Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!andrewt
From: andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Indoor Antics
Message-ID: <1107@cluster.cs.su.oz>
Date: 22 Jul 90 17:36:34 GMT
References: <332@spam.ua.oz> <674@mtune.ATT.COM> <339@spam.ua.oz> <1990Jul19.144321.5978@cbnewsj.att.com> <43163@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@cluster.cs.su.oz
Reply-To: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Lines: 29

In article <43165@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Smile when you say that)
writes:
>On the other hand, mortality of birds is MUCH higher in the wild. Life
>expectency is much lower.  Your little white cockatoo doesn't have to worry
>about being eaten in the middle of the night, or starving to death, or heat
>stroke. Properly handled birds in captivity are happy and satisfied, live
>longer and are healthier.

Given your appeal for others to learn the facts, can you back this up with some?

Though the above is likely to be true for small birds, I'm not so sure about
cockatoos. I'm familiar with Sulphur-Crested Cockatoos. Life doesn't seem too
hard for an adult. Predation is rare and so I think would be problems with
food or water.  I wouldn't be suprised if the life expectancy of a wild adult
matched or exceeded that of a captive bird. I haven't handled any wild
Sulphur-Cresteds but in the binoculars they certainly look as least as healthy
as the caged ones I've seen.

>I know MANY birds, mine for one, that given a choice of staying at home or
>being sent out to 'freedom' would go running for the cage as fast as their
>little legs could carry them...

I've haven't done an opinion poll but I have seen quite a few cockatoos
flying about here that evidently chose freedom over captivity when given
the choice.  Captivity or US suburbia(?) doesn't seem a fair choice, what
would be the result if you offering the bird captivity or the forests(?)
it came from.

Andrew