Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!cognos!stewartw From: stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) Newsgroups: rec.birds Subject: Re: Importing parrots for genetic variability Message-ID: <9732@cognos.UUCP> Date: 12 Jun 91 22:07:35 GMT References: <1991Jun12.131020.22423@zoo.toronto.edu> Reply-To: stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada Lines: 78 In article <1991Jun12.131020.22423@zoo.toronto.edu> rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising) writes: >We need some input from a geneticist here, but my understanding >was that the deleterious effects of inbreeding essentially >disappear after 4-5 generations. I've not heard this before, so I'm open to possibilities. I would have thought that inbred birds could become substantially more likely to be wiped out by a disease. For example, some wild parrots exhibit natural resistance to PBFD, while most do not. If this were a genetic trait ... I'd be most curious too about possible adverse affects on reproductive rates induced by inbreeding extensively. Also, I know that the Loridae and Amazonia consortiums are quite concerned about maintaining genetic diversity. These groups have many 'knowledgeable' individuals in them. These organizations are both going to the trouble of using genetic 'fingerprinting' to determine how best to avoid inbreeding there birds. Maybe I jumped to a bad conclusion. >There are lots of wild populations >of animals that--doubtless as a consequence of having been bottle- >necked--have essentially no genetic variation that seem to be doing >all right, e.g. northern elephant-seal, cheetah. One would guess >that there is very little variation in things like the whooping >crane. Valid Point. >I'm not saying that genetic variation isn't "a good thing," >but if your parrots are always sickly maybe it has something to do >with their captive situation (the food, or what have you). I only had one pair of Princess of Wales (if it's my previous comments your refering too) and they were housed in a large flight (they could fly) and had a good diet. My observation was really more based on the fact that every Princess of Wales I have seen in captivity (with ONE exception) has had the same less-than-healthy appearance. >This >does not strike me as an obvious a priori argument to capture wild >birds the enhance the captive breeding populations. At least, >let's get some input from geneticists about how best to do this >before we jump on that bandwagon: how many new birds are needed >to achieve the desired effect? what is the desired effect? how do >we best breed the birds? etc? Agreed ... I'm not suggesting we strip every bird out of it's natural environment and put it in a cage ... far from that, but if a total ban is coming in 5 years do we have time to find out the importance of genetic diversity? > Weren't all present domestic hamsters descended from a single gravid female? >Is our goal to have "healthy and happy pets" or to preserve genetic variation >in wild populations? I think both are important and both are possible. >(I realize that there may soon be no wild populations of some of these >species.) Yes, and it's not just parrots. North American songbirds are much less well populated that 30 years ago ... it's the same story around the world. I think it would be really nice if aviculturalists could do something of value, but it's difficult to know what the best approachs to such a big problem are. It seems to me that the POSSIBILITY of something good exists, when we have a 'hobby' and an 'industry' that could be acting in the longterm interests of wildlife management. This is one area where conservationists can really contribute by not outright condemming the pet trade, but rather saying 'we would support if it was managed in the following way.' Stewart -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: stewartw%cognos.uucp@ccs.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario The bird of the day is .... Green-Cheeked Conure CANADA K1G 3Z4