Tony's Birds WHERE ARE THEY?
Joan Napolitano
Has Tony Silva's rare collection been destroyed? Why won't the government
agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the disposition
of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
wonder...
Please contact CITES and ask them for information. So far they are not
saying! If what they did with the birds was humane and above board, it
would have been in the headlines.
Is there more than one fox in the henhouse?
roger_williams
In article <575oto$23...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, DDQ...@prodigy.com says...
>
>Has Tony Silva's rare collection been destroyed? Why won't the government
>agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the disposition
>of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
>against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
>wonder...
SOP is to destroy the collection, so if they are not saying this is
probably what happened. I suspect the geniuses who set up Tony's
conviction realize their sterling publicity would tarnish if this
became public knowledge to the would-be tomato-throwing crowd.
If anybody knows otherwise, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.
-- Roger
william taylor
In article <576ugf$4...@lana.zippo.com>, RogerWilliams says...
is truly sick. Am I missing something or is that not one of the
stupidest ideas on the face of the earth.
Dennis L
Roger Williams wrote:
>In article <575oto$23...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, DDQ...@prodigy.com says...
>>
>>Has Tony Silva's rare collection been destroyed? Why won't the government
>>agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the disposition
>>of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
>>against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
>>wonder...
>
>SOP is to destroy the collection, so if they are not saying this is
>probably what happened. I suspect the geniuses who set up Tony's
>conviction realize their sterling publicity would tarnish if this
>became public knowledge to the would-be tomato-throwing crowd.
Geez, this makes sense! Convict a guy for smuggling rare endangered birds and
then destroy them!
No, I would suspect an auction to pay legal fees and whatnot.
ellen ivy paul
In article <576ugf$4...@lana.zippo.com>, <Roger Williams> wrote:
>In article <575oto$23...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, DDQ...@prodigy.com says...
>>
>>Has Tony Silva's rare collection been destroyed? Why won't the government
>>agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the disposition
>>of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
>>against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
>>wonder...
Who asked them? Do you have some reason to believe that someone asked
them and they refused to answer? If so, please share it with us.
>
>SOP is to destroy the collection, so if they are not saying this is
>probably what happened. I suspect the geniuses who set up Tony's
>conviction realize their sterling publicity would tarnish if this
>became public knowledge to the would-be tomato-throwing crowd.
>
Maybe they didn't say because they didn't confiscate any live birds.
Maybe they didn't say because no one asked them. Maybe they said and you
just don't know where to look for the answer. Something tells me you know
Tony personally. You apparently have some reason to think that he never
smuggled a bird, or that he would never have done so had the government
not enticed him to do so. Please share it with us.
>If anybody knows otherwise, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.
Maybe they fried the birds up in shake-and-bake and had a picnic. Why
won't they say? What do they have to hide, these dishonest geniuses who
have nothing better to do than entrap entirely honest people who have
never/would never do anything wrong, unless the scummy government types
get their cajones in a vise and put bamboo shoots under their nails and
threaten to drown their children if they don't do something really awful.
Please cite your reference for Standard Operating Procedure with regard to
confiscated birds.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <575oto$23...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
Joan Napolitano <DDQ...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>Has Tony Silva's rare collection been destroyed? Why won't the government
>agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the disposition
>of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
>against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
>wonder...
Well, there are 27 dead, beheaded hyacinths in a freezer. He sold some.
Don't know how many. What *information* do you have that the government
actually confiscated any live birds from him? This is pure speculation on
your part - that there were live birds confiscated, that the government is
really, really crooked (of course), that they bribed people to give false
information by promising to give them birds....
Please provide the basis for your speculation.
>
>Please contact CITES and ask them for information. So far they are not
>saying! If what they did with the birds was humane and above board, it
>would have been in the headlines.
>
CITES has nothing to do with this. CITES is an international treaty. It
operates in the United States by virtue of Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act. It is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. The U.S.F.W.S. has a division of law enforcment. But since they
are so incredibly dishonest and crooked, they aren't going to give you any
true responses, so why bother trying to find out?
>Is there more than one fox in the henhouse?
>
Why are you so willing to believe that the government is full of rotten,
crooked, dishonest people? Isn't it possible that there are plenty of
good, honest people working for the government? I happen to know quite a
few of them. Sure, there are dishonest people everywhere - and I'm sure
the government is no exception. But I have no reason to believe that
there are any more dishonest people in the government that anywhere else.
Do you have some *information* to the contrary? You are certainly
entitled to express your opinion, but I sure would like to know why you
formed this opinion.
Ellen
--
leigh_hidell
>agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the disposition
>of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
>against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
>wonder...
Damn good point. If the birds were auctioned, there would have
been by law a public notice.
I believe they were killed. Remember, Customs & Fish & Wildlife is NOT
about exotic birds. The whole quarantine thing is PRIMARILY for t he
purpose of protecting the chicken industry. They would be perfectly
happy to see our pets destroyed if they think that keeps germs away from today's weak, salmonella infected
chickens...& our current Prez is a good friend to the chicken industry NOT to US.
leigh_hidell
No, it doesn't make sense, does it? But the individual who inquired
would have been informed if there was a public auction. By law,
notice has to be given of public auctions to prevent the birds
from being sold at giveaway prices to various friends of the
public officials.
Since it was a smuggling case, & the entire Silva family attacked,
with resources seized, etc. presumably there was no one to pay
the quarantine fees or (alternately) the fees to have the birds
repatriated. In such cases of birds that have not gone thru
quarantine, it would be usual to destroy them.
Also any birds they have come into contact with...
Your tax dollar & mine.
deatbird
No, confiscated birds are not usually put to death unless they harbor
dreaded Newcastles disease. The birds are held until they can be sold at
auction by the U.S. Government. Many birds who are smuggled over the
Mexican border are auctioned to the public at Mission, Texas. Addition
anyone who saw the Unsolved Mysteries episode about the disappearance of
two aviculturists in Florida might not know that the remainder of their
birds where sold at auction.
Debi
Dorine Ann McKinnon
I will *really* be angry if they have been destroyed, but I did see a
video on TV about smuggling and in that instance they sold the birds at
auction. I think it was Tony Silvas case they were showing as well,
because he made some comments and his history in aviculture was shown.
They also had others on there, even showing one poor woman who had
somehow tried to smuggle her pet conure into the country and was now
trying to buy it back. She did end up getting it by the way. Dorine.
> Roger Williams writes:
>>
>>Has Tony Silva's rare collection been destroyed? Why won't the
government
>>agency who confiscated his birds answer questions as to the
disposition
>>of those birds? Have the birds gone to the very people who testified
>>against Silva? If so, what an interesting development. It makes you
>>wonder...
>
>SOP is to destroy the collection, so if they are not saying this is
>probably what happened. I suspect the geniuses who set up Tony's
>conviction realize their sterling publicity would tarnish if this
>became public knowledge to the would-be tomato-throwing crowd.
>
>If anybody knows otherwise, I'd be very interested in hearing about
it.
>
>-- Roger
ellen ivy paul
In article <579bll$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Dorine Ann McKinnon <jdmc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I will *really* be angry if they have been destroyed, but I did see a
>video on TV about smuggling and in that instance they sold the birds at
>auction. I think it was Tony Silvas case they were showing as well,
>because he made some comments and his history in aviculture was shown.
>They also had others on there, even showing one poor woman who had
>somehow tried to smuggle her pet conure into the country and was now
>trying to buy it back. She did end up getting it by the way. Dorine.
>
That was The Great Wildlife Heist.
--
Shirley/Rick
In article <579bll$3...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
jdmc...@ix.netcom.com(Dorine Ann McKinnon) wrote:
> I will *really* be angry if they have been destroyed, but I did see a
> video on TV about smuggling and in that instance they sold the birds at
> auction.
I don't know if this is true or not, but I HEARD that the government
sometimes works out a deal with reputable breeders of rare species,
whereby any of these confiscated smuggled birds will be turned over to
these breeders after quaranteen.
As I said, I don't know if this is true, but I HEARD (via the grapevine) a
rumor that this is one of the ways that Richard Schubot (ABRC) came to
acquire such a large collection of black cockatoos -- that he had worked
out some kind of deal with the US Fish & Wildlife where if these types of
smuggled birds were confiscated, they were later turned over to him. I
guess he was able to substantiate that he wasn't doing it just for his own
profit since he had spent such large amounts of his own money into funding
his own facility as well as the $1 million he donated to ... was it Texas
A&M Univ. (?) ... for avian research. Has anyone else heard about anything
like that? I must say, I'd rather they be quaranteened and then turned
over to someone with this kind of facility than being destroyed or even
auctioned. At least they have a facility where all the birds are very well
cared for, where they are documenting EVERYTHING, and even publishing
literature on their findings which can only serve to help the rest of us
little guys be more successful with the few pairs we might have in our own
homes. At least in this way, something positive can come of a situation
that otherwise would have only served to hurt the birds and aviculture as
a whole. I am curious to know if anyone else had heard or knows of this
practice?
--Shirley
"Toto ... do you suppose there is such a place?" --Dorothy
Dennis L
sd...@aimnet.com (Shirley/Rick) wrote:
>As I said, I don't know if this is true, but I HEARD (via the grapevine) a
>rumor that this is one of the ways that Richard Schubot (ABRC) came to
>acquire such a large collection of black cockatoos -- that he had worked
Don't eve get me started on the late Richard Schubot!
Ian Kerfoot
> They also had others on there, even showing one poor woman who had
> somehow tried to smuggle her pet conure into the country and was now
> trying to buy it back. She did end up getting it by the way. Dorine.
This is intriguing. If you really want something that is not
available in the US, can you buy one overseas, and bring it
to the US on a plane with you? As soon as you reach the US,
declare it to Customs, and they say "Sorry, you can't bring
it in." They take the bird, auction it off, and you then buy
it, completely legal. Is this how the law works?
Ian Kerfoot
Ian Kerfoot
> As I said, I don't know if this is true, but I HEARD (via the grapevine) a
> rumor that this is one of the ways that Richard Schubot (ABRC) came to
> acquire such a large collection of black cockatoos -- that he had worked
> smuggled birds were confiscated, they were later turned over to him.
I recall seeing somewhere that ABRC has some deal going with the
government, in which ABRC has authority to raise broad billed
parrots for the government, which are illegal for anyone else
to have, since they were indigenous to the US in the past. I think
this may have been in "My Parrot, My Friend", but I am not sure of
it. It would seem that they have some standing as a government
contractor for conservation breeding, in addition to breeding for
the pet trade. I do not know whether or not such conservation work
is open to public bidding by all interested breeders.
Ian Kerfoot
ellen ivy paul
I called the USFWS on Friday. I learned that they could not release the
information about the disposition of the birds until after the sentencing.
Which, actually, I should have guessed, given my background. So, in this
case, you all get to flame the hell out of me (have fun!) for not knowing
something I should have known.
Anyway, as the sentencing was last week, the information should now be
available. You will probably need to file a Freedom of Information Act
Request.
Ellen Paul
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <57bdv3$n...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu>,
Ian Kerfoot <ker...@csl.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> As I said, I don't know if this is true, but I HEARD (via the grapevine) a
>> rumor that this is one of the ways that Richard Schubot (ABRC) came to
>> acquire such a large collection of black cockatoos -- that he had worked
>> out some kind of deal with the US Fish & Wildlife where if these types of
>> smuggled birds were confiscated, they were later turned over to him.
>
>I recall seeing somewhere that ABRC has some deal going with the
>government, in which ABRC has authority to raise broad billed
>parrots for the government, which are illegal for anyone else
>to have
Yes, it is illegal for people to own endangered species. But the reason
ABRC has these birds is because ABRC participates in the Thick-billed
Parrot Species Survival Plan (copyright), along with many of the North
American zoos. So, don't be so suspicious that there is wrong-doing here.
, since they were indigenous to the US in the past. I think
>this may have been in "My Parrot, My Friend", but I am not sure of
>it. It would seem that they have some standing as a government
>contractor for conservation breeding, in addition to breeding for
>the pet trade. I do not know whether or not such conservation work
>is open to public bidding by all interested breeders.
>
Yes, it is. There are many private breeders participating in cooperative
breeding programs - some they have established themselves - Rick Jordan
runs one - and others participate in those established by the zoos - the
Species Survival Plans. Almost all the breeders in the Cuban Amazon
Consortium (run by the zoo community) are private breeders. Most of the
breeders in
the Palm Cockatoo consortium (also run by the zoo community) are private
breeders, including ABRC.
There is nothing nefarious afoot.
Ellen Paul
--
Blake Rees
Ian,
The woman bought a common conure, not a palm cockatoo. Trish M.
txrn...@aol.com
It is not illegal for someone to won endangered species, at least with
regards to birds non native to the United States and its territories. If
you are going to buy, sell, or trade endangered species (birds listed
under ESA - Endangered Species Act) across state borders, you are required
to have a CBW (Captive Bred Wildlife) permit. The birds usually
associated with this are Scarlet Chested Keets, Turqoisines, Red Siskins,
Bali Mynahs, Golden Conures, Cuban, VinaceousAmazons. There are more, but
these are the most common.
As for thick billed Parrots, there are private individuals who are
raising them. The laws governing them are similiar to above. Commerce
within the state from legally acquired stock is allowed, as long as it is
allowed within that state. Birds may be shipped interstate if they are
loans or gifts, in other words, no credit, money,or other considerations
changes hands. For sale of these birds interstate permits are required
similiar to the above for EAS Birds. The info for the Thick -billed has
been aquired from a letter from the USFWS.
I hope this may help to clarify some points.
Joanne L. Konrade
We visited ABRC a year ago. We saw a large number of Thick Billed
Parrots and were told that they were keeping them until some legal
issues were settled. I don't recall them saying anything about
actively breeding them, only caring for them. They actually belong to
a man (I believe) who was having difficulty getting Federal Government
(I believe) approval to do whatever (can't remember this part).
The bottom line seemed to be that the birds were doing nothing, going
nowhere and nothing seemed to be even near resolution. It seemed like
a sad and hopeless situation. I thought at the time that Arizona would
love to know about these birds to deal with the Federal Government to
get something moving. The Federal Government drives me crazy
sometimes.
Sincerely,
Joanne
>I recall seeing somewhere that ABRC has some deal going with the
>government, in which ABRC has authority to raise broad billed
>parrots for the government, which are illegal for anyone else
>to have, since they were indigenous to the US in the past. I think
>this may have been in "My Parrot, My Friend", but I am not sure of
>it. It would seem that they have some standing as a government
>contractor for conservation breeding, in addition to breeding for
>the pet trade. I do not know whether or not such conservation work
>is open to public bidding by all interested breeders.
>
> Ian Kerfoot
>
ellen ivy paul
In article <57coq6$4...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Joanne L. Konrade <job...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>We visited ABRC a year ago. We saw a large number of Thick Billed
>Parrots and were told that they were keeping them until some legal
>issues were settled. I don't recall them saying anything about
>actively breeding them, only caring for them. They actually belong to
>a man (I believe) who was having difficulty getting Federal Government
>(I believe) approval to do whatever (can't remember this part).
I can't speak to those particular birds. The big problem with the
Thick-billed Parrot program generally is that there are now plenty of
birds in the captive breeding program. However, all release efforts,
including intensive pre-release training, have been unsuccessful. So
where are all these birds going to go? The program was originally
intended to produce birds for reintroduction, but if that is not working,
you can't keep breeding birds endlessly. There just isn't enough cage
space out there (in cooperative breeding programs).
>
>The bottom line seemed to be that the birds were doing nothing, going
>nowhere and nothing seemed to be even near resolution. It seemed like
>a sad and hopeless situation. I thought at the time that Arizona would
>love to know about these birds to deal with the Federal Government to
>get something moving. The Federal Government drives me crazy
>sometimes.
>
I'm sure that Arizona Game knows about them, since they are actively
involved with the SSP and the release program. It could be that the
person who wanted the birds hadn't received his CBW (captive bred
wildlife) permit yet, and so they couldn't transfer the birds across state
lines. And you don't know if they were waiting 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years
(or if you did, you didn't say) - so how do you know that the wait was
unreasonably long?
>>I recall seeing somewhere that ABRC has some deal going with the
>>government, in which ABRC has authority to raise broad billed
>>parrots for the government, which are illegal for anyone else
>
Just a reminder - ABRC has these birds because ABRC is a member of the
Thick-billed Parrot Species Survival Plan. The SSP has nothing to do with
the government. It is run by the North American zoo community.
Ellen Paul
--
Ian Kerfoot
> So, don't be so suspicious that there is wrong-doing here.
I had no intention of implying that there was something improper
going on. I had merely intended to speculate that they had some
sort of standing as a conservation contractor, that went beyond
the standard pet trade.
Ian Kerfoot
Joanne L. Konrade
Dear Ellen:
I really don't know how long the birds had been there nor how much
longer they would be there (this was about one year ago).
The sense I got from our tour guide, Carla, was that it was a tangled
mess that was somewhat of a gridlock type situation. These birds were
not meeting their potential in their then current dilema (sp). And that
the Federal government was the source of the gridlock.
Sincerely,
Joanne
Joanne L. Konrade
>Either Carla didn't have enough information
Carla has a great deal of information about everything that takes place
at ABRC
>or she didn't share it with you,
This is more likely.
> but in either case, for you to run with it, and assume that there was
>something wrong, and then share your opinion, based on your "sense" is
>a problem.
A problem for who? I will continue to share what I see, what I hear,
what I read and what I feel and think when I deem it an appropriate
time and place.
> People will pick it up and run with it.
That is "people's" problem. I have no control over what "people" do
with information. My post was qualified. You might want to read it
again.
> See how awful the government is? See how stupid the government is?
Your words, not mine. My words were "The government makes me crazy
sometimes." If the government doesn't make another taxpayer crazy
sometimes, they, in my opinion, are unique.
> Soon I'll be hearing that the government killed 73 birds at some
>aviary in Florida!!
Since you are making predictions, wait till you see this one reposted
as truth.
>You obviously aren't responsible for the fact that people will
>misconstrue information, but you should certainly be aware of it and
>take care not to contribute to the process.
I'm quite aware that people misconstrue. That will never stop me from
saying what I will say.
>As for not meeting their potential, did Carla mean that they weren't
>breeding? The fact that they couldn't be transferred to someone else
>doesn't prevent them from breeding. In fact, if birds don't breed at
>ABRC, they aren't going to breed. Do you really think that ABRC and
>the new owner wouldn't want them to breed, wherever they were? Of
>course not.
>
>Did Carla even bother to tell you that there is an SSP? That ABRC
>participates in the SSP? That ABRC also participates in the Cuban
>Amazon Consortium and the Palm Cockatoo Consortium? Did she tell you
>anything about cooperative breeding programs and scientifically-based
>genetic and demographic management? There are only X number of
>participants in these programs at any given time. They have only X
>number of cage spaces.
>It could have been that there was no place to move the birds at that
>particular time. The government has nothing to do with that
>whatsoever.
Carla "bothered" to tell us a great deal of wonderful information about
everything she could within the constraints of the time we had allotted
to us. I never made any disparaging remarks about ABRC. In fact, ABRC
is a beautiful operation with generous people who made us feel quite
welcome.
>Come to think of it, these were Thick-bills, weren't they? Unless
>they were genetically unimportant to the captive breeding plan, they
>couldn't be sold.
When I said I saw Thick-bills, that is what I meant.
Sincerely,
Joanne
ellen ivy paul
In article <57gftn$g...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
>
>I really don't know how long the birds had been there nor how much
>longer they would be there (this was about one year ago).
>
>The sense I got from our tour guide, Carla, was that it was a tangled
>mess that was somewhat of a gridlock type situation. These birds were
>not meeting their potential in their then current dilema (sp). And that
>the Federal government was the source of the gridlock.
Either Carla didn't have enough information or she didn't share it with
you, but in either case, for you to run with it, and assume that there was
something wrong, and then share your opinion, based on your "sense" is a
problem. People will pick it up and run with it. See how awful the
government is? See how stupid the government is? Like the children's
game of whisper down the lane. Soon I'll be hearing that the government
killed 73 birds at some aviary in Florida!! You obviously aren't
responsible for the fact that people will misconstrue information, but you
should certainly be aware of it and take care not to contribute to the
process.
As for not meeting their potential, did Carla mean that they weren't
breeding? The fact that they couldn't be transferred to someone else
doesn't prevent them from breeding. In fact, if birds don't breed at
ABRC, they aren't going to breed. Do you really think that ABRC and the
new owner wouldn't want them to breed, wherever they were? Of course not.
Did Carla even bother to tell you that there is an SSP? That ABRC
participates in the SSP? That ABRC also participates in the Cuban Amazon
Consortium and the Palm Cockatoo Consortium? Did she tell you anything
about cooperative breeding programs and scientifically-based genetic and
demographic management? There are only X number of participants in these
programs at any given time. They have only X number of cage spaces. It
could have been that there was no place to move the birds at that
particular time. The government has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
Come to think of it, these were Thick-bills, weren't they? Unless they
were genetically unimportant to the captive breeding plan, they couldn't
be sold.
Ellen Paul
--
ellen beth kessler
>>Come to think of it, these were Thick-bills, weren't they? Unless
>>they were genetically unimportant to the captive breeding plan, they
>>couldn't be sold.
>
>
>When I said I saw Thick-bills, that is what I meant.
>
In light of the drastically poor results of the release program, I
wonder if everyone is just "on hold" until the program decides what to
do next. From my limited reading about the thick bill release program,
I was under the impression that the U.S. was going to work with the
Mexican thick bills, and perhaps engage in a release program there,
where the birds are more plentiful and might stand a better chance or
survival. In Arizona, there are no thick bills, so any releases are
doomed from inception (isn't hindsight wonderful?) because there is no
"flock" protection.
So I'm wondering if groups like ABRC are being asked to just "sit" on
the birds until a more viable program is developed?
Ellen K
Ian Kerfoot
Someone posted here a while ago, claiming that the
main trouble with reintroducing thick billed parrots
was that they couldn't evade hawks. Does anyone know
what they do to train them to avoid hawks? Do they
show the birds movies of hawks attacking birds, with
illustrations of suitable defensive mechanisms? Have
they let them have some sort of run in with a captive
hawk that convinces them of the merit of avoiding
them?
I read somewhere that thick billed parrots were only
in the US seasonally, and would migrate down to Mexico.
Deforestation in northern Mexico supposedly makes this
impossible, thereby keeping them out of the US.
Ian Kerfoot
ellen beth kessler
In <57kigf$2...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu> Ian Kerfoot <ker...@csl.uiuc.edu>
writes:
>Someone posted here a while ago, claiming that the
>main trouble with reintroducing thick billed parrots
>was that they couldn't evade hawks. Does anyone know
>what they do to train them to avoid hawks? Do they
>show the birds movies of hawks attacking birds, with
>illustrations of suitable defensive mechanisms? Have
>they let them have some sort of run in with a captive
>hawk that convinces them of the merit of avoiding
>them?
>
"attack" but the cage wire always separated even the manmade predators.
Ellen K
Dorine Ann McKinnon
In <57kigf$2...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu> Ian Kerfoot <ker...@csl.uiuc.edu>
writes:
>
>Someone posted here a while ago, claiming that the
>main trouble with reintroducing thick billed parrots
>was that they couldn't evade hawks. Does anyone know
>what they do to train them to avoid hawks? Do they
>show the birds movies of hawks attacking birds, with
>illustrations of suitable defensive mechanisms? Have
>they let them have some sort of run in with a captive
>hawk that convinces them of the merit of avoiding
>them?
>
>in the US seasonally, and would migrate down to Mexico.
>Deforestation in northern Mexico supposedly makes this
>impossible, thereby keeping them out of the US.
>
> Ian Kerfoot
>
I am confident that they won't have to train them to know about hawks.
Living in sunny Florida, where many hawks tend to migrate during
winter, I have seen firsthand that my birds know perfectly well what a
hawk is.
I once had a Nanday for a pet, and would let him sit on top of his
cage in front of our sliding glass doors. One day a hawk saw him at
about the same time as he spotted the hawk. He hurled himself off the
top of his cage, quick as he could with his short little
wings(clipped)and hotfooted it under the couch!
Unfortunately for the hawk, no-one taught him about sliding glass
doors. He smashed into it at about 35mph. When he awoke he could only
flop around. We called Nature Trail (local organization that
rehabilitates the many hawks injured in the area) and they came and
picked it up. It did not survive the lesson.
P. S. The Nanday was a handfed. Dorine.
san...@aol.com
In article <57mek6$m...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
jdmc...@ix.netcom.com(Dorine Ann McKinnon) writes:
>
>I am confident that they won't have to train them to know about hawks.
>Living in sunny Florida, where many hawks tend to migrate during
>winter, I have seen firsthand that my birds know perfectly well what a
>hawk is.
>
>I once had a Nanday for a pet, and would let him sit on top of his
>cage in front of our sliding glass doors. One day a hawk saw him at
>about the same time as he spotted the hawk. He hurled himself off the
>top of his cage, quick as he could with his short little
>wings(clipped)and hotfooted it under the couch!
>
>
That is very interesting. I had my B&G Macaw,handfed,at the front door
also one day. He just started freaking out and went crazy.I looked up to
where he was staring and low and behold there was a hawk circuling around.
I closed the door and sat with him for nearly an hour before he calmed
down.
Suzanne
Although I am NOT an elderly Ladie ,my friends call me Birdbiddie
ellen ivy paul
In article <57kigf$2...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu>,
Ian Kerfoot <ker...@csl.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Someone posted here a while ago, claiming that the
>main trouble with reintroducing thick billed parrots
>was that they couldn't evade hawks. Does anyone know
>what they do to train them to avoid hawks? Do they
>show the birds movies of hawks attacking birds, with
>illustrations of suitable defensive mechanisms? Have
>they let them have some sort of run in with a captive
>hawk that convinces them of the merit of avoiding
>them?
>
>I read somewhere that thick billed parrots were only
>in the US seasonally, and would migrate down to Mexico.
>Deforestation in northern Mexico supposedly makes this
>impossible, thereby keeping them out of the US.
>
> Ian Kerfoot
>
thick-bills. They have to be taught to recognize that pine cones are
food. They have to be taught to open the cones and eat the "seeds." (No
botany lessons, folks - I know what a gymnosperm is). They have to be
taught to recognize predators (despite what others have written, and
despite the fact that I have seen my own cockatoo, captive-bred and from a
country where there are no native feline predators - freak out when he
sees a cat, and flinch when a hawk flies by) -
They are (were) kept in an enormous enclosure to give them enough space to
develop good flight skills and musculature. They were "taught" to eat
pine cones by wild-caught birds whose owners donated them to the program.
Hawks were "flown" into the side of the cage (not live ones) obviously, to
teach them predator recognition and avoidance skills.
However, once released, they didn't form flocks and didn't avoid predators
successfully.
Ellen Paul
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <19961130191...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Dorine and Suzanne - I have had the same experience with my cockatoo. He
also freaks when he sees cats (even though there are no native feline
predators in Australia, not that he's ever been to Australia). But the
reality is that captive-bred animals DO have to be trained to recognize
and avoid predators. Black-footed Ferrets are trained with a
battery-operated toy badger called "robo-badger." (To me, it looks like
one of those automatic shoe polishers!). For birds, it isn't just
recognition and avoidance. They need to work in flocks so that some can
feed while others remain vigilant. In the case of the Thick-bills, they
weren't flocking adequately. What else may have happened, no one knows
because I don't think anyone actually saw them being taken by predators.
Ellen Paul
--
M.L. Leinneweber
ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>They are (were) kept in an enormous enclosure to give them enough space to
>develop good flight skills and musculature. They were "taught" to eat
>pine cones by wild-caught birds whose owners donated them to the program.
Donated willingly? Or had confiscated?
Terri
ellen ivy paul
In article <57sjq1$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
well-informed on these issues, the birds were donated. There has been a
no-questions-asked, no prosecution policy in effect for Thick-billed
Parrots. I'm not sure if it amounts to a formal amnesty, but it
certainly has had that effect. I don't think you should imply that the
government did something wrong here. First of all, the government has a
right and obligation to confiscate illegally-obtained or illegally-owned
birds. Secondly, I don't think that any of these birds were confiscated.
Do you have information that some of them were?
Ellen
--
M.L. Leinneweber
ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>In article <57sjq1$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>M.L. Leinneweber <mte...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>>
>>>They are (were) kept in an enormous enclosure to give them enough space to
>>>develop good flight skills and musculature. They were "taught" to eat
>>>pine cones by wild-caught birds whose owners donated them to the program.
>>
>>Donated willingly? Or had confiscated?
>>
>>Terri
>>
>Terri - as you probably know, being the president of a large bird club
EX PRESIDENT, thank you very much.
>well-informed on these issues, the birds were donated. There has been a
>no-questions-asked, no prosecution policy in effect for Thick-billed
>Parrots.
From my reading of various in local club newsletters, etc., it seems
to me that the amnesty says if you "donate" your parrot you won't be
prosecuted. Donate is not the word I would use to describe this
process. I did not say the government was right or wrong. My quibble
was with the word donation to describe the process.
> I'm not sure if it amounts to a formal amnesty, but it
>certainly has had that effect. I don't think you should imply that the
>government did something wrong here. First of all, the government has a
>right and obligation to confiscate illegally-obtained or illegally-owned
>birds.
One of my issues with this process is that from what I have read, the
bird is presumed illegally owned unless you can prove you legally
obtained it before a certain cutoff date. Now, it is quite possible
that it would take me several days to dig up proof that I purchased my
CAG in 1990.
If I had purchased him in 1980 there is no chance I would still have
the required documentation.
And there were at least 2 reports -- and no I did not keep them -- why
should I? -- in various newsletters about "confiscations" of privately
owned birds whose owners could not prove legality of ownership. It
made me make folders to keep documentation and records on all my
parrots forever (original purchase receipts, vet visit bills, etc.,
etc.). And in a one bedroom apartment shared with 6 parrots, room is
at a premium, so you can be sure that the articles worried me.
> Secondly, I don't think that any of these birds were confiscated.
>Do you have information that some of them were?
A great many were confiscated by Fish and Wildlife from smugglers,
according to an article appearing in The Condor, A Journal of Avian
Biology, volume 96, number 4, November 1994, p. 845, by Noel F.R.
Snyder, Susan E. Keonig, James Koschmann, Helen A. Snyder, Terry B.
Johnson.
Regards,
Terri
Terri Leinneweber
mte...@pipeline.com
Steve Scheid (1-229-2147)
From what I have read about the attempt to reintroduce thick billed parrots
into Southern Arizona, it seems that there was a lack of long term
commitment to the project. It appears that there was a lot of initial
enthusiam and a big rush to produce results. Flight feathers were repaired
instead of waiting for the birds to moult in new feathers; hand raised birds
were given some training with wild caught adults. But after the initial
failures, it appears that it was decided to abandon the efforts rather than
try to work out the problems. If all scientific experiments were abandoned
so quickly, where would mankind be today. I am sure there were funding
problems and the results were disappointing, but was enough time and effort
devoted to this project? The Condor release project has seen equally poor
results, but it has not yet been abandoned. What is most damaging about
this project is that it will be used as proof for arguments that captive
bred parrots cannot and should not be released into the wild.
Steve Scheid
ellen ivy paul
In article <57v5fs$7...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
Steve Scheid (1-229-2147) <s...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>From what I have read about the attempt to reintroduce thick billed parrots
>into Southern Arizona, it seems that there was a lack of long term
>commitment to the project.
I don't know how you define long-term. It went on for several years. The
participants eventually grew "heart-sick" from providing hawks with free
meals.
It appears that there was a lot of initial
>enthusiam and a big rush to produce results. Flight feathers were repaired
>instead of waiting for the birds to moult in new feathers; hand raised birds
>were given some training with wild caught adults.
The problem is that we really don't know how to be adult parrots, much
less teach other adult parrots how to behave.
But after the initial
>failures, it appears that it was decided to abandon the efforts rather than
>try to work out the problems.
Lots of efforts were made to work out the problems.
If all scientific experiments were abandoned
>so quickly, where would mankind be today. I am sure there were funding
>problems and the results were disappointing, but was enough time and effort
>devoted to this project?
I wish it was continuing, but I for one can't think of any solutions for
this particular population of birds.
The Condor release project has seen equally poor
>results, but it has not yet been abandoned.
For a number of reasons - including the fact that it has substantial
support from the federal government, that methods were developed on a
non-endangered, closely-related species, that rearing methods were used to
minimize contact with humans, that the problems encountered by the
released birds were human-caused problems that humans seem to be willing
to correct - i.e., widening the power poles, developing an alternative to
ethylene glycol antifreeze, etc.
What is most damaging about
>this project is that it will be used as proof for arguments that captive
>bred parrots cannot and should not be released into the wild.
>
As of this date, that certainly seems to be the case. It doesn't mean we
should stop trying. But with limited dollars and so much work to be done,
perhaps the time and money are better spent in other ways.
Ellen Paul
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <57tq8t$1...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
M.L. Leinneweber <mte...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>
>>In article <57sjq1$h...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>>M.L. Leinneweber <mte...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They are (were) kept in an enormous enclosure to give them enough space to
>>>>develop good flight skills and musculature. They were "taught" to eat
>>>>pine cones by wild-caught birds whose owners donated them to the program.
>>>
>>>Donated willingly? Or had confiscated?
>>>
>>>Terri
>>>
>>Terri - as you probably know, being the president of a large bird club
>EX PRESIDENT, thank you very much.
Wow - I guess congratulations are in order? I'll bet your birds are happy
- now you have more time for them!
>
>>well-informed on these issues, the birds were donated. There has been a
>>no-questions-asked, no prosecution policy in effect for Thick-billed
>>Parrots.
>From my reading of various in local club newsletters, etc., it seems
>to me that the amnesty says if you "donate" your parrot you won't be
>prosecuted. Donate is not the word I would use to describe this
>process. I did not say the government was right or wrong. My quibble
>was with the word donation to describe the process.
>
I guess this is just a semantic argument. The point is that the gov't
doesn't seem to be actively tracking down folks with Thick-bills. And if
someone does want to donate, they won't be prosecuted (not so with other
illegally-obtained species).
>> I'm not sure if it amounts to a formal amnesty, but it
>>certainly has had that effect. I don't think you should imply that the
>>government did something wrong here. First of all, the government has a
>>right and obligation to confiscate illegally-obtained or illegally-owned
>>birds.
>One of my issues with this process is that from what I have read, the
>bird is presumed illegally owned unless you can prove you legally
>obtained it before a certain cutoff date. Now, it is quite possible
>that it would take me several days to dig up proof that I purchased my
>CAG in 1990.
>
Well, certainly before the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, I suppose - but I
can't recall the date of that Act.
>
>And there were at least 2 reports -- and no I did not keep them -- why
>should I? -- in various newsletters about "confiscations" of privately
The only confiscations I know of are the ones you referred to from the
Condor article - these were not birds seized from people who had
Thick-bills from the U.S. population, but people who had smuggled birds
from Mexico.
>owned birds whose owners could not prove legality of ownership. It
>made me make folders to keep documentation and records on all my
>parrots forever (original purchase receipts, vet visit bills, etc.,
>etc.). And in a one bedroom apartment shared with 6 parrots, room is
>at a premium, so you can be sure that the articles worried me.
>
In New York, closets are rented as one-bedrooms, so you have my sympathy.
>> Secondly, I don't think that any of these birds were confiscated.
>>Do you have information that some of them were?
>A great many were confiscated by Fish and Wildlife from smugglers,
>according to an article appearing in The Condor, A Journal of Avian
>Biology, volume 96, number 4, November 1994, p. 845, by Noel F.R.
>Snyder, Susan E. Keonig, James Koschmann, Helen A. Snyder, Terry B.
>Johnson.
>
I have a one-bedroom with mountains of unpacked boxes, but I dug out this
article in my office - again, the confiscated birds were smuggled Mexican
birds, not birds seized from folks tracked down by the USFWS. The article
doesn't say how many, and I haven't had time to find out.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <580742$r...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>,
ellen ivy paul <ep...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <57v5fs$7...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
>Steve Scheid (1-229-2147) <s...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>>From what I have read about the attempt to reintroduce thick billed parrots
>>into Southern Arizona, it seems that there was a lack of long term
>>commitment to the project.
>
Johnson. 1994. Thick-billed parrot releases in Arizona. The Condor (6:
845-862.
"In the early summer of 1986 a joint meeting of representatives of the
Arizona Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
U.S. Forest Service, and relevant outside parties was convened to consider
a proposal for releases of Thick-billed Parrots in Arizona. A modest
number of wild-caught parrots were available for such releases from
confiscations of smuggled birds. Sam Jojola, a USFWS enforcement agent,
had proposed that it might be worthwhile to attempt introducing these
birds to the wild rather than distributing or selling them to zoos or
aviculturists, as is normally done with confiscated birds."
METHODS
"Between September 1986 and September 1993, 88 Thick-billed Parrots were
released to the wild in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona.
Sixty-five of these birds, obtained mainly as confiscations by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, were believed to be individuals originally
trapped from the wild in Mexico. Of these, four were apparently juveniles
when received, based on gonad size or partial white coloration of their
bills. The other 23 birds released were all captive-bred: 16 had been
parent-reared and seven hand-reared. Primary releases were all 'soft'
releases, which involves preconditioning birds to the local environment
and food supply. These were performed as follows:
(1) Release of 13 wild-caught adults on 20 September 1986
(2) Release of 16 wild-caught adults on 19 October 1986
(3) Release of six hand-reared adults on 16 October 1987
(4) Combined release of eight wild-caught adults and 10 parent-reared
captive-bred birds of various ages on 27 November 1991
(5) Release on 14 December 1992 of 16 wild-caught adults, including four
birds obtained as wild-caught juveniles and four other birds recaptured
from the preceding release.
In addition, 16 wild-caught adults, one hand-reared captive-bred bird, and
six parent-reared captive-bred birds of various ages were introduced
directly into wild flocks in 'hard' releases of one to three birds
conducted from 1987 through 1993. (A hard release involves no
preconditioning)."
The article describes various pre-conditioning methods, including flight
cages, foraging and eating skills, etc. At the time this article was
written, there had been no deliberate attempts to condition the birds to
respond to predators, because the flight cage was outdoors and the
wild-caught conspecifics reacted appropriately to overflights of raptors.
Only one captive-bred bird survived and "apparently owed his survival to
unusual circumstances. This bird, a male, was released with his mate from
captivity, but the pair stayed together only partway into the second day,
and neither bird showed any inclination to associate with the wild flock.
By the end of the second day, the bird destined for survival had moved
from the release canyon to a different canyon system that had a good food
and water supply, and perhaps most importantly, lacked Red-tailed Hawks,
Northern Goshawks, and Peregrine Falcons. Here he remained for three
months. Although wild-caught birds visited this site occasionally during
this period, he failed to join them in an enduring manner. Only at 4
months post-release did he begin associating with a wild-caught singleton,
and left his safe location to travel much more widely in the mountains.
The adoption of a relatively sasfe and limited location during the
first few months was not seen in any other parent-reared, captive-bred
birds, and may have been completely accidental."
"While the single captive-bred bird that did survive release in 1993
demonstrated that such a transition is possible, the expense and labor
needed to establish a viable population from captive-bred stock, based on
current success rates, would be hard to justify, especially when the
potential for translocations of wild-caught birds exists. Aside from the
enormous investments that would be needed to train captive-bred birds
properly, production levels of captive-bred parrots to date have fallen
far short of providing the numbers of birds presumably needed.
We believe that it is reasonable to expect that refinements in techniques
might significantly increase the chances for survival of captive=bred
birds in the wild. For example, our results suggests better success might
be achieved by releasing relatively young birds, and by focusing on
training of young birds in the presence of their parents in extremely
large cage environments. Nevertheless, we question whether we could ever
achieve better survival of captive-bred juveniles than what we have
observed in birds obtained as wild-caught juveniles or with wild-produced
juveniles never taken from the wild. Survival of these latter birds has
been poor in the small samples observed to date, and we questions whether
captive-produced juveniles would make reasonable release candidates under
even the best of pre-release training regimes."
"Additionally, we have been troubled by dangerous and untreatable diseases
in birds coming both from confiscations and and from captive-breeding
institutions. Some of these diseases, for example, parrot wasting disease
(psittacine proventricular dilation syndrome) and Pacheco's disease, are
impossible to detect reliably in carrier individuals, even with extended
quarantine periods (see Derrickson and Snyder, 1992). Releasing birds
that have been potentially exposed to such pathogens poses the inherent
risks of spreading serious diseases from captivity to those birds already
established in the wild and possibly to other native sympatric species.
The endangerement of the desert tortoise in the wild, apparently due to
releases of diseased animals from captivity, is a clear example of the
magnitude of the risks involved. While there is no perfect defense
against such difficulties, the risks are clearly substantial for species
as highly social as the Thick-billed Parrot, particularly when released
birds have been held in proximity to exotic avian species prior to
release."
"Thus, while we see some grounds for optimism about the chances of
reestablishing the Thick-billed Parrot in Arizona, we no longer believe
that it may be cost-effective or even defensible to attempt
reestablishment with captive-bred birds, particularly those originating
from open multi-species institutions."
Additional references:
New World Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology.
Beissinger, S.R., and N.F.R. Snyder, Eds. Smithsonian Institution Press,
1992. Washington, D.C.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
WARNING - Joan - don't read this message. You wouldn't want to let the
facts get in the way of a good rant, now would you? (ever consider
running for Congress - they seem to be allergic to information, too!
Oops - who said that? Can't be me - I love the government and think that
they can't every do anything wrong.)
1. As thrilled as I was to see my name up in the headers, it's getting
old. Can you all please change the subject lines?
2. Teflon. Got the DuPont brochures. They are entirely inadequate (as
someone who is *not* reading this message claimed while flaming me for
applauding DuPont, when it was obvious that I hadn't yet seen the brochure
and wasn't applauding DuPont, but simply correcting the erroneous
statements that DuPont had done nothing to warn people). However, the
warnings are so inadequate as to be pointless. Stuff like this,
"Household fumes can be hazardous to birds because birds are small in size
and have very sensitive respiratory systems. ...Some potentially harmful
household substances include: aerosol sprays, nonstick sprays for coating
cooking utensils, carbon monoxide from car exhaust or furnaces, cigarette
smoke, cooking gas, fumes from self-cleaning ovens, or any material that
emits fumes. If you notice a strange smell or fumes, remove your bird to
an area with good ventilation. Fumes from everyday cooking can be harmful
to your bird -- particularly smoke from buring foods. Overheated cooking
oils, fats, margarine, and butter may create dangerous fumes. Scorched
plastic handles can contaminate the air. Nonstick cookware, with
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating, can also ****emit fumes harmful to
birds***** if cookward is accidentally heated to high temperaturres,
exceeding approximately 500 degrees F - well above the temperatures needed
for frying or baking. In addition, PTFE coated drip pans should be
avoided because even in normal use they can reach extremely high
temperatures and can emit fumes that are hazardous to birds. A simply
rule of thumb is never keep your pet bird in the kitchen."
This was written by Peter S. Sakas, D.V.M. director of the Niles Animal
Hospital in Niles, Illinois and was produced as a courtesy by the DuPont
Company.
As I have written to DuPont, this brochure doesn't tell half the story.
PTFE fumes are not just harmful. They are lethal. So far as I know
(anyone have info to back this up?), these fumes are always lethal to
birds. Rapidly. Keeping the bird out of the kitchen doesn't help.
Bottom line:
Soak the pot. Scrub the pot. Don't take a chance with your birds' lives.
Keep after DuPont and other manufacturers to provide adequate warnings. I
would like to invite the rest of you to write to DuPont and Dr. Sakas -
I'll provide the address for Sakas later.
For DuPont, write to Natalie Sharbaugh, Communications Coordinator, DuPont
No-Stick Surfaces, DuPont Fluoroproducts, Chestnut Run Plaza, P.O. Box
80711, Wilmington, DE 19880-0711.
Come on folks. Time to put up or shut up. You can write to the Consumer
Products Safety Commission and/or DuPont or you can do nothing.
3. As to being sued for libel - consider the McLibel case in England.
Big, bad Mickey D's suing these two little nobody leftist, veggie, green
types for issuing a brochure saying that McD's rapes the earth and gives
you really bad-for-you food. They haven't got a pot to piss in, but they
have been defending this thing in court for months (years?) now. (Sorry,
David - but sometimes the barristers and solicitors in the dear old Mother
country lose their sense of right and wrong - )
4. As for doing first, and asking later - let's use common sense. Some
things are NOT obvious, but other things should be. Would you put
something in your mouth if you didn't know if it could be harmful to you?
Hmmm, don't know if this bleach is harmful, but it sure smells good, so I
think I'll take a swig and see.....If you have kids, or dogs, you freak
every time something goes into the mouth that maybe shouldn't have. So
the same rule should pertain to birds. Don't let ANYTHING go into the
bird's mouth until you know it is safe.
5. The next meeting of the OCPD collusive club will take place on Dec.17,
1996 in the offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where will we
all pick up the confiscated birds of our choice (I have dibs on all the
'toos), plot clever and novel ways to raise suspicion (we won't actually
DO anything wrong - we'll just make it LOOK like we did so that J.Franklin
can fill the pages of On Wings every month), and pick names out of the
phone book at random and then throw those people in jail. Elections will
be held. J. Deis is nominated for President, L. Dicker for toastmaster,
E. Paul for parliamentarian and fact-cop, D.Poole will be running
unopposed for King of the Empire-upon-which-the-shall-never-set.
6. For all of you who are concerned about the destruction and alteration
of habitat, here are some addresses of organizations you might want to
contact/contribute to, if you don't already:
The Nature Conservancy
1815 North Lynn Street
Arlington, VA
The World Parrot Trust
Glanmor House, Hayle
Cornwall TR27 4HY, U.K.
(great t-shirts, prints, and cards in addition to terrific work)
The Wildlife Conservation Society/Bronx Zoo
185th Street and Southern Boulevard
Bronx, New York 10460
The Association for Parrot Conservation
13 East Rosemont Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
Wildlife Preservation Trust International
3400 West Girard Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104-1196
ProVita
Apdo. 47552
Caracas 1041-A
Venezuela
Venezuela Audubon
Apdo. No. 80450
Caracas 1080-A
Venezuela
RARE Center for Tropical Conservation
P.O. Box GM 755
Gablewoods Mall
Castries, St. Lucia
Society for Caribbean Ornithology
2 Starlight Avenue
Kingston 6
Jamaica
If there are specific programs in which you are interested, or would like
to contact organizations in specific countries, please let me know. I
have names of very good, reliable conservation organizations in many
countries.
Ellen
--
Geordie Korper
In article <581d7v$7...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
paul) wrote:
snip
:2. Teflon. Got the DuPont brochures. They are entirely inadequate (as
Since in a another thread I posted that I used to regularly heat teflon to
700F degrees in the same room as my birds this is obviously not true. It is
clear that Dr. Sakas is being conservative with his 500F since a self
cleaning oven is meant to go signifigantly above that temperature and the
teflon in them must last for hundreds of cleaning cycles. If the teflon
were outgassing in signifigant quantities the oven would rapidly become
useless. I also know of birds that are kept within a few feet of stoves
where teflon pans are used daily. I DO refuse to use teflon in my kitchen
and keep my birds far away from the kitchen because of teflon and all the
additional dangers that exist there.
By the way Dr. Sakas is one of the top avian vets in the country. He
provides many hand outs about bird nutrition, diseases, and care which are
superior to 90% of the bird books in my library. Many of his writings are
quoted by other sources one of which is DuPont. When it comes to avain
medicine I would take his writings as being more credible than the
anecdotal evidence of usenet posters. Let me be clear that PTFE does kill
but if whatever is in the pan reaches much lower temperatures it will
produce toxic levels of smoke which will kill your bird long before the
teflon starts to outgas.
:Bottom line:
:Soak the pot. Scrub the pot. Don't take a chance with your birds' lives.
snip
Agreed
--
Geordie Korper geo...@chapman.com
*********************************************************************
* The text above should in no way be construed to represent the *
* opinions of my employer, even if specifically stated to do so. *
*********************************************************************
ellen ivy paul
In article <geordie-ya023180000312961212490001@kyrie>,
Geordie Korper <geo...@chapman.com> wrote:
(in response to)
>In article <581d7v$7...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
>paul) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>:2. Teflon. Got the DuPont brochures. They are entirely inadequate (as
>:someone who is *not* reading this message claimed while flaming me for
>:applauding DuPont, when it was obvious that I hadn't yet seen the brochure
>:and wasn't applauding DuPont, but simply correcting the erroneous
>:statements that DuPont had done nothing to warn people). However, the
(snip)
>:This was written by Peter S. Sakas, D.V.M. director of the Niles Animal
>:Hospital in Niles, Illinois and was produced as a courtesy by the DuPont
>:Company.
>:
>:As I have written to DuPont, this brochure doesn't tell half the story.
>:PTFE fumes are not just harmful. They are lethal. So far as I know
>:(anyone have info to back this up?), these fumes are always lethal to
>:birds. Rapidly. Keeping the bird out of the kitchen doesn't help.
>
>Since in a another thread I posted that I used to regularly heat teflon to
>700F degrees in the same room as my birds this is obviously not true.
I don't remember seeing that post. Would you mind re-posting it if you
can find it? I am curious as to why you would take a chance like this -
did you not know about PTFE outgassing at the time?
It is
>clear that Dr. Sakas is being conservative with his 500F
I really don't know. None of us has found any published, experimental
data, that I can recall. I have continued to try - I have called the
ASPCA National Poison Control Center, checked the Merck Veterinary Manual
(albeit an old version), and I have done some web-searching and a
half-assed search in the chem lit (not my field, so I'm not very fluent).
I haven't found anything.
since a self
>cleaning oven is meant to go signifigantly above that temperature and the
>teflon in them must last for hundreds of cleaning cycles.
We've never even ascertained that the oven involved in the case that
started this thread contained a nonstick, PTFE-containing surface.
If the teflon
>were outgassing in signifigant quantities the oven would rapidly become
>useless.
Alternate plausible explanation - the oven doesn't contain PTFE.
I also know of birds that are kept within a few feet of stoves
>where teflon pans are used daily. I DO refuse to use teflon in my kitchen
>and keep my birds far away from the kitchen because of teflon and all the
>additional dangers that exist there.
>
Like I say, people are lucky that they don't need licenses to own birds,
and that I'm not the one who can issue and revoke the licenses.
>By the way Dr. Sakas is one of the top avian vets in the country.
I have no idea who he is. I said nothing about his qualifications. I
just don't think this language provides adequate warning. If outgassing
Teflon is lethal to birds at some temperature, then the brochure should
state something stronger than "it can be harmful."
He
>provides many hand outs about bird nutrition, diseases, and care which are
>superior to 90% of the bird books in my library. Many of his writings are
>quoted by other sources one of which is DuPont. When it comes to avain
>medicine I would take his writings as being more credible than the
>anecdotal evidence of usenet posters.
No disagreement there. GIGO is the motto of the NG. Dr. Sakas may be the
best avian vet in the world (actually, Rose Ann Fiskett is, but that's
another argument for another day - Rose, please don't go! You won't LIKE
Pennsylvania....) but the language in this brochure just isn't adequate.
It doesn't convey the magnitude of the potential harm.
Let me be clear that PTFE does kill
>but if whatever is in the pan reaches much lower temperatures it will
>produce toxic levels of smoke which will kill your bird long before the
>teflon starts to outgas.
>
>:Bottom line:
>:Soak the pot. Scrub the pot. Don't take a chance with your birds' lives.
>snip
>
>Agreed
>
By the way, why would you need Teflon on an ordinary household lightbulb?
I have never figured this one out. Does it help to dissipate heat or
something?
Ellen
--
M.L. Leinneweber
ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>2. Teflon. Got the DuPont brochures.
>For DuPont, write to Natalie Sharbaugh, Communications Coordinator, DuPont
>No-Stick Surfaces, DuPont Fluoroproducts, Chestnut Run Plaza, P.O. Box
>80711, Wilmington, DE 19880-0711.
>Come on folks. Time to put up or shut up. You can write to the Consumer
>Products Safety Commission and/or DuPont or you can do nothing.
There is a bird club in the mid-west -- Wisconsin, maybe -- that has
been trying to get a campaign activated on this issue for about a
year. If anyone knows which club, maybe you can post the name? And
maybe we could all send them copies of letters we send? I am sure
that a central organization to lead efforts and keep track of what is
being done, would make the efforts more effective.
>6. For all of you who are concerned about the destruction and alteration
>of habitat, here are some addresses of organizations you might want to
>contact/contribute to, if you don't already:
>The Wildlife Conservation Society/Bronx Zoo
>185th Street and Southern Boulevard
>Bronx, New York 10460
Is this the same Bronx Zoo that is part of the St. Vincent's Parrot
breeding effort? The effort that managed to share enough St.
Vincent's parrots among zoo facilities to give most of them
tuberculosis? (Documentation is a Bird Talk article -- do I really
have to go look the issue up again??. which says that many of the
birds in the breeding effort run by the zoological societies were
infected and hearing the guide on a behind the scenes tour at the zoo
tell us the ones at the Bronx Zoo have tuberculosis.
And the same Bronx Zoo that let an aviary get in such bad repair that
it fell apart in a storm and let rare wild seabirds escape all over
the metropolitan area?
I don't think I will give them a donation this year.
Incidentally, to rant less, and pose an issue more, I read somewhere
that the multilevel, naturalistic indoor exhibits run by many zoos are
very dangerous to the inhabitants. They are closed systems, and once
disease gets started it is almost impossible to eradicate. At the
Bronx Zoo for example, there are two of these exhibits. One is a rain
forest with all kinds of birds and mammals and reptiles and one is a
bird exhibit with tree canopy, mid level, and ground level exhibits
that you walk around. The problem seems to be that there are natural
and fake bushes, trees, rocks, etc. If one animal or bird gets sick,
how do you ever clean the environment? In nature, the wind and the
sun and natural processes clean it up, but these things seem to be
disease incubators.
What is the general feeling about this?
Can anyone give a scientific evaluation of the dangers?
Terri
Terri Leinneweber
mte...@pipeline.com
jdei...@aol.com
In article <582n45$m...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
paul) writes:
>>By the way Dr. Sakas is one of the top avian vets in the country.
>
>I have no idea who he is. I said nothing about his qualifications. I
>just don't think this language provides adequate warning. If outgassing
>Teflon is lethal to birds at some temperature, then the brochure should
>state something stronger than "it can be harmful."
>
> He
>>provides many hand outs about bird nutrition, diseases, and care which
are
>>superior to 90% of the bird books in my library. Many of his writings
are
>>quoted by other sources one of which is DuPont. When it comes to avain
>>medicine I would take his writings as being more credible than the
>>anecdotal evidence of usenet posters.
>
>No disagreement there. GIGO is the motto of the NG. Dr. Sakas may be
the
>best avian vet in the world (actually, Rose Ann Fiskett is, but that's
>another argument for another day - Rose, please don't go! You won't
LIKE
>Pennsylvania....) but the language in this brochure just isn't adequate.
>It doesn't convey the magnitude of the potential harm.
>
Hi---
I don't want to make the waters here any murkier, but I will add this bit
of info: Dr. Peter Sakas is the head veterinarian at Niles Animal
Hospital in Niles, IL (a suburb of Chicago). He was a protege of, and
ultimately took over the avian practice of Dr. Richard Lafeber (one of the
country's first avian vets, one of the first to recognize that the
majority of avian health problems he was seeing were related to poor
nutrition, and the founder of Lafeber Products). Dr. Sakas, if I have my
time frame correct, was one of the first, if not *the* first avian
specialist to make a systematic effort to collect case history data and to
publicize the potential fatal effects of overheated Teflon for birds. His
speaking and writing on this subject in the early 80's were instrumental
in making the bird-owning public aware of these hazards. The first
reference I ever read to this problem was a newspaper article in
approximately 1980 with an interview with Sakas. I strongly suspect that
he wrote the DuPont articles with direct reference to the fatal effect on
birds, and that the DuPont Company edited the wording to "soften" the
impact of the potentially negative depiction of their product. However, I
believe Sakas should be given credit for his history of work in
publicizing Teflon hazards for birds and in getting DuPont to even admit
that there was a problem.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
ellen ivy paul
>>
>Hi---
>I don't want to make the waters here any murkier, but I will add this bit
>of info: Dr. Peter Sakas is the head veterinarian at Niles Animal
>Hospital in Niles, IL (a suburb of Chicago). He was a protege of, and
>ultimately took over the avian practice of Dr. Richard Lafeber (one of the
>country's first avian vets, one of the first to recognize that the
>majority of avian health problems he was seeing were related to poor
>nutrition, and the founder of Lafeber Products). Dr. Sakas, if I have my
>time frame correct, was one of the first, if not *the* first avian
>specialist to make a systematic effort to collect case history data and to
>publicize the potential fatal effects of overheated Teflon for birds. His
>speaking and writing on this subject in the early 80's were instrumental
>in making the bird-owning public aware of these hazards. The first
>reference I ever read to this problem was a newspaper article in
>approximately 1980 with an interview with Sakas. I strongly suspect that
>he wrote the DuPont articles with direct reference to the fatal effect on
>birds, and that the DuPont Company edited the wording to "soften" the
>impact of the potentially negative depiction of their product. However, I
>believe Sakas should be given credit for his history of work in
>publicizing Teflon hazards for birds and in getting DuPont to even admit
>that there was a problem.
>
>Sincerely,
>Jessica Deis
>
>
Hi, Jessica - I have no doubts about Dr. Sakas' qualifications and you are
probably right about DuPont putting a spin on it. I have copied my letter
to Dr. Sakas, so maybe he can help persuade them to make it stronger. I
also sent some info from Harrison and Harrison.
I have a list of a few more papers to read, but haven't the time right
now. What I still haven't been able to nail down are these issue:
1. Have there been any controlled trials to establish length of exposure
that leads to symptoms? to death?
2. How far does this stuff diffuse? How fast? And exactly what is the
gas? If PTFE is the fluorocarbon that constitutes the coating, what
happens when it overheats (in chemical terms)? It is apparently a polymer
consisting of four fluorines and an ethylene group but I have no idea how
it dissociates when heated.
3. What is the biochemical reaction? Is it unique to birds, or is it just
a question of their size and fast metabolic rates?
4. Are the effects reversible? What is the treatment?
5. What is the "magic number" ie, the temp at which is outgasses?
6. I have read two articles that report that some birds have survived, but
what are the long-term effects?
I have some other questions - perhaps Dr. Sakas or other avian vets can
give us a hand here.
Do you know him personally? Perhaps you could give him a call....
Ellen
--
Geordie Korper
In article <582n45$m...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
paul) wrote:
:I don't remember seeing that post. Would you mind re-posting it if you
:can find it? I am curious as to why you would take a chance like this -
:did you not know about PTFE outgassing at the time?
Actually since Dr. Sakas is my vet I was aware of the problem. I just did
not realize that there was teflon in the tool I was using. Actually given
how long the teflon lasted I probably would not be concerned even now. If
the fumes were the most toxic thing on earth the amount involved would
probably still not be lethal. I do need to add that the room was quite
large and that the birds cages were on a second floor balcony on the other
side of the room from where I worked. The following post was a response to
a query about silversmithing and whether the poster should be afraid that
the fumes would be dangerous in the concentrations that might reach a room
far from the birds.
I used to do alot of soldering in my one room computer store which I shared
with a grey, an amazon, a cackatoo, a conure, and several cackatiels. In
fact the one with chronic breathing problems has been worse since I stopped
soldering around them. (Obviously ceasing soldering is not the cause of him
having greater problems. I should also note that like all my birds he was
either chronically ill or abused when I received him. And as yet another
aside the current hypothesis is that it is primarily allergy related but
having had him at Dr. Sakas office for a considerable time without much
improvement all I can do at this point is try to keep him as well as possible.
So far it has been 4 or 5 years and he is still with us.
In regards to my sinful soldering I even used my teflon tipped desoldering
iron around my birds for years. Since I use a temperature controlled
soldering iron I know that the tip of the soldering iron was within 10
degrees of 700 degrees. The teflon tip of the desolder tool would last for
desoldering several thousand electronic connectors before the tip would be
too misshappen to be effective. Although I would never reccomend doing what
I was doing, It seems very unlikely that your bird would be harmed by the
microscopic levels of gaseous material from a far away room.
I also want to say that in my list of places where you will find teflon in
your home I forgot to mention all the places in your computer where you
will find teflon: hard disk, floppy disks, CPU heatsink, and as was already
mentioned many of the lubricants as well as the cables.
Get rid of the non-stick pans but don't panic. And don't solder with the
bird in the room.
: since a self
:>cleaning oven is meant to go signifigantly above that temperature and the
:>teflon in them must last for hundreds of cleaning cycles.
:
:We've never even ascertained that the oven involved in the case that
:started this thread contained a nonstick, PTFE-containing surface.
:
:
: If the teflon
:>were outgassing in signifigant quantities the oven would rapidly become
:>useless.
:
:Alternate plausible explanation - the oven doesn't contain PTFE.
I am willing to accept that but then the warning about self cleaning ovens
is not needed. My point was that if SCOs contain teflon, and teflon
outgasses in any signifigant amount at half the temperature that the self
cleaning feature works at, the oven would rapidly become unusable. Given
this, either the ovens do not contain teflon, or they do not have
signifigant amouts of outgassing. Either would make it safe. On the other
hand some other fool than I can test this with their birds.
: I also know of birds that are kept within a few feet of stoves
:>where teflon pans are used daily. I DO refuse to use teflon in my kitchen
:>and keep my birds far away from the kitchen because of teflon and all the
:>additional dangers that exist there.
:>
:Like I say, people are lucky that they don't need licenses to own birds,
:and that I'm not the one who can issue and revoke the licenses.
I would agree with this if one of the ones I was thinking of was not one of
the happiest most spoiled birds I know of. What I am more worried about is
that I cannot convince them that the little bit of chocalate chip cookie
they feed to him is dangerous ("but he likes it so much") or that feeding
him from their mouth is bad. Oh well you can lead a bird to pellets but you
can't make 'em eat one ;)
:..lots of great stuff that I removed for readability...
Ellis Kim
: In article <582n45$m...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
: paul) writes:
: >best avian vet in the world (actually, Rose Ann Fiskett is, but that's
: >another argument for another day - Rose, please don't go! You won't
: LIKE
: >Pennsylvania....) but the language in this brochure just isn't adequate.
uh... do i read this correctly? is Dr. Fiskett leaving the Washington DC
area? when?
--
-- Ellis Kim
k...@abyss.nrl.navy.mil