OK -LOL- going back to the the subject of the thread. Here is my response:

First we need to review what constitutes exploitation so let’s go to the dictionary for that and then I will explain my position further based on the meaning of the word.

From Wikipedia (but it’s pretty much the same in any other dictionary):

“Exploitation involves a persistent social relationship in which certain persons (*) are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others. This corresponds to an ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the treatment of human beings (*) as mere means to an end — or as mere "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of people (*) as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-being.”

(*) Of course, in this case, we are replacing ‘persons’, ‘human beings’ and ‘people’ for ‘birds’ as the party that is allegedly exploited in our discussion.

Ergo, we have three qualifying aspects:
1. an action which benefits other than the one producing
2. the use of somebody as an ‘object’
3. mistreatment or unfair treatment or treatment with little or no consideration for their well-being.

1. Does breeding undomesticated species of birds to be used as pets benefit the birds? No. One might argue that birds like to breed and allowing them to do it is, in a way, a kindness to them but it would only be a kindness if the birds bred as they were meant to do in nature: selecting their own mates out of a properly sized gene pool, making their nest, raising their babies for as long as nature determined is necessary (that would mean not pulling them from their parents to be hand-raised by people) and allowing those babies to become part of the flock and, in turn, have normal, natural lives (which, of course, cannot be achieved as a ‘pet’ to a human).

2. What constitutes treating somebody as an ‘object’? Well, this one is actually pretty easy: if you don’t treat birds as having the same rights as yourself, you are treating it like an object. When we talk about animals, it goes directly to the concept of ‘speciesism’ and I think everybody will agree that selling a sentient being, in this case a baby bird, is treating it like an object because we certainly would not sell our own babies. Also, whether actual profit is realized or not from the transaction doesn’t change the fact that commerce took place (‘commerce’ in its basic form of buying or selling a product –also from Wikipedia and, please, note the word ‘product’ which, again, implies an object).

3. And here it’s where, I think, we come to the heart of the matter: ‘mistreatment or unfair treatment or treatment with little or no consideration for their well-being’. Do we mistreat or give unfair treatment or treatment with little or no consideration for their well-being to an undomesticated bird species when we keep it as a pet? Yes, we do. I know, I know, you are all going to say: “Wait a minute, here! I do not mistreat my bird!!! I love him to pieces! He is my baby!” But the plain truth of the matter is that no matter how much we love them, how well we treat them, how much time we spend with them, how many perches and toys and stuff we buy them we simply cannot give them the kind of life nature meant for them to have (which is the only truly, completely fulfilling life an undomesticated animal can have -not my opinion but a scientific fact). We just can’t. Nobody does, not me, not you, not anybody. Ohhh, we can create as natural a habitat as we can (large, airy, sunny birdroom, with natural tree branches for perches, organic dirt, rocks and grasses for them to forage on, full spectrum lights and a strict natural daylight schedule with full exposure to dawn and dusk), we can keep them fully flighted and cage-free in the smallest social group (flock) that would make them feel safe (usually not less than six pairs), we can give them the best diet money can buy (all organic produce, grains, legumes, rices, etc), we can give them the best medical care, and we can give them lots of love but it will never be the same as in the wild. We couldn’t give them the distances they need to fly to keep their respiratory system in good working order, we cannot give them the very specific diet that nature took 130 million years evolving them to eat, we couldn’t give them the wide genetic pool they need for the babies to continue being healthy generation after generation and, for that matter, we couldn’t even let them reproduce at all. If we did, we would either end up with thousands of birds (and I think everybody will agree with me that this is just not an option) or we would have to give the babies away (note that I did not say ‘sell’). But, if we gave them away, it would have to be to another home where they would be kept in exactly the same manner and how many people do you know that would be willing to keep birds in this kind of environment? I don’t know of a single one, do you? Because, aside from the fact that it requires a total, constant (no vacations, no day trips, not even a single sick day!), incredibly time-consuming, labor-intensive and very expensive life-time commitment, the animals will not be pets. And that is the whole Gordian knot of the argument: them being pets. Because being a pet implies the animal has a personal relationship with its owner and, if you allow the parents to raise their babies and for them to live under the conditions I listed above, the birds will be completely wild and will want nothing to do with the owner. They will, therefore, not be ‘pets’.

You must have surmised from this that I do not believe that parrots should be pets and, if you did, you would be right. I don’t. I think it is a terrible disservice to these magnificent animals to be used as pets. I think we doom them to half a life under the best of circumstances and to a horrible one under the worst. And the worst problem is that they just live too long and love too much! People simply cannot retain the amount of commitment, work and expense for as long as they live. Our life-styles simply do not allow for it. Not if you have a normal life with children, a job, vacations, health issues, divorces, loss of a job, having to move to a smaller place, etc. etc. etc. I just took in a Gray that was raised from an egg by this lady and her husband. He has not known anybody or anything else for his entire eighteen years of life and was, of course, deeply bonded to them. Well, now they are downsizing so they can retire and out the door he goes because they ‘won’t have the room for his large cage’ and they ‘want to travel a bit’. He was never seen by a vet and, even though I specifically asked them to bring his cage exactly as he had it and the food he had been eating all along so the transition would be easier for him (I also offered to return the cage to them after quarantine), they brought him in a hamster cage and wanted to give me $20 for food! I spend over $200 a week in organic produce alone, not counting the spring and distilled water, seeds, nuts, pellets, grains, legumes, rices, vitamins, herbal supplements, probiotics, Calciboost, toys, ladders, boings, alfalfa for the floor, tablecloths that cover every single horizontal surface, plants, etc or medical care… I have to bring him for a physical with a complete blood panel, skin/cloaca/throat swab and fecal test which is going to cost me in the neighborhood of $300 so you figure out how far the $20 were going to go toward his care when he still has another 30 to 40 years of life left in him.

As to education on their proper care solving the overpopulation problem, I am sorry but I disagree. If this concept worked, we would not be putting down an average of six million dogs and cats in USA every year. These are domesticated animals that were created by man to live with man so they can share our living environment and schedules with no damage to their health (birds can’t). We know exactly what their physiological needs and their medical issues are (we don’t for birds) and it’s fairly easy and inexpensive to care for them, all we have to do is have a fenced-in yard for them to run around in the case of dogs and a litter box for cats, and buy inexpensive food off the supermarket shelves (this, I am sure all of you will agree, it’s most definitely not the case with birds) so how come there are so many dogs and cats that live under terrible conditions and/or are given up every year by their owners? (I don’t only have my own bird rescue, I also volunteer with a local no-kill dog and cat rescue group and I can tell you stories that would break your heart about how bad people treat animals).

See below for second part (the posting was too long).

Second part

Now, if you talk about education in the sense of telling people not only what it truly implies to care for a bird but also why they should not compound the problem by buying instead of adopting from a rescue, that’s another story. That would make an impact but, the way I see it, the problem will only disappear if we make breeding/selling/owning undomesticated species as pets illegal, if we regulate the breeding of domesticated species, if the government assumes complete responsibility for all unwanted animals and provides for their care (and that does not mean killing every single unwanted one or keeping them in cages all their lives but giving them a good quality of life) and, at the same time, can get everybody to adopt instead of buying and, when it comes to birds, because they are acting “out of the humanitarian desire to help a wild animal, one who never asked or chose to be a pet, one who deserves a dignified life, no strings or expectations attached." Kind of utopian, I know… but, if one has a dream, I say make it as good as you would want it to be and don’t settle for second best.

So, in conclusion, I think the breeders on this board are all good people. I am sure they provide as good a care of their birds as they know how, that they love them dearly and that they don’t breed them just for lucre BUT, even with all the attenuating circumstances in the world, the facts still remain facts. Namely: undomesticated species don’t live healthy, happy, fulfilling lives as pets no matter how hard we might try and they are in overpopulation (not my opinion, again, statistics) so breeding them to be used as human companions is a form of exploitation.

WOW! Really well said. I cant agree with you more Bea. As much as I love my fids, and Im sure we all do here. Im at an odds with the bird trade industry right now. Because of the rapid rate of extinction, Im ok with preservation. But mass breeding for dollar signs is not fair. I had no idea what the domestic bird world was like until I bought my Afa. Now I know more than my heart can bear at times. I dont look down on anyone here who has spent thousands on birds, loves and cares for them. But the whole theory of mass breeding is something I wish could be better controlled and monitored. Especially as long as the rescues and shelters are full. I wish we could find a happy medium that would allow us to enjoy and preserve them, but not over breed. I cant really say anymore, since you said it all Bea.

Wow is right, your post simply took my breath away. I am truly speechless, I can honestly say you have shed enormous "light" on this subject and I really see where you are coming from and I do agree with you. Bravo, your post was fantastic.

Folks, please bear in mind our rules require that members debate "issues" and not members or personalities. Debate of topics is encouraged here as much can be learned by all from hearing from those with differing points of view. But we will not tolerate debates that specifically and personally target one member or another as such is of absolutely no benefit to birds and usually simply results in a flame-fest. In order to help keep yourself on topic, you will likely find it helpful to not address any member by name or by reference. Following this simple guideline will help us all keep to the topic and your cooperation in this regard is much appreciated!!

The topic to be discussed in this thread was framed by the original poster as follows: Is it fair to label all breeders of parrots as "Exploiters" of same? This thread is NOT about PETA, animal auctions or animal activists. Thank you again for your assistance in keeping this thread productively on topic!

I have to comment on the points raised by Beatriz.

1. Does breeding undomesticated species of birds to be used as pets benefit the birds?

It can in the right circumstances. It is a way that the wild populations are conserved and protected but the heart is really should we have pet bids. I think so provided they are kept to the best of human ability and this requires education, to know what is the best interest of the birds. In utopia all birds would fly free and no habitat would ever get destroyed. In South Africa a lot of breeding is conservation rather than pet trade. The being said my babies are destined to be pets. Preferably in flocks. It is not necessary to birdie mill to achieve this.

2. What constitutes treating somebody as an ‘object’? Well, this one is actually pretty easy: if you don’t treat birds as having the same rights as yourself, you are treating it like an object. When we talk about animals, it goes directly to the concept of ‘speciesism’ and I think everybody will agree that selling a sentient being, in this case a baby bird, is treating it like an object because we certainly would not sell our own babies.

Oops, human babies are bought and sold each day. Have a look and see how many African and Chinese babies especially are sold, often to Americans. Maybe sold is not a good word but cash certainly changes hands in exchange for children. I was married community of property I gave up my rights to the fixed property in exchange for my children. I lost financially so I guess I paid for my own flesh and blood. When I left home I took my children and my pets, they were the only "objects" if you will, that were important to me. Life changes don't have to mean the end of a relationship.

I have not had more than a day trip away in longer than 6 years, so yes I understand the commitment it takes. I guess it is honorable to think about giving birds away, maybe some rescues do, I have just never heard of one. Most rescues seem to sell birds for a price almost equal to a baby and with too many strings attached. With education the baby would not get placed in an unsuitable home in the first place. In South Africa we don't have the need of rescues for birds simply because we don't have too much disposable income. Birds are taken into homes and loved, maybe this will change in a few years. Unwanted birds are taken in usually by breeders or bird parks.

May I respectfully site that page 1 of this thread is full of post that are somewhat off topic. In all fairness it seems partial to allow certain post to remain.

No post was deleted for being off-topic. Posts that make a member the topic of debate have been and, if made again, will be removed. We respectfully request that members address the issue and not the personalities. This Board is not the appropriate place for the airing of personal differences between members.

We acknowledge that there are several posts in this thread that are not truly on topic but rather than delete them, we have posted a reminder to our members to please stay on topic. We do not wish to squelch discussion of any issue but only to keep threads on topic. Other threads may be started on such off-topic issues if members so desire. But our rules for debate (meaning to be respectful and topical and NOT personal) must be followed as such is the only way a productive and meaningful discussion can take place.

Thank you to all members for helping to assist us in keeping ParrotChatter a friendly place devoted to the topic of birds!

Oh, goody! Points to debate - luv it! Here we go:

" 1. Does breeding undomesticated species of birds to be used as pets benefit the birds?

It can in the right circumstances. It is a way that the wild populations are conserved and protected but the heart is really should we have pet bids. I think so provided they are kept to the best of human ability and this requires education, to know what is the best interest of the birds. In utopia all birds would fly free and no habitat would ever get destroyed. In South Africa a lot of breeding is conservation rather than pet trade. The being said my babies are destined to be pets. Preferably in flocks. It is not necessary to birdie mill to achieve this."

Ahh, yes the conservation excuse so often used by breeders... conservation breeding is fine but scientists that breed for conservation do so under very strict programs that ensure the birds don't learn to depend on people for survival. Breeding birds for pets do nothing for conservation because captive-bred birds cannot survive in the wild. As to keeping birds 'to the best of human ability' through education... yes, that is exactly what we all do but it's not enough for an undomesticated species to live a full life and that is the issue: undomesticated species cannot be kept happy or healthy as a pet. And this is not a matter of my own personal opinion, mind you, this is a scientific fact when it comes to psittacines. One could keep an ant colony and they would be happy with their life inside a container but one cannot keep intelligent, highly social animals that need large territories with specific feeding ecologies and social structures in a human home as a companion to humans and expect them to be happy about it. These are wild animals with certain needs encoded in their genes and we cannot change that with love and hand-feeding.



" 2. What constitutes treating somebody as an ‘object’? Well, this one is actually pretty easy: if you don’t treat birds as having the same rights as yourself, you are treating it like an object. When we talk about animals, it goes directly to the concept of ‘speciesism’ and I think everybody will agree that selling a sentient being, in this case a baby bird, is treating it like an object because we certainly would not sell our own babies.

Oops, human babies are bought and sold each day. Have a look and see how many African and Chinese babies especially are sold, often to Americans. Maybe sold is not a good word but cash certainly changes hands in exchange for children. I was married community of property I gave up my rights to the fixed property in exchange for my children. I lost financially so I guess I paid for my own flesh and blood. When I left home I took my children and my pets, they were the only "objects" if you will, that were important to me. Life changes don't have to mean the end of a relationship."

Whoa, there. Let's not go all over the place here. The point is not whether children are sold or not nowadays. Yes, they are. There is also slavery, genocide, torture, chemical weapons, war and all kinds of terrible things going on. The point is the morality of the action and whether it can be applied to birds (in terms of treating them as an object) and I think we will all agree that it is immoral to sell human babies or people. Why? Because they are sentient, feeling beings and not merchandise. So, following that line of thought, if we consider immoral to sell human babies and we assign the same value to birds, we can conclude that selling baby birds is immoral too. Why? Because they too are sentient, feeling beings. That is the point.



"I have not had more than a day trip away in longer than 6 years, so yes I understand the commitment it takes. I guess it is honorable to think about giving birds away, maybe some rescues do, I have just never heard of one. Most rescues seem to sell birds for a price almost equal to a baby and with too many strings attached. With education the baby would not get placed in an unsuitable home in the first place. In South Africa we don't have the need of rescues for birds simply because we don't have too much disposable income. Birds are taken into homes and loved, maybe this will change in a few years. Unwanted birds are taken in usually by breeders or bird parks"

Well, we have two points here: a bird does not end up in a rescue if it's originally placed in a suitable home and rescues charging.

Sorry, I disagree. I have taken in birds from people who knew how to take care of them and truly loved them but they just couldn't do it any longer because of circumstances changing radically in their lives. Life is too uncertain for anybody to be able to guarantee a twenty year commitment and that's the lifespan of a budgie.

As to not charging for baby birds, I bred Spanish Timbrados for years and never charged a penny for them. And as to your never having heard of a rescue that doesn't charge a penny... now you have: me. And I will introduce you to another one: Sunnyskies (Linda Brink) and I can name another three or four off the top of my head. There are actually a number of them only they usually don't rehome the birds they take in so they are not well known.

As to rescues charging and making a business out of what should be a labor of love, yes, you are absolutely right. There is a large number of collectors that call themselves "rescues"...these are the ones that are always subtly or not so subtly asking for money by posting these terrible sad stories and bemoaning the fact that they don't have enough money to care for all of the poor, unwanted animals. These are the ones that keep the birds in overcrowded conditions, clipped or in cages, with a seed based diet and little or no fresh produce, without proper medical attention, etc. etc. all the time deducting from their taxes their own home mortgage, renovations, utilities, etc. Unfortunately, there are so many unwanted birds out there that it is fairly easy for these people to set up shop. And this goes to prove my point: if there wasn't an overpopulation problem in USA created by the commercialization of these birds, these people would not have a chance to do this terrible thing.

I did make the distinction between conservation and pet trade only because there have been some successful re-introductions of Cape parrots here, these birds are specifically and deliberately left wild from hatching. There is also a stud book to ensure that genetic diversity is upheld. A lot of the Cape parrots problem in the wild is PBFD and also habitat destruction, slightly off topic but interesting anyhow.

With selling birds or children I thought the point is, it happens, purchased children I am fairly certain are much loved by the new parents, same goes for purchased birds. If those new parents know what they are getting into.

Saying that there is a overpopulation problem with birds and not to breed is the same as saying because there are many unwanted African and Chinese children, they should have no more. Is it also immoral for these population groups to be having more children? I don't see the difference.

Why call a person a rescue if they don't usually rehome? I am not casting stones but I just see this as collector with a different name. What happens when there are too many birds for the available space?

It gets back to my point that if education first, the "bad birdie mill" breeders and wholesale pet shops will be squeezed out and the rescues will not get more birds in. Here parrots tend to stay in the same family since they are often like children of the family. A grey parrot I know is now with the grandson of the original owner having outlived father and son. So the question is "is it fair to label all breeder as exploiters" The overpopulation and commercialization was not caused by all breeders, only those that did not care about the babies they bred.