Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq From: chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: rec.birds Subject: Re: More on Hookbills Message-ID: <73268@sun.uucp> Date: 17 Oct 88 22:23:59 GMT References: <6418@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <1271@inuxd.UUCP> <1524@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Fictional Reality Lines: 63 > Well, it had to come. Talking about cage birds in a group that likes >to watch wild ones had to draw flames. No, it didn't have to happen, if people were willing to be tolerant of view other than their own. But that's a different flame. There are a couple of problems with the anti-caged-pet flame: o it ignores the fact that in many situations, most of the reduction in numbers is by loss of habitat rather than wild-catching. It also ignores the fact that in many cases, the only *hope* for the future of the species is in captive breeding programs. Many birds, like the Hyacinth, are likely to be extinct in the wild in the next 20 years unless something happens -- and the people who are keeping the breed alive are the people being flamed here. The captive breeding programs for many birds relies heavily on private breeders rather than govermental agencies and zoos (would you want *your* government in charge of keeping a species alive? And having to justify the expense every year?) o It ignores the fact that in some areas (Australia, for instance) many of the birds we're talking about are slaughtered in the thousands every year. Caught and killed. The rose-breasted cockatoo, for instance. $2500 of wonderful, burbly joy in America. In Australia, flocks rose-breasted are considered vermin and pests (I don't see why: a couple of thousand cockatoos eating your wheat field should make a farmer happy!) and so they are trapped and shot and destroyed. There's an active campaign going on in Australia to remove the bird ban so that at least SOME of the birds could be live-caught and exported rather than simply slaughtered. Right now, they all die. The pet trade can give some of them an opportunity to survive. What's better? A breed that is alive but captive or one that's extinct? What's better? A live, wild-caught pet bird or a dead bird? Some birds don't make the transit and die. Some birds are mistreated and die in captivity. Some birds make the transition and flourish. My umbrella, for instance. Maybe she'd be happier in the jungle somewhere, eating bananas. Maybe she'd be dead. You never know. What I *do* know is that she's very happy where she is. I'm very happy that she's there. To me, that's a win-win situation, and if you don't like the idea of a bird in a cage, then don't own one. But don't make moralistic judgements on others. Especially when you don't have the facts straight to start with. (by the way, are you sure you're not building a bird population that's dependent on your seed for survival? What's going to happen to them if you move or stop feeding them? And shouldn't you be offering a more balanced diet than just sunflower seeds? It's possible, you know, to build just as horrible a cage outside as in. If the birds don't migrate because of your food, then lose their food source and starve, the only difference between the dead bird in the cage and the dead bird outside is that you don't see (and think about) the dead bird outside. Which is, of course, a piece of rhetoric. Doesn't mean I agree with it...) Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms