Hybrid Macaws
Christina
What are all of the disappointment and remarks that I have heard, about
owning a hybrid macaw? Do they require that much more special care? I am
about to purchase a hybrid from a scarlet and a military. The breeder
calls it a shamrock, others call it harlequin, which is correct?
kerf...@vsdec.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
The hybrid macaws have been bred for quite a while. The usual one is a
cross between a scarlet and a blue-and-gold, since it has a bright orange
chest. All the other hybrids I have seen are rather ugly looking, and
seem to be motivated by people hoping in vain to find something that will
catch on like the scarletXblue-and-gold. I saw a cross between a military
and a blue-and-gold at the vet yesterday, and it was just a washed out,
ugly color. Hybrids were a big fad around 1975 or so, but they have
fallen into serious disrepute since then. The birds are basically
healthy, and no more problematic to keep as a pet than a pure bred
specimen. The objection to hybrids is primarily aesthetic.
The hybrid macaws are mongrels; the sort of dog you give away for free,
but bird breeders actually presume to charge good money for them. If the
mongrels are bred in quantity beyond the first generation, many 1/8
impure specimens and the like will be passed off as pure bred and used
for breeding "pure" birds. The entire bloodlines will be contaminated,
and future generations will be unable to obtain a faithful replica of the
wild birds. This problem could be largely taken care of by establishing a
pedigree system for birds, and there are limited efforts under way to do
so. However, until it is firmly in place, the mongrels are a serious
risk. After a pedigree system is in place, the hybrids will not be as big
a threat, but they will still be rather tacky (as are color mutations).
Ian Kerfoot
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Byrdy 1
If mother nature didn't see fit to create any more subspecies of Macaws
than sshe/he/it did - then who the heck are we to create 'designer birds'?
To improve upon Perfection? I don't think so, Tim!
Why even consider perpetuating the cross breeding of these grand birds =
$$$$!
Buy a pure bred, quality Macaw. DonH
Amy Young-Leith
In article <33B429...@prodigy.net>,
Christina <DONTMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>What are all of the disappointment and remarks that I have heard, about
>owning a hybrid macaw? Do they require that much more special care? I am
>about to purchase a hybrid from a scarlet and a military. The breeder
>calls it a shamrock, others call it harlequin, which is correct?
Most of the disparaging remarks on this newsgroup in relation to hybrids
are directed not at the birds (which are innocent) but the breeders.
Some people feel that hybridizing birds is not ethical in that it
alters/changes/dillutes the natural blood lines. Then again so does taking
the birds out of the wild and having humans pick mates and match them up,
but to a lesser degree.
Some people feel that everything possible should be done to discourage
this practice, including the refusal to purchase a bird which is a hybrid,
because this simply provides the ultimate in reinforcement for the
breeders, who are usually jacking up prices due to the "unique" nature of
the birds. Their care is little different from whatever parents they come
from.
Despite what some people claim, hybridization is a common occurence in the
wild given the proper circumstances (such as removal of geographical
barriers that caused the speciation event in the first place). But, there
are many forces of nature involed in this process, and we cannot even
begin to imagine most of them... so who knows the health and resilience of
the animals that we might produce simply because they are pretty?
amy
--
amy young-leith http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~alyoung
aly...@pobox.com *Speaking only for myself*
Computer Geek, Department of Psychology 855.5542
Roger P Williams
Christina <DONTMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: What are all of the disappointment and remarks that I have heard, about
: owning a hybrid macaw? Do they require that much more special care? I am
: about to purchase a hybrid from a scarlet and a military. The breeder
: calls it a shamrock, others call it harlequin, which is correct?
Quite frankly, there is a huge prejudice against hybridization. Bad
remarks made about hybrid birds reflect this prejudice.
There is one good reason for this prejudice; if one succeeds in breeding a
bird whose wild population is fast declining, the argument goes, one
should breed that bird true so that more members of the true species will
be created.
However, my own feeling is that if the only potential mate for your bird
is a different but related species, or if your bird imprints or otherwise
insists on a mate of the "wrong" species, it is better to let the birds
mate and create hybrid young than remain sterile. Just my own opinion,
but especially when the young will make acceptable pets, potentially
relieving pressure on wild populations.
AFAIK hybrids should have characteristics, including personality, similar
to their parent species. If you like scarlet and military macaws, you
will probably be pleased with the hybrid.
Speciation in birds is much more poorly understood than is commonly
realized. There is a lot of politics involved with the concept of a
"species." One good example which was the focus of a loud argument here
recently, is the Fish Crow. My own partner says the "field mark" for
identifying the Fish Crow as opposed to the Common Crow is that the Fish
Crow is found around water. In other words, a crow that eats fish is a
Fish Crow, and a crow that doesn't is a Common.
Birds have many small chromosomes, and apparently hybridize more easily
(and are more likely to produce fertile hybrids) than mammals. There are
many cases of "speciation" which would almost certainly be considered
races of the same species if they were not birds. The usual definition of
a species, e.g. ability to sire fertile young, does not quite apply to
birds. There are a lot of factors involved.
Oddly, one of the most important factors in recognizing two species as
being races of the same species is resistance from birdwatchers, who have
to scratch a tally from their "life lists."
My own feeling is that your hybrid should be every bit as good of a pet
as either of its parent species might be.
--Roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystna 72
hello -
What you are purchasing is a Shamrock.
Hybrids are a matter of personal taste, I personally LOVE the Catalinas
(b/g and Scarlet). But many breeders feel you take away from the original
species by creating an oddity. They need no more special care than a
regular one.
If you like it - buy it !!!!!
LDOAV8R
A shamrock is a green-wing/military cross - I believe the scarlet/military
cross is called a harlequin. (Or maybe that's a scarlet/blue&gold?) I have
a shamrock, and I absolutely adore her. The disparaging remarks come from
people who think their way of thinking is the only way. (Like some
evangelical religions:) Before I ruffle a raft of feathers, I have to say
that I certainly don't like the idea of scarlet macaws being crossed with
other breeds when scarlets are endangered in the wild. I don't think that
I would ever breed hybrid macaws, myself, but, I am only one person.. I got
my bird at four years old, when I didn't know much about birds. She's
gorgeous and sweet and smart, and she's taught me a lot about the
commitment that pets like her require. (I have five other birds, as well)
Scarlets are a real challenge, by the way, and militaries can be, too -
stock up on behavior books! MY PARROT, MY FRIEND by Doane/Qualkinbush
and GUIDE TO THE WELL-BEHAVED PARROT by Mattie Sue Athan are my favorite
two books. Hybrids don't require any care above and beyond the
considerable care that any large intelligent bird requires. (Some even say
that hybrids are hardier and more resistant to disease, much the way mutt
dogs are.) If you are informed, and know how much work a bird like this
will be, you can make an intelligent decision about whether or not you are
prepared to make a lifetime commitment to this bird. If you love the bird
and are ready to give it the best life possible, then, try not to hear the
nay-sayers. If you are not ready to do that, then pass it up, because when
your initial interest fades and the bird develops behavior problems, you'll
likely send that bird into a future of home-to-home transfers. I wish you
luck. I'm sorry to hear that someone is breeding scarlet hybrids, but, the
babies of such a program deserve love and a good home as much as any
pure-bred bird.
Christina <DONTMI...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<33B429...@prodigy.net>...
Byrdy 1
Your assumption that macaws hybridize in the wild is without merit. After
having access to the quarentine stations in the LA area ,until they
closed, I wasn't shown any natural occuring hybrids. And IF just once in a
lifetime it did occure in some remote forest basin, what right does that
give the person who has taken on the responsibility of good animal
husbandry to basterdize a species? I heard Joanne Abramson, Raintree
Macaws - breeder and publisher, speak and she was very adamant about the
species keeping to their own kind, appearantly she's been there, done
that. And raises most of the species of large macaw. In all the pictures
that have come out of the Mano Reserve there are no hybrids shown. I think
if the birds were to hybridize in the wild it would go through the flocks
as quickly as a virus - it would have shown itself and there probably
wouldn't be any distinguishable subspecies at this time. Obviously there
are, and will continue to be pure bred macaws in the states - and in the
wild. People that hybridize are either too lazy or too greedy to pair
their birds up correctly. And to go on the idea that 'they fell in love'
is crap - if you were to be thrown into a cage (cell) with someone who
spoke another language, for life, don't you think you'd learn to get what
you needed? There are NO More new bloodlines coming into the U.S., and I
feel that anyone who would deliberatly continue to degrade the 'gene pool'
of these great birds is indeed Foolish. No ifs, ands, or maybes'. And I
have been raising macaws a good long time. My favorite are my greenwings,
7 babies this season. All Greenwing! no mutts. just my $.02 worth. DonH
Cherane
Very interesting thread..
>The hybrid macaws are mongrels; the sort of dog you give away for free,
>but bird breeders actually presume to charge good money for them. If the
>mongrels are bred in quantity beyond the first generation, many 1/8
>impure specimens and the like will be passed off as pure bred and used
>for breeding "pure" birds. The entire bloodlines will be contaminated,
One of the greatest heartaches I've had has been in regard to Hybrids,
treatment by this group and now we (rec.pets.birds) has a name for these
little lives. (just as bad if not worse is the word "bappies")
I have a problem with the name you have given the hybrid/Macaw, Ivan.
When the Rainforest is gone, who cares what color the little feather
treasure is which is in your arms?
I saw the most beautiful Hyacinth/Buffon in Febuary , a green Hyacinthine.
I could love that bird as any bird I have here in my home.
I do have a couple of friends who breed Hybrids with one of the Macaws
being totally yellow, loveable, smart and very desired amoung most and
they do go for a pretty dollar (about $4,000 a piece).
I will not practice this procedure for all my birds are very special to me
the way I have recieved them and when I did find out I had a sub speicies
of the same speicies I changed mates. MYself, I wish I had not done that
for they were very much in love, play together, loved together and ate
together. Now, nothing she sits in one cornor and he the other for the
last four years.
I find a problem with your speeell. for you are not either a bird owner
till the last month or so....or breeeder ....or vet .....or anything else
to me to have post the infromation as you did . You thread is as what I
have read here before other then now, the hybrids have an ugly name
bestowed on them by you.
Cherane Pefley, CAS
I have a problem with a feather treasure of any kind being refered to as a
Mongr
LDOAV8R
I agree. I would prefer that breeders not be creating hybrids, but, the
dollar drives the machine. Once they're here, they deserve respect, love
and care just like any other creature we have domesticated. I love my
'Shamrock' no less than a pure-bred.
Cherane <che...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970629125...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Very interesting thread..
>
> >The hybrid macaws are mongrels; the sort of dog you give away for free,
Layne David Dicker
Good post, Byrdy. Here's more.
Facts about hybrids:
1. No South American parrot hybridizes naturally.
2. Hybrids are not mutts or mongrels. A terrier mutt, a Doberman and a
Poodle are all the same species. The better parallel is that a "mutt" is
like the offspring of a Lutino and a Cinnamon cockatiel. A hybrid is like
the offspring of a human and a chimp.
3. A hybrid can not be "undone". He.she will never produce pure offspring,
not will his/her offspring, nor their offspring, etc.
4. We are losing an acre of rainforest every second.
5. The bloodlines we have in this country are likely to be all we get.
6. A large number of "pet" parrots wind up as breeders when they become
difficult to control.
7. Hybrid macaws have a higher degree of aggression, and not because of
genetics, but because they tend to be raised by uncaring breeders and
bought by less educated owners.
8. There is no benefit to hybridization excepting financial.
9. All birds, irrespective of lineage, deserve perfect lives. For hybrids,
however, this should not include breeding.
10. Someone, please, tell me one way that a hybrid bird is more desirable
than a pure Bule and Gold, Hyacinth, Double yellow head, Sun, or whatever.
Please.
> (just as bad if not worse is the word "bappies")
That's a cheap shot.
> When the Rainforest is gone, who cares what color the little feather
> treasure is which is in your arms?
Just the point. IF the rainforest disappears, you want to know EXACTLY
what color the bird is. We will then be the sole keepers and preservers of
many magnificent species and if we don't start getting our ducks (or
parrots) in a row NOW we won't know what we have and what we don't have
when we need to.
>
> I saw the most beautiful Hyacinth/Buffon in Febuary , a green Hyacinthine.
> I could love that bird as any bird I have here in my home.
> I do have a couple of friends who breed Hybrids with one of the Macaws
> being totally yellow, loveable, smart and very desired amoung most and
> they do go for a pretty dollar (about $4,000 a piece).
This is everything that is wrong with hybridization. These people should
be in jail. What gives them the right, the gall and the unmittigated ego
to think that they have the right to take not one, but two highly
threatened species and hybridize them. Oh! That's why....a pretty dollar.
Idiots. Idiotic reasoning. Selfish, greedy people.
Layne
--
Layne Dicker
Staff Avian Behaviorist
Wilshire Animal Hospital, Santa Monica, CA
Shirley/Rick
In article <01bc842e$fd4bda20$8edf2581@newmicronpc>, "LDOAV8R"
<LDO...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> A shamrock is a green-wing/military cross - I believe the scarlet/military
> cross is called a harlequin. (Or maybe that's a scarlet/blue&gold?)
Greenwing/B&G is a Harlequin. Scarlet/Greenwing is a Ruby. Scarlet/B&G is
a Catalina.
Byrdy 1
Since we are now an 'island nation' in regards to the importation of new
parrots into the US - other countries are benefiting through our loss, the
mono-dactylic egotistical governmental idea that closing the 'states'
would save the species, blah blah...
Anyway, the idea that the hybred birds have the right to a happy and
'normal' life was mentioned, well if there were a way to keep these birds
to their own kind, yes it's segregation, and Only breed them for the pet
trades, well then maybe in a few generations they could be considered 'pet
species' or something, but Something has to be done to preserve the
natural species that are part of this earth. It's an immediate
responsibility.
And as far as the 'bappy' usage - I guess those that use it must read
PBR. I think Pheobe L. started it -I thought it was a typo. The Lindens
are good aviculturists and she can use any term she wants, imho. DonH
Cherane
As far as my making a statement about the word "bappies" for baby exotic
birds and the remark made this was a "cheap shot".
I'll tell all what my opinion is:
I breed the large Pure Hyacinthine Macaws, Large 100% Sub species Scarlet
Macaws, Queens , I have the Military Macaws, the Red Fronted Macaws with
Babies from most of my feather treasures. Plus, I have more but only to
name those that are on the endangered list.
I do this right by the birds, buyers, store owners, and myself.
I take care of every need for my endangered birds as well, the rest of my
feather giants. I have some here with me for seven to eight years just
starting to breed.
I have stayed up through the nights with hourly feedings, vet bills to
have a heart attack over when I started my collection, the best diet to
the tune of a lot of money for all my birds.
Now, to sit here and make out that I have given a cheap shot is an
overkill....as far as I'm concerned for ANYBODY to call my babies or as a
matter of a fact any baby exotic bird "bappies" is a long hard cheap shot
at any Aviculturist. My point being "bappies" being so very close to
Puppies . So thus, we have a beginner with birds learning puppy talk or
dog talk and applying the doggy descriptions with birds. As stated in
past post by authors, now we have mutts and mongrils , to me they are all
the same flavor. Sour!
Byrdy 1
As I said before - the only 'reason' to do this is for profit, pure and
simple. To go beyond the laws of natural selection and be so egotistical
to 'attempt' to justify it is a joke. The only other possible reason to be
involved in this abomination is laziness, and then again that can justify
the greed. "well, I have a greenwing male and he fell in love with our
military hen and what do you know, we have these babies".... is a line of
crap! If anyone can afford to keep and maintain macaws, they can afford to
keep them as nature intended. They may be too lazy or greedy to sell or
trade their birds, for the benefit of the birds, but their not too lazy to
try to justify and sell hybrid babies???. it's BS. Designer clothes,
jewelery,interiors, and Macaws. If it wasn't so permanent and sad it would
be funny! All the greedy people may now reply. DonH
Ophelia
i read shamrock iis a scarlet/greenwing cross.
~<@>~ophelia~<@>~
-------------------
~<@>~ oph...@asarian.org ~ anon-...@anon.twwells.com~<@>~
Blandp1
In article <ldicker-2906...@ppp-7.ts-4.lax.idt.net>,
ldi...@mail.idt.net (Layne David Dicker) writes:
>1. No South American parrot hybridizes naturally.
This is demonstrably wrong. The last wild Spix Macaw has choosen a mate
in the wild - an Illigers Macaw. So clearly, under a specific set of
circumstances such as population isolation, a wild Macaw will naturally
hybridize. Although the cause for this particular isolation is due to
humans, many natural events cause populations to become isolated . It
would seem that in such a situation which can and does occur naturally, a
Spix Macaw will choose to hybridize; hence natural hybridization in wild
Macaws is a proven fact from this example.
Additionally many bird species are known to hybridize naturally, a well
studied example would be Darwins Finches in the Galapagos Islands. This
research has been carried out for several decades and it is hypothesised
that one of the ways in which speciation occurs is through hybridization.
The aurgument that hybridization is not "natural" is demonstrably wrong by
such counter examples.
>7. Hybrid macaws have a higher degree of aggression, and not because of
>genetics, but because they tend to be raised by uncaring breeders and
>bought by less educated owners.
An unfounded accusation. To label a higher proportion of hybrid breeders
and owners as "uncaring" is outrageous. If I owned a hybrid I would be
boiling angery at such a statement.
>8. There is no benefit to hybridization excepting financial.
What, exactly, is wrong with a financial motivation? Sould breeders not
be expected to earn a fair profit?
>10. Someone, please, tell me one way that a hybrid bird is more desirable
>than a pure Bule and Gold, Hyacinth, Double yellow head, Sun, or
whatever.
>Please.
They come in pretty colour combinations that aren't available in
purebreds. Many people choose their parrots partly based on how they
look, a darker or light shade of grey in CAGs, more or less yellow in DYH,
etc. Is it wrong to consider colour? Certainly not! Should colour be of
primary concern? Certainly not!
Other factors such as species, temperment, the indivdual bird, price, the
breeder all come into play and are more important than colour. But there
is nothing wrong with buying a Catalina because in addition to the other
factors mentioned, you like how it looks.
>Just the point. IF the rainforest disappears, you want to know EXACTLY
>what color the bird is. We will then be the sole keepers and preservers
of
>many magnificent species and if we don't start getting our ducks (or
>parrots) in a row NOW we won't know what we have and what we don't have
>when we need to.
There is nothing that guaranties the "purebred" birds we breed will be
suited to re-populate native habitate should that become necessary. We
are selecting the birds for traits that we value in any captive breeding
program and these traits may be just the wrong ones to ensure survival in
the wild. A hypothetical example: the ability to breed in captivity might
mean breeding bids that are calm and will tolerate interference with their
nesting area and lots of activity around the nest box.
In the wild, this trait might be selected against due to predatory
activity; i.e. those birds whicht readily abandon their nest cavity and
try breeding in a different one after little disturbance have a greater
breeding success than those birds that persevere through disturbance.
With each succeeding generation we get calmer and calmer birds that are
less and less likely to survive in the wild, all without the "evil" of
hybridization.
Even if we aren't selector for or against a given trait, genetic drift in
any population can cause change in the frequency of any trait in that
population. With out the "test" of a trait in the wild, the trait may or
may not be beneficial a beneficial one and in any case the captive
population will slowly become different what it was.
In short a species is not a static thing, it is a dynamic process. To
claim that hybridization is "wrong" because it corrupts a species is does
not recognizing this. A captive (isolated) population will diverge from
the parent wild population with or without hybridization due to trait
selection by the breeders and genetic drift. To condem hybridization as
corruption one implicitly condems all captive breeding as both will lead
to a divergent population from the wild parent population.
Look what happen to the English Budgie or all the Cockatiel color
mutations, they are certainly different animals from the wild parent
population, I don't hear anyone condeming those practices yet they lead to
the same result as hybridization; a captive population that is different
from the wild parent population.
BTW: This is just about the only venue in which I have a significant
disagreement with Layne, most of his other opinions I agree with and would
almost always defer to his judgment on behavioral issues. Plus I enjoy
his articles in the PBR. Looking over my writing it seems a bit harsh
which I don't intend it to be. I just have a sorta shitty writing style
that comes across as more confrontational than I intend, my intention is
to have a good look at the issues of hybridization and hopefully
understand if my position is the correct one. The input from an
evolutionary biologist would be very helpful in understanding the issues
of speciation and hybridization in wild populations if any are reading
this thread.
-Philip J. Blanda III
PGP Public key available
LDOAV8R
Did I mention evangelicals? C'mon, I don't condone hybridization - but, I
love my sweet little mutt the way I'd love a Hyacinthine (or one of my
children?) My point is that once they're here, the mutts deserve love and a
good life as much as any other domesticated creature. You're not going to
change the fact that money drives our society, and when people can make
money off these birds...........Sad fact of life. I am one of those who
takes in the 'unwanteds', by the way, when they're too much trouble for the
people who thought they knew what they were getting themselves into. There
are far too many birds being bred in this country, period. Rather than rail
against the breeder (who, let's face it, ISN'T going to change, and so we
are spitting into the wind) we need to be educating people as to the time
and money and energy that these exotic little status symbols require, so
that there are far fewer impulse purchases of birds made, and far fewer
birds ending up in inadequate circumstances. Thanks for the info on the
names, though 'Pathetics' seems to me too judgmental for my taste.
Elizabeth
> : Greenwing/B&G is a Harlequin. Scarlet/Greenwing is a Ruby. Scarlet/B&G
is
> : a Catalina.
>
> And they're all Pathetics. What *possible* benefit is there to hybridize
> these birds?
J. A. Schultze
> Despite what some people claim, hybridization is a common occurence in
the
> wild given the proper circumstances (such as removal of geographical
> barriers that caused the speciation event in the first place). But, there
> are many forces of nature involed in this process, and we cannot even
> begin to imagine most of them... so who knows the health and resilience
of
> the animals that we might produce simply because they are pretty?
Where did you get this info? I know of zero documented cases of
hybridization occuring in the wild. Are there some? And if so, what are
they?
The problem with hybrids is not the birds themselves, but the breeders.
The birds have done nothing wrong. I have been very opposed to
hybridization since I became interested in aviculture and have been
referred to by many as a "bird racist". I am not. I don't have a problem
with breeding between mutations. For example, this means crossing a normal
grey cockatiel with a lutino one or something along those lines. The thing
is, all cockatiels are of the same species, as are all dogs and all house
cats. A scarlet macaw is not of the same species as a blue and gold, so
why would someone want to cross them? Would you marry a chimpanzee? It's
the same thing.
In addition to that, often times hybrids look entirely like one of the
species and nothing like the other (especially when they get to be 7/8 of
something and 1/8 of something else). They often end up getting sold to
people and are continually bred with birds of the species they look like.
Then the species in polluted. What happens when the only parrots left are
captive bred and none of them are pure?
I discourage anyone thinking of purchasing a hybrid from doing so, as that
is the only way to try to stop this practice from happening. Any reputable
breeder wouldn't create a hybrid, anyway.
Pythoness
In article <19970630171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, byr...@aol.com
(Byrdy 1) wrote:
> As I said before - the only 'reason' to do this is for profit, pure and
> simple. To go beyond the laws of natural selection and be so egotistical
> to 'attempt' to justify it is a joke.
Um, I don't want to get involved in the argument per se, and I am, at
least generally speaking, against hybridization--but I was moved to remark
that *by keeping any other species captive, and especially by breeding for
color or character traits, regardless of hybridization, we ARE going
beyond "the laws of natural selection." And what are them laws really,
anyway? ;-)
> If anyone can afford to keep and maintain macaws, they can afford to
> keep them as nature intended.
Do you really think nature intended anyone to keep macaws?
I'm not trying to flame anyone or anything--I'm against hybridization, and
not against keeping birds as pets, but I think this argument needs to be
rethought.
zg
To email me, remove antispam from my address
zi...@teleport.com
Zi...@aol.com
Ziggy Blum
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
He who has rejected his demons badgers us to death with his angels.
Henri Michaux
Byrdy 1
Why is it fine for someone to 'speak generally' on only the rebutal side?
to read into these posts as gospel, is either making or taking it so,
without the complete interaction of the parties (face to face, but here,
usually unknown). My reference to 'as nature intended' was to keeping the
same type (ssp) together to maintain genetically correct animals. An to
the reply about the Spixx and the Lears -it's not the survival of the
species in that instance - it's the survival of individuals. And 1 obscure
observation (as the Spixx) is not proof of natural hybridizations in the
wild. And if someone were to do this ( spixx) in a captive situation, they
should be jailed. Also there is a great difference between hybrids and
mutations, I am not Webster so you'll have to look it up. DonH
RReming327
In article <19970701002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bla...@aol.com (Blandp1) writes:
>my intention is
>to have a good look at the issues of hybridization and hopefully
>understand if my position is the correct one.
Your position is justified if not correct. Hybridization occurs in the
wild in nearly all species as an adaptive mechanism. If a species can
hybridize it eventually will if the conditions are favorable. Not being a
biologist, I will have to defer to credentialed studies in birds
specifically.
To the issue of captive hybridization you make the astute point that
captivity is *not* an intent of evolution, thus there can be no
hybridization or non-hybridization in captivity that is "as nature
intended."
Once animals have become a commodity, that is, have been assigned an
economic unit value, are bred, marketed, and sold to consumers, they have
been stripped of any place in the "natural" order. Breeders will produce
animals that the market demands. As long as bird owners want "purebred"
birds, breeders will insure they have a ready supply. If consumers start
to ask for variety in color, size, etc., breeders will hybridize
accordingly. Elementary economics show that demand is market driven, not
production driven. Whether it is cars, condos, or cockatoos, the market
creates demand and demand dictates to the supplier what they need to sell
to satisfy demand. Hybridization by some breeders might be an attempt to
create a demand for a unique color or form. This has been done with tulips
and teacup poodles. There is no reason not to expect breeders to do it
with parrots.
Another good point you make is that breeders are in the business to make
money, not go broke. However much they may love and care for their birds
they must adhere to the laws of economics. Breeders may discourage
hybridization and even refuse to sell to those who want to breed hybrids,
but once the bird owning public starts to demand more and more unique and
colorful hybrids, breeders must either follow the market trend, or go
broke. Breeders do not dictate the market. They follow the laws of supply
and demand like every other business.
Economic pressures take no heed of biological, evolutionary or habitat
requirements. Thus we have less and less rainforest, fewer and fewer
species, more and more intrusion of market forces/development affecting
populations of exotic animals. Few captive bred animals can ever be
released or considered for repopulating depleted habitats because animals
bred for the pet trade are selected for people friendly traits, not
survival traits. Animals bred for later release in the wild must be reared
under a strict scientific and behavioral protocol which usually requires
isolation from human beings. Breeders and owners are kidding themselves if
they think breeding/buying exotic animals for the pet trade is helping to
preserve a species.
Human beings have a long tradition of breeding captive animals to produce
a certain aesthetic. Attend any cat or dog show and you can see the
extremes to which owners and breeders are willing to employ the genetic
code to produce a unique form. I fully expect parrots to follow this
precedent, so to oppose hybridization as "not natural" is to ignore human
behavior in this regard. Questions of right and wrong in this matter are
purely subjective. History shows if man can do it, he eventually will.
RRemington
___________________________________________________
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Men willingly believe what they wish. --Julius Caesar
Richard Murray
In article <01bc85dd$0dcaea80$LocalHost@smainc>, "J. A. Schultze" <asch...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Despite what some people claim, hybridization is a common occurence in
>the
>> wild given the proper circumstances (such as removal of geographical
>> barriers that caused the speciation event in the first place). But, there
>> are many forces of nature involed in this process,
>Where did you get this info? I know of zero documented cases of
>hybridization occuring in the wild. Are there some? And if so, what are
>they?
What is it that constitutes hybridization?
Is it a cross between species or could it be a cross of sub-species?
I ask because the area I live is home to several species of wild parrots
Sulfur Crested Cockatoos
Black Cockatoos
Galahs
King Parrots
Pale Headed Rosellas
Crimson Rosellas
Rainbow Lorikeets
All of which visit my fedders.
I have seen on more than one occasion what looks like a cross between a Pale
Headed and a Crimson rosella
i.e. Crimson rosella's body with a Pale Headed rosella's head. Would this be
considered a wild hybrid or is it common for sub-species to cross like this?
Cherane
>>>Richard says:
What is it that constitutes hybridization?
Is it a cross between species or could it be a cross of sub-species?
I ask because the area I live is home to several species of wild parrots
Sulfur Crested Cockatoos
Black Cockatoos
Galahs
King Parrots
Pale Headed Rosellas
Crimson Rosellas
All of which visit my fedders.
I have seen on more than one occasion what looks like a cross between a
Pale
Headed and a Crimson rosella
i.e. Crimson rosella's body with a Pale Headed rosella's head. Would this
be
considered a wild hybrid or is it common for sub-species to cross like
this?<<<<<
A good question for I think there is a different answer for each of us
authors.
Have you see a cross between the Galah and Bare Eyed where you live?
I speak only for myself: I had a subspecies of two Eclectus, one being a
redsided and the other a vosmaeri (I bought this pair with a so call vet
here in Vero and an expert of Eclectus with his approval of their pure
strain of a pecticular sub species, he stood right in my home and approved
them) Eclectus. I had to seperate them after the hatching of two of their
clutches. This pair of Two female Eclectus babies showed a good chance
that I had a red sided male.(their daddy)
After much thought, long distance calls with Laurella Desbrough in
California for me to make that decision of taking Barney away from
Tiffinay( Eclectus Parents). Laurella reminded me that I wasn't breeding
"hybrids" for they both are Eclectus, just different subspecies.
That was four years ago, Barney is with another Aviculturist who is as
fussy with breeding even subspecies to the same subspecies. Barney is
very happy with his new wife an the traitor had two babies with his new
wife with in six weeks. smile
My Scarlets are of the same sub species, my rose breast are of the same
subspeicies and as my Bare Eyeds. If these Psittacines are not of a
certain sub species, I"m in trouble for I certainly looked, studied,
called long distance to learn and be sure I wasn't doing this "evil "
thing. smile
I love all birds, I would never look , judge or even suspect another
breeder, friend or aviculturist of doing something wrong when in my own
mind I'm curious, wonderawe about the colors, personality and downright
happy when a different little life is formed for other Aviculturist and
buyers to love, admire and watch with a gratification of this
acommplishment.
I 'm almost sorry I haven't read this pecticular thread through the years.
I have learned so much from a couple of very wise, educated and well
writen messages with a great deal of comfronting, infomation and delight
for us. Wet are part of this thread in that, we care enough , no matter
what the veiw point we have. I try to remember that as I scan parts that
call people names, judgement and putdowns.
Thank you
Cherane
RReming327
In article <19970701152...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, byr...@aol.com
(Byrdy 1) writes:
> My reference to 'as nature intended' was to keeping the
>same type (ssp) together to maintain genetically correct animals.
> And if someone were to do this [hybridize]( spixx) in a captive
situation, they
>should be jailed.
Genetically correct? Is this anything like politically correct? Who
decides what is genetically correct? Breeders should be jailed for
hybridizing? Lookout, here come the gene police!
gjw
High Flight wrote:
>
> : Greenwing/B&G is a Harlequin. Scarlet/Greenwing is a Ruby. Scarlet/B&G is a Catalina.
>
> And they're all Pathetics. What *possible* benefit is there to hybridize
> these birds?
Money!!!!! Money is the root to all evil. This is proof of how evil money
can actually be. There is no need for this hybridizing of any endangered
species.
>
> - Jack
>
> Jack Zupan, aka Keet (^,^) "Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
> http://junior.apk.net/~jac
Gwen
Crystna 72
Don't you think it's time we dropped this heated debate and got back to
more friendly conversation.
It is obvious that no matter which side a person is on - they are not
going to change their opinions. So can't we all just get along? :0)
Pythoness
In article <33B9FC...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>, gjw
<g...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
> High Flight wrote:
> >
>
> > : Greenwing/B&G is a Harlequin. Scarlet/Greenwing is a Ruby.
Scarlet/B&G is a Catalina.
> >
> > And they're all Pathetics. What *possible* benefit is there to hybridize
> > these birds?
>
> Money!!!!! Money is the root to all evil. This is proof of how evil money
> can actually be. There is no need for this hybridizing of any endangered
> species.
> >
I'm not sure either money or need is really the cause, at least in all
cases. I don't condone hybridizing (as I said :-), and I have little
experience with bird breeders, but I know that among snake breeders lots
of hybrids are produced. Sometimes (as with Indian/Burmese python
hybrids) money is decidedly the factor.
In a lot of other cases, though, the breeder is genuinely (if mistakenly)
interested in "what will happen." Sometimes the hybrids *are* very
beautiful, although with great certainty, the same ethical/environmental
caveats apply to hybridizing snakes as birds, and this debate is also
carried out amongst ophidophiles (snake lovers).
Donno, just thinking.
Cherane
ubject: Re: Hybrid Macaws
From: crys...@aol.com (Crystna 72)
Date: 2 Jul 1997 22:23:18 GMT
Message-ID: <19970702222...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You have missed reading some very good notes that have in no way been
heated, name calling, or even in the midst of writing, emotional.
I'm sorry you missed our notes, especially some other great authors of
this subject.
Cherane
RReming327
In article <19970702222...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
crys...@aol.com (Crystna 72) writes:
>Don't you think it's time we dropped this heated debate and got back to
>more friendly conversation.
I have detected no hostility from anyone in this exchange. Why must people
agree in order to be friendly? Expressing different points of view is
healthy, and as long as it is within bounds, doesn't involve ad hominum
attacks and avoids making value judgements about people, should be
encouraged. Disagreement should provide for a wide range of views to be
exchanged to everyone's benefit.
The object of debate is not necessarily to change minds but exchange
points of view.
Contribute something to the thread which is about the pros and cons of
hybridization if you care to, but let the thread continue or die out of
its own accord. There are plenty of other threads where one can talk with
people who agree. That's one of the things I like about un-moderated
groups such as rec.pets.birds.
I like birds. Hybridization is controversial. This is a bird-talk
newsgroup. Let's talk.
(On the other hand after browsing this group for about six months I
observed people on this newsgroup become involved in protracted personal
attacks, and several very knowlegeable but volatile personalities have
left the newsgroup and moved on-- but hey! Welcome to the internet!)
Back to the debate so far:
1. Some say hybridization is a threat to keeping birds in their "natural
state"
a. hybridization does not occur in wild birds (disputed)
b. hybrids are not healthy and are aggressive (also disputed)
c hybrids threaten purebred populations
c. hybridization should be discouraged if not banned outright
1. legal penalties should ensue
2. call for genetic "correctness" to be enforced
2. Some say hybridization is inevitable
a. money is the only reason breeders will hybridize birds
b. market forces will eventually demand hybrid birds
c. people will hybridize birds because they hybridize all pets
Terms still to be defined:
1. hybrid
2. mutant
3. variety
4. species and sub-species
5. genetic purity
Questions:
1. Do birds hybridize naturally? (need specific examples)
2. Are hybrids substandard genetically, behaviorally?
3. If you were looking for an unusually colorful and unique bird
would you consider buying a hybrid?
4. Would you consider hybridizing out of curiosity?
5. Should hybridizing be banned? Can it be restricted?
6. Are there any advantages to hybridization?
All queries, comments, answers, questions, studies, experiences, and
opinions welcome.
We now return to the regularly scheduled program.
Cherane
>>>>>>>>>
Questions:
1. Do birds hybridize naturally? (need specific examples)
2. Are hybrids substandard genetically, behaviorally?
3. If you were looking for an unusually colorful and unique bird
would you consider buying a hybrid?
4. Would you consider hybridizing out of curiosity?
5. Should hybridizing be banned? Can it be restricted?
6. Are there any advantages to hybridization?
All queries, comments, answers, questions, studies, experiences, and
opinions welcome.
We now return to the regularly scheduled program.
RRemington
____________________<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I will answer the question only to my experience which is very limited
pertaining to question #1 .
Eight years I have talked to two Amazons that come to visit me each day.
Sometimes morning and night. They use to visit me pearched in an oak tree
at my front window. I tried to figure out what kind they were and would
make calls as they visited me to someone who may know . However, not a
big deal for what was I going to do ? catch them?
Four years ago three appeared! I figured they had a baby or another on
joined them from escape.
The last couple of months only one has vistied me to scare me with my
thinking that they were dead till about two weeks ago when I saw four
beautifful amazons come to greet me. I was on the phone wiht Liz Johnson
which she has been here to know I dont have Amazons of any kind here at my
home. She heard them yelling at me "Heeellllllloooooo" with my cute
laught which all my feather treasure do this back to me as do ......"the
wild amazons"
I was on the phone yesterday morning with another noted Aviculturist when
I heard one of the Amazons yelling the hello. I told the lady to listen
(my dime) as I went out to the yard to find my feather friends. I went
over to my yard fountain, bench which has a bottle brush tree behind the
bench. I just stood still waiting for my feather friends to visit me and
there in front of me was this beautiful about four month old BABY perching
on my bench eating the bottle brush flowers. This baby just continued to
eas as she/he gave me a wonderful loving and trusting look. As this
happened mommy or daddy came for the FIRST TIME ever DOWN to me and
perched on the bottle brush tree where I could describe the look of this
Amazon to the Aviculturist on the phone. It was a double yellow head
Amazon! The pictures I have of one of these Amazons is a Blue Front
Amazon!
Now, I have lived on this island for over twenty years and know only of
one pair of free flying Amazons. If there is more then one pair as I'll
find out for others have come to me knowing these birds visit me because
they hear my birds outin the Aviary. They think I'll capture these birds
or at the very least find their babies and assist in getting them..
The baby had a very dark brown head with on little tiny dab of yellow
above the nares. God, please take care of that baby....this baby was so
trusting of everything, even my dog. The parent came and poked the baby
off the bench to get it away from a preditor.
They came again last nite to visit but stayed afar..I'm after pictures
today, as they are use to my camera now, I just wished I knew how to use
it.
After this conversation I'll make it my priority to find their nest site
as most know me on this island to assist me in finding them. The birds
know me so I'lll not be intimidating to them as I might get a good loook
at each bird with my binaculars. I wish I knew how to manage my camera so
I could get some pictures for our grouup here.
What I know of these Amazons, one parent is a double yellow head and the
other is a blue front Amazon. Is the baby a 'Hybrid"
Seeing it, made me so wonderawe through out the day no matter what it is,
this life is precious.
Cherane
J. A. Schultze
Cherane <che...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970704112...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
: I will answer the question only to my experience which is very limited
: pertaining to question #1 .
:
<SNIP>
: What I know of these Amazons, one parent is a double yellow head and
the
: other is a blue front Amazon. Is the baby a 'Hybrid"
: Seeing it, made me so wonderawe through out the day no matter what it is,
: this life is precious.
:
If this story is accurate, and I assume it is, then it is an exception. If
there are only two wild Amazons on the entire island, than we can assume a
few things: (a) they were once captive pets and escaped or were realeased
(further indicated by the fact that they talk), and (b) they chose each
other as mates out of neccesity.
Most stories of parrots hybridizing in the wild are similar to this, i.e.
an egg got mixed with a flock of a different species and the bird was
raised as a moluccan when it was really an umbrella, destruction of the
rain forests created problems with the natural mating process and caused
the birds to turn to another species, or, as in this case, the birds could
hybridize or they could never mate at all. This situation hardly
represents what happens "naturally". It is merely a chance happening that
people who want to make birds with "cool colors" use to justify their
unethical behavior. Sometimes in the wild parrots kill their babies for no
apparant reason. Does this mean we should let our breeder pairs kill their
babies?
dpe...@earthlink.net
On 5 Jul 1997 21:33:33 GMT, tomsa...@aol.com (TomsAvatar) wrote:
>I've been following this thread for a while and decided to weigh in on the
>side against hybridization. I'm not as knowledgeable as some participants
>here, but I thought my vote might influence the breeders out there since,
>as a potential buyer, I represent "the market". I would be very upset if
>I paid the asking prices that Macaws and other large parrots fetch, and
>then found out I was sold something less than pure bred. This debate
>reminds me of our experience when we decided to buy a Shar Pei dog a while
>back. That breed was (is?) not yet established and there were all kinds
>of genetic aberrations, from heart defects to reproductive problems. In
>the end we gave up and bought a different breed because we became very
>distrustful of what the breeders were promising us. Once hybrids are
>introduced into the gene pool, even well meaning breeders will not be able
>to promise people that their birds are pure bred, and discerning buyers
>will move on. Maybe by then there will be clones of resurrected Martian
>bird DNA. <grin>
>
>Thanx,
>
>Tom
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If you always do what you've always done, you'll always be what you've always been.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just curious. Wouldn't a hybrid Macaw be a genetically better bird
then a "purebreed " Macaw?
DKP
Byrdy 1
A hybrid Macaw is only superior when it is for sale. Don Harris
Pythoness
In article <19970706043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, byr...@aol.com
(Byrdy 1) wrote:
> A hybrid Macaw is only superior when it is for sale. Don Harris
Actually, he brought up a good point--how does hybrid vigor apply to birds??
My vet, who specializes in birds and cats, recommends NON-purebred *cats*
because they tend to have fewer health problems because of a broader gene
pool.
But cats are all the same species. I don't know a lot about parrot
genetics (or any other, btw--not trying to seem like I do! :-)--does the
word "hybrid" apply only to offspring produced by two different species
(like horse x donkey = mule or lion + tiger = lyger, dog + wolf = looney
canid that's likely to eat your kids, etc), or does it apply to
intergrades between different strains of the same species?
kerf...@vsdec.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
> Actually, he brought up a good point--how does hybrid vigor apply to birds??
>
> My vet, who specializes in birds and cats, recommends NON-purebred *cats*
> because they tend to have fewer health problems because of a broader gene
> pool.
Domesticated cat breeds are descended from a very limited number of
animals that were the founder stock of the breed. Therefore, they are
prone to having trouble with inbreeding, which crossing with other breeds
can rectify. In contrast, the usual subjects of parrots hybridization,
the blue-and-gold, scarlet, and greenwing are descended from many
thousands of wild caught birds that have been used as breeding stock for
the pet trade. With proper husbandry, it should be possible to avoid
inbreeding of these common parrot species, and even of many rather scarce
ones.
Ian Kerfoot
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Layne David Dicker
Y'know Zig, since you're coming to my seminar in Eugene, I'll answer the
question!
In article <zigi-06079...@ip-eug1-01.teleport.com>,
zi...@teleportantispam.com (Pythoness) wrote:
> In article <19970706043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, byr...@aol.com
> (Byrdy 1) wrote:
>
> > A hybrid Macaw is only superior when it is for sale. Don Harris
>
> Actually, he brought up a good point--how does hybrid vigor apply to birds??
>
> My vet, who specializes in birds and cats, recommends NON-purebred *cats*
> because they tend to have fewer health problems because of a broader gene
> pool.
>
> But cats are all the same species. I don't know a lot about parrot
> genetics (or any other, btw--not trying to seem like I do! :-)--does the
> word "hybrid" apply only to offspring produced by two different species
> (like horse x donkey = mule or lion + tiger = lyger, dog + wolf = looney
> canid that's likely to eat your kids, etc), or does it apply to
> intergrades between different strains of the same species?
As a general rule, "mutt" dogs and cats are healthier than "purebreds" for
the simple reason that all dogs and all cats are the same species. We have
arrived at the "breeds" through line breeding or inbreeding which,
generally has closely related animals possessing similar traits breeding
in order to propogate these traits. Obviously, in that these are all the
same spcies, hybrid vigor does not really apply. What should be done is to
seperate siblings and cousins.
Similarly, however, is a situation where "hybrid vigor" does apply. Where,
on account of critical endangerment, there is a limited number of breeding
individuals (Note: in line breeding the limited genetic pool is
intentional, with this situation, it is on account of near extinction),
and these individuals have been paired in order to keep a species alive
such that, on account of their genetic closeness the bloodlines have
become so weak (i.e. the British royal family) that this is an additional
threat to their survival, the only source of new genetic material becomes
a closely related species. Such being the case, once this new material is
introduced, the offspring are not inbred and, accordingly, are much
healthier. Hence, hybrid vigor.
Although this argument is occasionally used to justify parrot hybrids, it
is silly in that any genetic shortage is the fault of the breeder as I do
not know of one commonly hybridized parrot that is not sufficiently
abundant in captivity.
Hybrid is a cross between two different species although it is frequently
used in the context of "sub-species hybrid" in that most people would not
know an intermediate or intergrade if it fell on them.
Hope that answers it.
L
--
Layne Dicker
Staff Avian Behaviorist
Wilshire Animal Hospital, Santa Monica, CA
TomsAvatar
The original point that I was trying to make is that backyard breeders
that hybridize are just amateurs playing at something that they don't
really understand. And the result of that is that discerning buyers will
come to the conclusion that all breeders are either 1) Dishonest, or 2)
Stupid, and that all the domestically bred Macaws have become genetically
polluted. Which will in turn cause MORE pressure on native flocks as
buyers give up on the domestic breeders and return to imports in an
attempt to secure "pure" birds.
Layne David Dicker
In article <19970710132...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
tomsa...@aol.com (TomsAvatar) wrote:
> The original point that I was trying to make is that backyard breeders
> that hybridize are just amateurs playing at something that they don't
> really understand. And the result of that is that discerning buyers will
> come to the conclusion that all breeders are either 1) Dishonest, or 2)
> Stupid, and that all the domestically bred Macaws have become genetically
> polluted. Which will in turn cause MORE pressure on native flocks as
> buyers give up on the domestic breeders and return to imports in an
> attempt to secure "pure" birds.
Interesting point. However, it is not just backyard breeders that
hybridize. Many large commercial breeders do so. And as far as public
opinion goes, you have to remember that opinion is much more a function of
the opiner than the opinee. Anyone who is intelligent or discerning will
reralize that there are slime breeders and good breeders just like there
are crooked cops and honest cops and good restaurants and bad restaurants.
There are simply those among us who like to generalize like "All lawyers
are jerks." Okay, bad example; that one may be true. How about the racist
cop thing in the LAPD. Yes there are racist cops, just like there are
racist dentists, but smatr people don't generalize like that.
Your discerning buyer will go to a slime breeder, realize they're slime
and then find a non-slime breeder, of which there are too many to list.
The discrening buyer will not make the leap from slime breeder to looking
for a smuggled bird. Actually, it is probably the same idiot that would
buy from an inadequate breeder that might also buy a smuggled bird.
There are plenty of most commonly kept birds in this country to have
varied bloodlines and very healthy birds. Hybridization is far from
necessary.
The best argument is this: The best that the "pro" side can offer up is
that hybridization is not harmful. They can point to no non-commercial
benefit. Obviously, the "anti" side has lots of theories. If the best that
the "pro" side can do is that it is neutral, that it is harmless, why not
err on the side of safety and not do it?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This having been established, it does point out the priorities of those
who hybridize. That is not a breeder that I will purchase a bird from or
that I will advise someone to purchase a bird from. Given the choice of
someone who has profit as a priority or the welfare of birds as a
priority, I'll take the latter every time. With some "products" I want to
buy from the more efficient, profitable "manufacturer". Not with birds. I
don't care if the person who installed the upholstery on my car did it
with love. The person who raised my macaw........
Layne
Mjor Tom
RRemington "The object of debate is not necessarily to change minds but
exchange
points of view."
A very sane attitude, and I agree. As a new owner of a hybid macaw, I
find myself drawn to this discussion, but because ther will be no winner
feel compelled to accept my bird & love it.
Why is it that macaws cannot be managed as dogs are with the AKC, ie. all
true bloodline macaws can be "registered" now, and any future offspring
between these macaws will have its "papers" proving it's bloodline ? It
seems to me that this would be a profitable venture for breeders, and also
buyers who might be willing to spend a bit more for a "true" species.
Hybrids will not go away, and this seems like a logical way to preserve
existing gene pools.
Mjor Tom
Cherane
Why is it that macaws cannot be managed as dogs are with the AKC, ie. all
true bloodline macaws can be "registered" now, and any future offspring
between these macaws will have its "papers" proving it's bloodline ? It
seems to me that this would be a profitable venture for breeders, and also
buyers who might be willing to spend a bit more for a "true" species.
Hybrids will not go away, and this seems like a logical way to preserve
existing gene pools.
Mjor Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
As a Aviculturist of the large Macaws and others ..There is a Register
Program with the AFA (American Federal of Aviculturist)
Cherane Pefley, CAS (Certified Avian Specialist)
Byrdy 1
Try to get bird breeders to 'register their birds like dog breeders -
AKC.' I'd just like to see more interest in groups like the AFA. There are
folks here who never even heard of it. I don't think a large enough and
convincing evough effort Could be raised to 'register' birds. The people
who are involved in aviculture are very private when it comes to their
properties, and their aviaries and birds are just that -private property.
I can understand the petowners plight, some of the hybrids are handsome
birds, and the people/shops who breed them are good at selling them. But
what is to happen when the bird matures, and the owner has a few more
years of bird experience under his/her belt and decides to get a mate for
his/her 'catirubyquin macaw? And the only thing we could find was this
poor little ( fill in the blank with your favorite specie) and now we have
3 babies and how much can we get for them!
If you're going to insist on creating and producing Hybrid Macaws - then
keep them to their own kind (ugh) and be honest and sell them as what they
are - a man made, designer bird. Not to be found in Nature. I do not have
anything against the birds personally, but those who producce them are
either greedy, lazy or selfindulgent, or all of the above.
Why is it that an organization such as the American Federation of
Aviculture has stood for bird owners rights, at the fed, state and local
levels, encourages and teaches sound avicultural practices and publishes
these bi-monthly ( Watchbird magazine) and sponsers symposiums on
bbreedinf and has a yearly convention - why do they dissapprove of
hybridization, even to the point of not allowing it to be advertised in
their ads? Hmmmm, maybe some of these folks may know something, nature
knows, I know.
Greed and misdirected intellectuallity can subjugate and rationalize
anything, so fire away.
TomsAvatar
From: byr...@aol.com (Byrdy 1)
Date: 11 Jul 1997 16:52:31 GMT Wrote:
> Try to get bird breeders to 'register their birds like dog breeders -
> AKC.' I'd just like to see more interest in groups like the AFA. There
are
> folks here who never even heard of it. I don't think a large enough and
> convincing evough effort Could be raised to 'register' birds. The people
> who are involved in aviculture are very private when it comes to their
> properties, and their aviaries and birds are just that -private
property.
I see nothing wrong with requiring breeders to register their birds. I'd
go two steps further. 1) Require that the breeders also be registered
and/or certified, and 2) Require that the buyers be certified to OWN
certain birds.
Byrdy 1
Be 'Required' to be registered... sounds like a government fanatic! and
just who would oversee such a fiasco? And who's taxes would pay for such
nonsense? Name one area of private enterprise involving animal husbandry
that the government has gotten hold of and has come out the better for it.
You might say the Condors - the agencies had to use private aviculturists
to set up their program and build the incubators and brooders and the
feeding techniques also.
I think we should all demand to have your e-mail registered, and your
phone and have your home inspected weekly to be sure you just aren't up to
something!
Rather than force more government attrition down our throats, why not put
some of your energy into educating those you would like to oppress. I'm
sure the idea of an Eastern European totalitarian government Over the
people really appeals to most of us. Keep your hands off of my freedoms
and liberties.
TomsAvatar
From: byr...@aol.com (Byrdy 1)
Date: 12 Jul 1997 20:16:05 GMT Wrote:
>Be 'Required' to be registered... sounds like a government fanatic! and
>just who would oversee such a fiasco? And who's taxes would pay for such
>nonsense?
Well, that brings up an interesting idea now. How about a sales tax on
all breeder sales, in addition to a hefty certification fee? Then the
money would be available to not only fund the certification program, but
money would become available to start saving some of the habitat for the
birds that you claim to be so concerned about. In other words, why don't
YOU put your money where your mouth is!