. Canis lupus familiaris is a single species, and great though the morphological differences between chihuahua and Great Dane may be, any problems that have arisen will not be due to genetic incompatibilities between their wild ancestors.

Even so, I actually often don't approve of what's been done to dogs -- or cats; or budgies, for that matter. If you are breeding cats with fused tear ducts, or dogs with vastly increased risk of blindness, deafness, joint problems, or other sickness, simply to appeal to a human sense of aesthetics, I will disapprove of what you are doing, regardless of whether you are breeding hybrids or working within a species.

In fact, my concern runs largely the opposite way: If (and only if) you can show me that your breeding is not conducive to increasing risk of sickness, disorders, or other kinds of suffering in your pet animals, I probably won't care whether they are hybrids or not. By all means breed for traits that make animals better and happier as pets, but don't sacrifice their health or well-being on the altar of beauty.

(This is not to say that I might not eventually end up with a hybrid bird, or a Dalmatian; my immunity to the poor Persian cats might in the end be more due to allergies than principles. After all, I too am susceptible to human weakness. Here, I'm trying to argue from reason, evidence, and principles -- not put myself on a pedestal: What I hope I'd do, not what I would do, as it were...)

What one thinks is moral doesn't mean the next does. You're counting on the moral police to intervene and standardize what everyone should do.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? When did I mention legislation or law enforcement? My own involvement in these discussion has two purposes, and only two -- and law enforcement doesn't enter the picture: First, I hope that by disseminating what I do know, I can change the minds of people who are open to disseminating information and willing to accept reason over their own personal tastes and preferences; second, I hope to be exposed to more information and learn more about the subject. If I'm right, hopefully I can change a few people's minds and so have an effect -- the tiny beginning sort of effect that a single (socially and politically inept) person can have; if I'm wrong, hopefully I will encounter someone in debate who can demonstrate how and why.

Petter wrote:

r2r wrote:I didn't mean one less hybrid from the wild. If the interest is there for hybrids, it will leave one more purebred in the wild.

But purebreds can (obviously) be bred in captivity.

Yes they can. But as long as the demand is high for purebreds, there will always be someone willing to pull them from the wild regardless of how many captive bred ones are available.

I see your point and it is a good one. I also think my point is a good one.

The amazing coloration did it for me. I read all the info I could find on the problems associated with hybrids but still decided the risk was worth it to me.

It sounds to me like you succumbed to a very human weakness, then, deciding to value appearance over a certain risk.

Hot digity damn! I'm human! LOL thanks for the chuckle. I have no problems admitting that I'm human which means I'm not perfect. I knew the risks going in. There wasn't enough to deter me from wanting a hybrid. As it stands now, the personality is the biggest risk. I was forewarned that mine would have a heavy scarlet personality. Obviously I love scarlets so that wasn't a deterrent to me.

This same argument can apply to dogs. It took many generations of hybridizing and selective breeding to get to all those cute little breeds we have today. It took generations to get to the desired temperments. Why do you feel so strongly that the same shouldn't be done for pet birds?

I don't actually feel terribly strongly about it -- I'm against breeding hybrids as things now stand, but I don't know enough about the probability of the risks to make a strong stand one way or the other.

With respect to dogs, the hybrid issue doesn't exist. Canis lupus familiaris is a single species, and great though the morphological differences between chihuahua and Great Dane may be, any problems that have arisen will not be due to genetic incompatibilities between their wild ancestors.

Even so, I actually often don't approve of what's been done to dogs -- or cats; or budgies, for that matter. If you are breeding cats with fused tear ducts, or dogs with vastly increased risk of blindness, deafness, joint problems, or other sickness, simply to appeal to a human sense of aesthetics, I will disapprove of what you are doing, regardless of whether you are breeding hybrids or working within a species.

In fact, my concern runs largely the opposite way: If (and only if) you can show me that your breeding is not conducive to increasing risk of sickness, disorders, or other kinds of suffering in your pet animals, I probably won't care whether they are hybrids or not. By all means breed for traits that make animals better and happier as pets, but don't sacrifice their health or well-being on the altar of beauty.

(This is not to say that I might not eventually end up with a hybrid bird, or a Dalmatian; my immunity to the poor Persian cats might in the end be more due to allergies than principles. After all, I too am susceptible to human weakness. Here, I'm trying to argue from reason, evidence, and principles -- not put myself on a pedestal: What I hope I'd do, not what I would do, as it were...)

How are the risks going to be determined and evaluated without created test subjects? Please don't jump on terminology at this point. There is no way to determine a hybrids suitability based on graphs and charts. A few test subjects in a lab are no more a fair representation of the hybrid than someone with no hands on advocating for no hybridizing.

Many consider scarlets to be difficult while others can't imagine a better personality. Traits can't be determined by one or two birds. Who better the determine traits than the pet owning public? Hybrids are in many different settings now, not controlled environments.

I don't consider your line of questioning to be advocating against hybridizing. To me, you come off as being interested in the science behind it. I can appreciate that.

What one thinks is moral doesn't mean the next does. You're counting on the moral police to intervene and standardize what everyone should do.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? When did I mention legislation or law enforcement? My own involvement in these discussion has two purposes, and only two -- and law enforcement doesn't enter the picture: First, I hope that by disseminating what I do know, I can change the minds of people who are open to disseminating information and willing to accept reason over their own personal tastes and preferences; second, I hope to be exposed to more information and learn more about the subject. If I'm right, hopefully I can change a few people's minds and so have an effect -- the tiny beginning sort of effect that a single (socially and politically inept) person can have; if I'm wrong, hopefully I will encounter someone in debate who can demonstrate how and why.

Don't over personalize the when I said "you're". While directed at you it was meant in more of a generalized way.

I have a breeding pair of catalinas which will produce second generation catalinas. So far I hear very little negativity on the catalina personality being bad. I've also not heard of increased poor health in the catalinas or other hybrids for that matter. I've heard of increased instances of infertility but if that is accurate, doesn't that make hybridizing self-limiting?

r2r wrote:How are the risks going to be determined and evaluated without created test subjects? Please don't jump on terminology at this point. There is no way to determine a hybrids suitability based on graphs and charts. A few test subjects in a lab are no more a fair representation of the hybrid than someone with no hands on advocating for no hybridizing.

Many consider scarlets to be difficult while others can't imagine a better personality. Traits can't be determined by one or two birds. Who better the determine traits than the pet owning public? Hybrids are in many different settings now, not controlled environments.

I don't consider your line of questioning to be advocating against hybridizing. To me, you come off as being interested in the science behind it. I can appreciate that.

Well, it's both -- I'm very interested in the science, but the very limited data lead me to take a provisional stance against the breeding of hybrids, since there does appear to be an increased risk of problems. Evidence is scant and anecdotal in both directions. Basic science tells us that mutations and other genetic changes will accumulate over speciation and that the dangers increase with genetic distance.

Obviously, with scant data I am (must be!) receptive to more data, and I may come to change my mind. (I am so incredibly fond of being right that not only will I argue vigorously; I will even change my position in order to be right, if need be...)

For now, however, anecdotal evidence suggests there are potential problems (e.g. the confused nesting behaviour of hybrid lovebirds mentioned before on these fora), and basic evolutionary biology tells us that since different species do not interbreed, there is no selection pressure to prevent any changes that arise (mutations, cross-overs, even chromosomal length and position changes) from wreaking havoc on hybrids -- whether early in life, late in life, or in the second, third, or fourth generation, who knows?

[...] You're counting on the moral police to intervene and standardize what everyone should do.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? When did I mention legislation or law enforcement? My own involvement...

Don't over personalize the when I said "you're". While directed at you it was meant in more of a generalized way.[/quote]
Perhaps I was bitten by the English ambiguity bug! In Swedish we have man, in French there is the pronoun on, but English sadly lacks a neutral pronoun.

I've heard of increased instances of infertility but if that is accurate, doesn't that make hybridizing self-limiting?

Yes, but it may not show up for generations. The market for hybrids, however, means that hybridising is only self-limiting in terms of breeding lines: More pure-bred stock will be pulled into service to breed hybrids.

So, give me one really good reason to deliberately mess with what we have. Sure some of the hybreds are beautiful, but again responsible breeders do NOT mix and cross mix.

For the pure reason of beauty... or the pure reason of wanting to mix traits of separate species together, thus trying to create a better bird... thus breeding for traits in personalities. As for the term "responsible breeders", well I guess that depends on what you would consider a "responsible breeder". I'm sure there are many breeders out there who take care of their birds quite well, and still hybridise. Just because they hybridise does not make them irresponsible.... but I get your point!

remember, you don't see hybreds in the wild. They were not meant to cross breed.

IMO, there are probably a lot more hybrids out there in the wild than we even realise it! A good example of hybrids that are happening right now! The Adelaide Rosella. It is believed to be a hybrid between the Crimson Rosella and the Yellow Rosella. Here's a quote from The Encyclopedia of Parakeets by Kurt Kolar & Karl Heinz Spitzer

There is a great deal of variation in color among the individual animals; even within a flock one may observe animals of differing coloration. Some ornithologists regard the Adelaide Rosella as a transitional form between the Crimson Rosella and the Yellow Rosella; others are of the opinion that the Adelaide Rosella has in fact originated from hybridization of the Crimson Rosella and the Yellow Rosella, since both these species occur in its range of distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Ro ... de_Rosella
The Adelaide Rosella of Adelaide and the surrounding area, was also thought to be a separate species, but is presently believed to be a hybrid swarm, having originated through interbreeding of the Crimson and Yellow Rosellas. Both of these still interbreed with the Adelaide Rosella where its range crosses theirs, and it exhibits variation in its plumage from dark orange-red in the south of its distribution to a pale orange-yellow in the north. Variants that are very close to the Yellow race are designated subadelaidae.

And that's just the example of the Adelaide.... and probably the most common of all wild hybrids, which scientists aren't even sure if they should call it a species! That's not counting for the pairs who mate for one season and then find new mates the next season..... nor the wild flocks of birds who live in unnatural (as in not from their homeland) places... for instance, the wild flock of cherry heads in San Fransisco, at Telegraph Hill. Many of those birds are hybrids, due to a mitred conure who lives in the flock and has repaired a few times with male cherry heads... there may also be some wild flocks of amazons in southern California (San Diego area) which might be hybridising (but I don't know much about that flock), and there are wild flocks of macaws (hybridising) in Costa Rica as well as in another country in which I can't seem to find the correct website for, but that it talks about the flock of wild hybrid macaws with pictures.

Well if people like hybrids, if people breed hybrids, if people sell hybrids, and if there is a market for hybrids...thats one less bird taken out of the wild or smuggled.

Actually, no it's not. The USA and some other countries have banned the importation of Wildcaught Parrots, thus lessening the demand for wild parrots. Birds are indeed still being caught in the wild, mainly in places such as India, countries around Indonesia, Mexico and South America. Although, mind you, I can't say this with a fact, but I know it's still happening. I haven't really heard much about parrots in Africa being captured...

Thus in truth, I don't really think breeding hybrids has anything to do with pure species being caught from the wild, UNLESS, and UNLESS of course, we become so overpopulated with hybrids that we find a need to have pure species once again due to a lack of pure species already in captivity.

If prospective buyers are informed that (supposing this to be true -- I expect it is) hybrids have a higher risk of genetic and behavioural problems, there will be less demand

Just to add to this... well I have heard of some anti-hybrid people who are against hybrids because you don't know just WHAT characteristics you can get from the offspring of a hybrid pair.... i.e. you could be getting a bird with all the bad qualities of it's parents, thus creating a creature that no one may want to handle! But there are plenty of hybrid owners out there that say they own hybrids that have a good mix of characteristics of the parents, thus making them pleasing... For example (with dogs - the only one I can think of at the moment), a lab/german shepherd cross... you could be getting the loyalty and calmness of the lab, with the protectiveness of the german shepherd.


I don't know why everyone hybridises, but a few of the reasons I can think of is "because the birds love eachother", or that they are breeding for looks, or maybe for personality, trying to blend the behaviors of the two (or more) species into one, thus creating a bird that has all the good characteristics of two or more species.

I usually stay out of topics about hybrids since it has a tendency to get nasty. I must say I'm rather impressed with the civility in this post considering the tone of the original post.

Of everything thats been said so far this quote has to be the best...

I'm sure there are many breeders out there who take care of their birds quite well, and still hybridise. Just because they hybridise does not make them irresponsible.

I believe that to be true, just wish I'd have said it first. While I didn't, I was thinking it first.



I don't think I have anything else to add at this point. Some good points have been made and countered. Anything more would just be repeating myself.

2r2, You have a third generation hybred. That means its parents where hybreds and their parents where hybreds. If those that want hybreds purchase their birds from breeders that are producing secibd, third and fourth generation hybreeds then great. You go to an AFA convention and you will meet the expert aviculturists in the business and they will tell you not to muddy up the gene pool we have now. I have been owning birds for over twenty years and I am a semi retired bird breeder with over fourteen years experience under my belt. I have gone to bird club meetings where the best have been speakers and they have all said that we have a very limited gene pool. Bringing in wild stock ended in 1995 with the import stations closing and no more importing of birds from the wild. The birds in the wild are having their own problems with the distruction of their habitat. It is very irresponsible to take two birds that are different now and cross them. If people want hybreds, then buy from breeders with second and third generation stock.

Most hybrid macaw breeders breed hybrids for one of two reasons, for unusual, interesting, sometimes beautiful colors, or because two sperate species have bonded on their own. Some breed for money, but most breed for novelty and/or beauty.

I dont have time to spend in dialogue on the topic, but I will share two important points on the topic. As long as the offspring looks like a hybrid, and not a pure species, then there should be no concern about polluting the gene pool, provided a breeder does not breed them back to one of the pure species in the hybrid combination. And, yes, there are genetic risks when certain species, that are less related, are bred further out in generation. I have witnessed it, and know breeders that have problems with these combinations. Fortunately, nature usually intervenes and the gentically challenged offspring never hatch. Dead in shell is common with many of the potentially incompatible multiple generation pairings. Some combinations are so distant that they never make it to 2nd generation.

I personally am against making new hybrids from pure species. That means that I even consider some of my own adventures less than ethical. Some day I plan to re-pair the "few" producing hybrids that are paired with Scarlets to other similar hybrids (that are juveniles now.) Only one pair takes exception to that plan because they have been together for over 20 years and are very deeply bonded.

I do not have an issue with hybrid x hybrid pairings, although some of the offspring can be quite unattractive with either brown or muddied coloration. Hybrids with a high percentage of Scarlet with a lot of yellow in thei mix are usually very pretty, IMO. Some of the other hybrid combinations are not., also IMO. I can not provide scientific documentation regarding hybrid genetics, as there is none available that I am aware of. I only know what I have encountered over the years and personally witnessed with other breeders.

Back to viable combinations for a minute, certain 2nd and 3rd generation combinations are very hardy such as Greenwing Scarlet crosses, because they are closer related genetically. Gotta run and will not be dialoguing beyond this post. So please do not address me because I do not have time to answer. Here is a chart from and, copyrighted to "The Large Macaws" for you to get an idea of what I am referring to.

Good post in general, and I find the diagram particularly interesting as it mentions certain specific genetic changes -- it becomes less surprising to think that genetic problems could result if we know that a particular chromosome is relatively inverted between two species, or that they may have a different number of chromosomes. (Of course gene duplication and subsequent modification is a fairly common evolutionary mechanism, but I for one had absolutely no idea how or whether they were present among the macaws.)

The part of the post I found most encouraging, however, was this example of the sort of honesty I hope to express:

manyfeathers wrote:I personally am against making new hybrids from pure species. That means that I even consider some of my own adventures less than ethical.

There is currently a Macaw on Petfinders, in PA, that is obviously mixed with a Hyacinth. I am sorry, but the colorings/markings are not appealing to me but people will continue to do this to these beautiful birds. It breaks my heart.

What have we always called a litter of 2 different breeds of dogs? Mutts. Now you pay big bucks for these "designer" dogs.

Cocoa needs and deserves a loving forever home along with his buddy Appollo. Who amongst the hybrid supporters will step forward and adopt these two?

Since "rescues" was mentioned...

Has anyone else noticed the abundance of pure bred macaws, particularly B&G macaws offered up for adoption? Then there is the lack of hybrids being offered.

Why is that if hybrids are so bad?

As for adopting from a rescue, not a chance. Too much delving into my personal life. That applies to all "rescues". Plus, too many of those rescues would be better classified as a "rescue pet store".

r2r wrote:... Has anyone else noticed the abundance of pure bred macaws, particularly B&G macaws offered up for adoption? Then there is the lack of hybrids being offered. Why is that if hybrids are so bad?...

I guess we see what we want to see. I have several friends who've rescued hybrid macaws in need. And I surely agree that there is a SAD lot of macaws of all kinds in need of homes. The larger number of B&Gs most likely is directly related to the greater number of B&Gs who are bred, producing chicks who're sold, often to first-time parronts who want to show off a big parrot. How sad for the poor birds. Wonder how many more hatched today? ... and how many will be included in tomorrow's "Must Go Today!" ads here on UAS?

Paca