From Friends of Animals: May Birds Know A World Without Cages

On January 4, 2006, Marc Delaney wrote:

The recent decision of officials in Rome, Italy, to ban the keeping or selling of goldfish this past October - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9814628/ - is an unprecedented and hopeful sign for future municipal decisions on behalf of so-called “domesticated” animals. Perhaps Rome, or another forward-thinking government, will ban the caging of birds in the near future. For the time being, January 5 is a great opportunity for all activists to grab some leaflets (print your own from the Web if you don’t have any professionally-printed leaflets on hand), locate your nearest pet store or shopping center, and distribute them liberally. You don’t need a group with you - do it yourself. Good luck. Caged birds are counting on all of our efforts now.

[Blog editors’ note: Good parallel and call to action from Marc Delaney. We’ll also be keeping up with the develoments in Rome through our quarterly magazine. Thank you for your dedication and for writing in.]

On January 14, 2006, Peter wrote:

It would seem to me that saving the Connecticut Quaker Parrots and being a responsible bird owner are not incompatible. There are so many parrots in captivity—many discarded by owners who were not aware of the commitment required, and incapable of fending for themselves in the wild—that there will be parrots and other birds eligible for adoption to a committed, informed, home for generations to come. Your condemnation of the event assumes that these people are irresponsible. Would you not rather birds be true companions in loving homes than be discarded or euthanized? I would suggest more focus on putting bird mills out of business than hounding the New York Theosophical Society, the venue for an event attended by people committed to the well-being of all birds.

[Blog editors’ note: The reason that the parrots are in this bind in the first place — here, yet facing harassment by those who point to their South American origins — is the pet trade. Worth noting.]

On January 15, 2006, Peter wrote:

The reason parrots are in this bind because of the bird mill industry and people who buy birds on impulse who have no idea what they are getting into. There are 40,000,000 pet birds in the U.S.. They cannot be let back into the wild. They cannot all be sent to some sanctuary—sanctuaries that are already full to bursting, and which, in the end, are only bigger cages.

Your blog comment that “this is why we’re in this bind in the first place” doesn’t do anything to educate bird owners or the public and is tinged with “holier than thou.”

If you truly care about these captive birds, then you would welcome efforts to educate the people who are prepared to make the commitment, for example, to take parrot into their house, care for it for the rest of their lives, and to provide it the interaction, stimulation, exercise and quality of life it deserves as one of God’s creatures—and, in many cases, make provision in their will and with their families and relatives to insure that level of care into the future.

Furthermore, you would seek to encourage such people to support your efforts to end captive commercial breeding and to protect wild birds from poaching. Your commentary only alienates those people most whose support you need. Even if you eliminated bird mills and poaching today, most of us will be dead and buried while the captive bird population which cannot care for itself in the wild still numbers in the tens of millions. To condemn bird owners by lumping them together as a single class of irresponsible individuals makes your cause and case less, not more, persuasive, and denigrates the cause of looking after the captive birds alive today with love and responsibility.

If we could turn back the clock, certainly, there are better scenarios one would wish for than 40,000,000 captive birds, a significant portion of which are improperly cared for and/or abandoned. To wring our hands over the situation may make us feel better as humans, but without expanding the number of informed, responsible, and committed bird owners, things will only get worse—not better—for the current captive bird population. Most of all, “informed” also (!) means people who want to be bird owners, and who, being properly informed and educated, determine they are not prepared to make the commitment. Whether they, at that point, believe “all birds should be free” is immaterial—what is of paramount importance is that they know enough not to become part of the current problem.

If you have any commitment to the proper care of of birds in captivity and to stemming the problem of irresponsible ownership which you yourselves indicate got us to our current state, then hounding the Theosophical Society and seeking to deny a venue for responsible people to gather and discuss issues is hurting those birds, not helping them.

Best regards, Peter

[Blog editors’ note: There seem to be a few basic misunderstandings, so let’s try to clarify. Please know:

Thank you for writing.]

On January 15, 2006, Peter wrote:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I wholly agree with your position to educate people to another way of thinking regarding the traditional view of captive birds. I would also challenge you to a different way of thinking—did you attend the presentation that you labelled as “birds as toys?” It would seem to me that the kind of constant attention and social interaction required to “train” a bird—and I have met enough parrots to know that they don’t do anything they don’t want to do—is precisely the kind of level of stimulation that can lead to a happy and rewarding life for both bird and human. If we don’t label the activity as something denigrating and harmful to the bird, that it has real potential positive value.

If you had attended any of these events and rendered an objective report after the fact, and offerred constructive suggestions, then that would be appropriate. However, to use phrases such as “disturbing” and spinning event announcements to fit your agenda is neither constructive nor inclusive.

Most of all, I urge you to actively pursue responsible bird owners as allies—rather than lodging complaints—which has no positive message or reinforcement associated with it and is not in keeping with the spirit of “simply pointing out another way of thinking.” Consider reaching out to such events as opportunities to talk and present positively and constructively.

Sincerely,
Peter

On January 18, 2006, Peter wrote:

About… “That’s the sordid truth that needs to be told to anyone who puts a positive spin on viewing birds as pets. The economics is about supply and demand.”

I was not “spinning” a positive view. If the bird trade disappeared today, there are millions of birds that need responsible, caring owners—that is, competent and commited adoptive parents. If we do not educate and solicit people to be informed and responsible adopters/owners, then our only other alternative is to euthanize captive birds by the millions.

My wife’s best friend and her husband took in a parrot (from an irresponsible relative) that had been so neglected she had plucked herself clean. That parrot now lives in a loving home full of caring and social interaction, is regrowing her feathers, and is learning friendship and trust.

The reality is captive birds need owners—they cannot return to the wild, and sanctuaries are already strained beyond capacity with just the birds which are so mentally and/or physically damaged that they are beyond the capabilities of the average individual to care for.

Eliminating bird ownership is a noble long term goal. Until then, our only option to address today’s captive bird problem is to make owners part of the solution, not to disparage them as the cause of the problem—we cannot change what has gone before, only deal with the situation as it is. If our sole concern is for the birds, then—for the present—we have to put aside our personal feelings about the sordidness of bird ownership.

Peters

[Blog editors’ note: Here you present a false dilemma. We can care about the birds who are already in captivity and yet still reprehend the bird trade, and not promote events that advance the trade. For example, say we are in a club that decides to promote an event featuring an animal trainer who breeds parrots. This is one of the events that happened in New York. Can we then say — if we support that event or decline to question it — that our sole concern is for the birds? It is not disparagement to express an opposing point of view. It is, indeed, a responsible act, aligned with your statement that “[e]liminating bird ownership is a noble long term goal.”]

On January 18, 2006, Peter wrote:

I believe the dilemma for you, as I state it, is a real one.

Given today’s captive bird population in the tens of millions, birds will be “owned” for decades to come. It’s noble (and simple) to lump bird owners and the bird trade together as one “sordid” mess to be eradicated—yet, in the meantime, pursuing responsible bird owners—an easy-to-find target—will only drive away the people whose support you and the birds most need. That is your dilemma—you would seem to prefer to just treat all bird ownership and owners as “the problem.” Reality is rarely that simple.

Larry is not a bird mill. The people who attended these meetings are not people who heat unattended Teflon cookware to 500+ degrees turning their birds’ lungs into a bloody pulp or who keep their parrots in empty rooms in cages so small their tails stick out. These are people who are incensed at irresponsible, neglectful, abusive owners and at arguably avicidal outfits like Connecticut’s United Illuminating Company.

Your real dilemma is that there is so much to do, you will never accomplish your goals without recruiting these people as active allies. Finding their activities “disturbing” draws a clear line of demarkation and unwelcome. That is the point which I am trying to make.

I am not at all conflicted in being supportive of responsible bird ownership with a goal of reducing or eliminating bird ownership in the (realistically distant) future. On the other hand, your dilemma is that you see yourselves as condoning ownership (and all its sordid evils) if you reach out to responsible owners.

Ultimately it’s your choice whether or not to avail yourself of that resource and energy. If not, then the sheer number of birds involved dictates your cause will be more about feeling good about your cause than about impactful results.

Results do not come from the purity of your cause, results come from recruiting people to your cause.

Best regards, Peters

[Blog editors’ note: The view of Friends of Animals — an animal rights advocacy group — is that breeding parrots in and for captivity is part of the problem, not part of the answer. You believe that there are responsible bird breeders (apparently good) and mills (apparently bad). The precise thing we are questioning here is the thing your argument takes for granted. (The 20 calls a week, cited by Priscilla Feral in the comment of the 16th, are from owners of birds from all types of breeders — the point is simply that they are bred.) So we urge you to rethink this, rather than repeat the argument; otherwise this becomes circular or last-wordism. Please understand that we do want unity; but we seek a principled unity. Again, thanks for posting your views.]

On January 24, 2006, Terri wrote:

Peters wrote, “The people who attended these meetings are not people who heat unattended Teflon cookware to 500+ degrees turning their birds’ lungs into a bloody pulp or who keep their parrots in empty rooms in cages so small their tails stick out. These are people who are incensed at irresponsible, neglectful, abusive owners and at arguably avicidal outfits like Connecticut’s United Illuminating Company.”

Thank you. I did not attend the meeting, but I do live with a bird. (I can’t say I own him. If anything, he owns me, for every decision I make, from what’s for dinner to what time to turn the lights out, hinges how it will affect him.) I accept, as reality, that there will always be a demand for pet birds. That does mean I disagree that the total elimination of “bird ownership” is possible. Decreased demand, sure, but total elimination? No. With 6 billion people on the planet, there will always be someone who wants a bird as a pet.

As such, I don’t have a problem with conscientious breeders: those who will not sell unweaned birds, those who use a varied gene pool, and those who thoroughly screen all families who wish to have a bird. I would much rather see birds born, hand-raised, and imprinted on humans than taken out of the wild, which I feel is absolutely unforgivable. A bird born free should stay free because a bird born free will never adapt to life as a pet and will have a short, miserable life, just as a bird raised by hand and imprinted on humans will never adapt to life in the wild. Moreover, the conditions of smuggling and importation when birds are taken out of the wild are nothing short of reprehensible, and I do everything I can to educate people about this.

I also do everything I can to dissuade people from getting birds on a whim, because I’m well aware of what happens to birds who are punished simply for behaving like birds—revolving homes, abuse, neglect, and so on. Many, many times, people have told me that they never knew how much work caring for a bird really is, and many, many times, they’ve told me they didn’t know how emotional and social birds are. I’ve actually talked people out of getting them, once they realized all it entails.

Currently, I live with one bird, but I hope to adopt another from a sanctuary. They are flock creatures, and my avian companion needs an avian friend. And, I also want to do my part to alleviate the crisis facing unwanted birds. I encourage anyone who, after hearing all I have to say about the care and love of a bird (and that’s a LOT!), is still thinking of getting one to contact a sanctuary FIRST, just as I would encourage anyone thinking of getting a dog or cat to go to the pound first.

If you consider that “unprinicpled” or “part of the problem,” there’s not much I can do about it. You have your mission, and I respect that. But it appears to me that my resources and energy might be appreciated more by an organization that recognizes that issues like this are not black-and-white. To be lumped in with people who run bird mills and to have my own efforts categorized as part of the “sordid truth” is off-putting and alienating to me indeed.

[ Blog editors’ note: Thanks for respecting Friends of Animals’ work to assure that birds have the freedom to live their own lives in nature. On a trip earlier this month to Senegal, we saw someone in the street with 3 caged parrots — birds who had just been caught in the bush, and were likely destined for prisons known as bird cages in the U.S., or Britain. That there’s a commercial market for pet birds, drives the nefarious bird trade. It will stop when consumers change their minds about whether birds are deserving of freedom, or whether they’re commodities who exist for human-defined purposes. What’s needed is an educational campaign to halt the breeding, sale and trade in birds. They’re not pets, and we’re not their companions. They deserve respect for living their lives in their own ways, and on their own terms.]

On January 25, 2006, Peter wrote:

I would observe that it’s not worth the risk for someone to import poached birds into the U.S. (or the U.K.). The penalty in the U.S. is a felony conviction with five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. These people are caught, are fined, and are imprisoned. The EU, additionally, banned bird imports in October—for now, associated with avian flu fears; however, there is a strong movement to ban imports [of poached birds] throughout the EU.

Since you didn’t determine where the Senegalese birds were bound, you can’t simply say they were “likely” destined for “prison” life in the United States.

That’s a minor point, however. Let’s say Terri and I renounce our “sordid” ways. Let’s say we shut down all the bird mills. What do you suggest we, and the millions of others of responsible (and irresponsible) bird owners out there do with our birds and all the birds in sanctuaries today? “That’s not the point, birds should be free!” (admittedly my summarization of your general position) may be a viewpoint of “principled unity,” but it does little to solve today’s bird problem or to enlist people to solve it.

If your sole agenda is to eliminate all bird ownership, I can respect your cause. But don’t do it by alienating responsible bird owners who are trying to improve the circumstances of captive birds. Or by decrying their meetings as “promotions of cages, not freedom.” That’s a squandering and misdirection of your resources that engenders more ill will than support—and does nothing to solve today’s bird problem.

[Blog editors must butt in one more time here and repeat what still seems to need clarification: No one is saying not to look after the birds who are currently dependent on owners. What’s being asked is that captivity and breeding cease to be promoted. To do that effectively, we suggest actually coming out and denouncing it.]

On January 31, 2006, Peter wrote:

Quoting from the World Wildlife site:

“Before passage of the Wild Bird Conservation Act, U.S. imports were substantial. In 1990, the United States imported 450,000 live birds, of which at least 150,000 were parrots. Today, roughly 17,000 parrots are imported into the United States each year; roughly 3,600 of these are taken from the wild.” The situation has improved.

Of the worst offenders—Senegal, Cameroon, Tanzania, and the Congo—Senegal and the Congo are signatories to CITES, Cameroon and Tanzania are not. Frankly, the only way to stop the wild bird trade is to cut it off at the source through enforcement and through economics—where the inhabitants of the region have a better chance of improving their circumstances through conservation instead of trapping. People also cut down every tree in sight when they need fuel, disregarding that eventually there will be no trees left. Human needs and nature must be addressed in any plan for it to succeed. What were the other economic prospects for the Senegalese you “saw …in the street with 3 caged parrots — birds who had just been caught in the bush”?

I wholly agree that there is no neeed to capture birds in the wild. Nor for massive captive breeding. Responsible bird owners are on your side. My question remains, what is your plan of action for the tens of millions of birds in captivity today—a problem that will last beyond our lifetimes? Simply denouncing ownership does not support the kind of responsible ownership that today’s captive bird population requires for the forseeable future. (Nor does it strike at the bird capture problem where it feeds the system. If you want birds to remain wild, then they have to be worth more in wild to the local inhabitants, plain and simple.)

Education has to start with what’s really involved in responsible avian care—which can certainly be juxtaposed with the message, “That’s why it’s better they live in the wild.”

Since we agree that “No one is saying not to look after the birds who are currently dependent on owners,” then I would return to my original posting/request, that when you go on the attack, at least do it where your interests and the interests of responsible bird owners coincide. :-)

[Blog editors’ note: Birds already are, and always have been, worth more in the wild than in captivity from a ethical point of view. The value of their freedom is inherent; it doesn’t need human measurements or validation. We are not here to make ideas more attractive by making them more lucrative. We’re interested in the possibility that people can accept a viewpoint because it’s the decent thing to do. We also work to educate ourown communities regarding decisions we ourselves can make (e.g., fair trade) to alleviate the poverty of others. And if we don’t want people in other regions to engage in certain activities, we should be mindful of our own activities. There is simply no justification for anyone to breed birds themselves (thereby being part of the problem) and denounce others for engaging in the trade.]

On April 26, 2006, Anna Dove wrote:

For the purposes of clarification, Larry Clifford did not exhibit a macaw or any bird at the workshop, nor did he attempt to train birds to talk, and is not the owner of a breeding aviary. Our club is very much anti-breeding, and we do not encourage breeding captive birds.

Our club, the New York Companion Bird Club, champions for the rights of all avians (see our mission and message board statements), and we hope one day that no animal or bird will be sold as a commodity but will be free in their natural environment without the interference of humans; however, millions of creatures presently are in bondage, and we do our best to educate bird guardians to care for their birds as responsibily, ethically and humanely as possible. We are the only club for example that is anti- wing clipping.

If Friends of Animals is truly on a mission to end avian captivity and ownership, we suggest that they attack bird clubs, pet stores and organizations whose goal is to keep birds bred, sold, clipped and caged at any cost. There also is the issue of sanctuaries who promote breeding programs and in some cases breed parrots in their sanctuaries, which should be investigated and addressed.


These are goals more worthy of your time and efforts and should you even be remotely successful, you will have done a great justice for the rights of birds, who should be flying free in the skies with species of their own kind, not caged and clipped in alien environments.

Our club wishes you much success in your endeavor to stop the exploitation of birds and animals in captivity and return them to their rightful place in this world.