Question:
This morning I stopped on a freeway offramp and waited for a young (by feather appearance) starling to fly out of the traffic path. It took about five seconds — the starling didn’t really know where to go. About three cars worth of traffic built up behind me before I started moving again. The person directly behind me had a "what the hell is he stopping for a bird for" look on her face. Later I started thinking about humans in general. I thought of one time I was bringing the birds in for a checkup. One of Lorna’s co-workers at her old company looked in one of the carriers, and said something like, "yeah, when you have a bird like that, you GOTTA take care of them." What he meant was that if Sidney had a lower dollar-value purchase price, I wouldn’t have to "take care of him." This same idiot, who smokes by the way, had an African Grey long ago, but couldn’t figure out how to teach it to talk, and gave it away. This person is the kind who would jiggle a finger in front of a parrot to play, and then smack it when he got bitten. There used to be a "decoration" budgie in the office area at that company, and it’s not there any more. I don’t know where it went. In another thread I mentioned split rings should be replaced with quick links when used for toy hangers. I got a reply from and couldn’t figure out how to hurt themselves on the hanger, and never played with the hanger anyway. How much effort and time does it take to go to the hardware store? The person "hates to take the toy away from the birds," but doesn’t care enough to make the toy safe. I hope that person doesn’t have any human children who are too unimaginative to open the cutlery drawer or firearms cabinet or start the car engine. I see people take their birds to the crowded malls to go shopping. I wouldn’t do that without about six bodyguards and two rec.pets.birds readers to spot cooties. Wouldn’t happen though, going to the mall just isn’t important enough for me to endanger my birds. People in my condo building came up to me, after the Nova special on the illegal bird trade, and said stuff like, "did you know all parrots are endangered?" "It’s cruel for you to have trapped him and taken him out of his home." "Can I feed your bird some chocolate?" (I answer all questions to the best of my ability.) It’s not just birds, either. I see people abusing other types of animals too. Humans may be almost omnipotent on this planet, but they sure are shortsighted sometimes, aren’t they? Kevin, who hasn’t eaten meat for a few months, and hasn’t eaten chicken or veal for even longer. — Vancouver Canucks, 1994 Western Conference Champions. GO CANUCKS!
Response:
Kevin Chu posted: >In another thread I mentioned split rings should be replaced with >quick links when used for toy hangers. I got a reply from >and couldn’t figure out how to hurt themselves on the hanger, and >never played with the hanger anyway. How much effort and time >does it take to go to the hardware store? The person "hates to >take the toy away from the birds," but doesn’t care enough to >make the toy safe. I hope that person doesn’t have any human >children who are too unimaginative to open the cutlery drawer or >firearms cabinet or start the car engine.
Because I’m the person to whom Kevin referred in his post, I wanted to respond publically. I take responsibility for the welfare of my birds very seriously. They’re well cared for and very much loved. I made the decision to use a couple of split rings based on what I know of my birds’ behavior. The two birds for whom I feel they’d be risky do not have split rings. They have quick links. Now, it’s possible that I’m wrong. It’s possible that, after considering the matter, I may remove the split rings–in fact, I was thinking about that this afternoon before I saw Kevin’s remarks. If I don’t, however, it isn’t because I’m too unconcerned to go to the hardware store and buy quick links. It’s because I think it isn’t necessary for my birds’ safety. And, incidentally, my children, who are in their twenties, grew up quite well under my supervision. In the process, they learned about judging risks and benefits and living with the consequences of their actions. They learned that other people wouldn’t always agree with them, and while they had a right to their own opinions, others did, too.They learned to respect another person’s considered opinion even when it didn’t coincide with their own. They learned to disagree civilly. They’re nice kids. Judy/WV
Response:
hangers with safer fasteners, but…. ] > I think it isn’t necessary for my birds’ safety. And, incidentally, > children, who are in their twenties, grew up quite well under my > supervision. In the process, they learned about judging risks and > benefits and living with the consequences of their actions. They learned > that other people wouldn’t always agree with them, and while they had a > right to their own opinions, others did, too.They learned to respect > another person’s considered opinion even when it didn’t coincide with > their own. They learned to disagree civilly. They’re nice kids.
Fortunately noone has been uncivil in this discussion yet. Let me civilly disagree again: I know that a typical to small budgie can bite hard enough to break the skin on my fingers. From that knowledge I draw the conclusion that budgies are strong enough to split split ring fasteners, thus exposing themselves to all kinds of hazards, including getting toes cut off and getting speared through the lower mandible. From this conclusion I would recommend that any psittacine toy not have any split rings in it. Further, the fact that a bird does not currently investigate an item (in this case a split-ring toy hanger) does not imply that the bird never will in the future. I have a grey I’ve lived with for ten years, and he’s always doing new things. Our severe is also always exploring. Both of them learn by experimentation. That’s how they learned to open their cage doors, and operate their food-dispensing toys. Finally, while your children can now think rationally and live with their actions and consequential results, they are your children and have intellects proportional to their age. The smartest psittacine is mentally equal to a four-year-old human (and emotionally equal to a two-year-old human, which may or may not cause them to disregard their intelligence sometimes). I don’t know any four-year-old humans that think very rationally, and I don’t think a bird would ponder too many consequences of actions before barreling into his or her task. Birds get into trouble. The consequences of not providing the safest environment possible for a bird under your care may be an injury to the bird. If you, jskd, have judged that risk and can live with the consequences, then that is your considered opinion. You have a right to your considered opinion and I respect that right. But respecting an opinion and agreeing with it are not the same. Since you want to discuss this publicly, I will make known that the only correspondence I sent you said I don’t know what to say, I hope you change your mind and take the split rings out, and that your birds stay safe. One single line — I didn’t even mention your opinion. The choice was/is completely up to you, and that was the end of the emails. I honestly have only one concern on my agenda — the safety of your birds. I still hope you remove the split rings. Any personal problems between us (this is one of the most polite disagreements I’ve ever been in) don’t matter much, however I would like to remain friendly. Kevin — Vancouver Canucks, 1994 Western Conference Champions. GO CANUCKS!
Response:
>The smartest psittacine is mentally equal to a >four-year-old human (and emotionally equal to a two-year-old >human
Where did you get this factoid….Do you have a source or is this a comparison to your own children?? Sometimes the lights are shining on me, other times I can barely see.
Response:
Kevin is absolutely right about humans. In general I find that birds are more consistently "humane" and more pleasant company, even at their worst. Another human annoyance: I can’t count the number of times that people I know responded to the news that I bought a second bird with the question "What happened to your other bird?" — as if there is no imaginable reason a person would want to have more than one! The first 499 times I responded by explaining my reasons for liking birds and the reasons I chose to get a second bird at this particular time. By the 500th time, when I was asked the question by a friend who had just given birth to her second child, I responded quite testily by saying "When you told me you were going to have another baby, did I assume that you’d gotten rid of the first one??" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->This morning I stopped on a freeway offramp and waited for a >young (by feather appearance) starling to fly out of the traffic >path. It took about five seconds — the starling didn’t really >know where to go. About three cars worth of traffic built up >behind me before I started moving again. The person directly >behind me had a "what the hell is he stopping for a bird for" >look on her face. >Later I started thinking about humans in general. I thought of >one time I was bringing the birds in for a checkup. One of >Lorna’s co-workers at her old company looked in one of the >carriers, and said something like, "yeah, when you have a bird >like that, you GOTTA take care of them." What he meant was that >if Sidney had a lower dollar-value purchase price, I wouldn’t >have to "take care of him." This same idiot, who smokes by the >way, had an African Grey long ago, but couldn’t figure out how >to teach it to talk, and gave it away. This person is the kind >who would jiggle a finger in front of a parrot to play, and then >smack it when he got bitten. There used to be a "decoration" >budgie in the office area at that company, and it’s not there any >more. I don’t know where it went. >In another thread I mentioned split rings should be replaced with >quick links when used for toy hangers. I got a reply from >and couldn’t figure out how to hurt themselves on the hanger, and >never played with the hanger anyway. How much effort and time >does it take to go to the hardware store? The person "hates to >take the toy away from the birds," but doesn’t care enough to >make the toy safe. I hope that person doesn’t have any human >children who are too unimaginative to open the cutlery drawer or >firearms cabinet or start the car engine. >I see people take their birds to the crowded malls to go >shopping. I wouldn’t do that without about six bodyguards and >two rec.pets.birds readers to spot cooties. Wouldn’t happen >though, going to the mall just isn’t important enough for me to >endanger my birds. >People in my condo building came up to me, after the Nova special >on the illegal bird trade, and said stuff like, "did you know all >parrots are endangered?" "It’s cruel for you to have trapped him >and taken him out of his home." "Can I feed your bird some >chocolate?" (I answer all questions to the best of my ability.) >It’s not just birds, either. I see people abusing other types of >animals too. >Humans may be almost omnipotent on this planet, but they sure are >shortsighted sometimes, aren’t they? >Kevin, who hasn’t eaten meat for a few months, and hasn’t eaten >chicken or veal for even longer. >– >Vancouver Canucks, 1994 Western Conference Champions. GO CANUCKS!
Response:
Kevin, thanks very much for your comments. I think, based on your previous posts, which have been quite intelligent and thoughtful, that you and I would probably agree on many aspects of bird care. I simply didn’t think it was fair of you to extrapolate my decision, which really was made after some consideration, to my parenting ability or to my concern for my birds in general. I think you are probably right about the possibility of harm to the birds, and, as I indicated, I have been considering removing the split rings. I hope that we can continue to exchange opinions on other topics in this most civil of discussions. :) Judy/WV
Response:
Yes, Kevin. Humans suck. Well, most of them do 
For all the reasons you mentioned in your post, I find that I prefer the company of my birds to that of humans. (That was grammatically lame, but you get my point!) Every so often though, I meet someone who REALLY cares… Someone who takes the time to make a difference. There are lots of that type of person here on r.p.b and I guess that is why I hang out here. Unfortunately, there aren’t nearly enough of the ‘nice’ folks in the world, and that is why I have 20 Moluccans and I have only ever sold ONE. You are obviously one of the "GOOD ONES", so here is a *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug**Hug**Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug**Hug**Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug**Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* for you! [Mushy mode off. Resume nasty, spoon-feeding, cootie-hating breeder mode] Debbie
Response:
Judy, I think that Kevin’s point is that split rings are a KNOWN risk, and that no matter how well we know our birds, it only takes a moment with a potentially dangerous object for a parrot to come to harm. The logical conclusion would then be ‘Why take the risk?’. A reader here said something to me on the phone last week that has really stuck with me since we talked. We were having a discussion about virus transmission, and she said something like, "Every person has to decide what risk level they are comfortable with." I do agree. I accept NO risk, but I know that is impossible! Considering what few things are TOTALLY in our control (food, water, toys, cages, etc.), I make sure that any decision I make regarding my birds takes me down the path of least danger, because that is what *I* feel comfortable with. Debbie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Kevin Chu posted: >In another thread I mentioned split rings should be replaced with >quick links when used for toy hangers. I got a reply from >and couldn’t figure out how to hurt themselves on the hanger, and >never played with the hanger anyway. How much effort and time >does it take to go to the hardware store? The person "hates to >take the toy away from the birds," but doesn’t care enough to >make the toy safe. I hope that person doesn’t have any human >children who are too unimaginative to open the cutlery drawer or >firearms cabinet or start the car engine. > Because I’m the person to whom Kevin referred in his post, I wanted to > respond publically. I take responsibility for the welfare of my birds > very seriously. They’re well cared for and very much loved. I made the > decision to use a couple of split rings based on what I know of my birds’ > behavior. The two birds for whom I feel they’d be risky do not have split > rings. They have quick links. Now, it’s possible that I’m wrong. It’s > possible that, after considering the matter, I may remove the split > rings–in fact, I was thinking about that this afternoon before I saw > Kevin’s remarks. If I don’t, however, it isn’t because I’m too > unconcerned to go to the hardware store and buy quick links. It’s because > I think it isn’t necessary for my birds’ safety. And, incidentally, my > children, who are in their twenties, grew up quite well under my > supervision. In the process, they learned about judging risks and > benefits and living with the consequences of their actions. They learned > that other people wouldn’t always agree with them, and while they had a > right to their own opinions, others did, too.They learned to respect > another person’s considered opinion even when it didn’t coincide with > their own. They learned to disagree civilly. They’re nice kids. > Judy/WV
Response:
Debbie, I agree with you and Kevin. That’s why I am going to remove the split rings. [I PROMISE to do it today. ] My point, as I have said, was that it really isn’t fair to generalize one decision to the rest of a person’s activities, judgments, etc. I’m not easily intimidated, and I’m seldom at a loss for words (more’s the pity, sometimes), but for someone who is, such a response as Kevin gave, however accurate and heartfelt, is less likely to change the behavior, which is the goal, than to drive the guilty party away from what I have found to be a wonderful source of information, amusement, and entertainment. And I do prefer civil discourse to inflammatory rhetoric. (Although, for someone like Layne’s Reynoso, I’m always ready to make an exception.) And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go buy some quick links. Judy/WV
Response:
Yay! Now just wait until you have a bird figure out how to get a quick link stuck on its lower mandible You know that ‘pit’ underneath the lower mandible? Well I have ONE bird that has managed to get a quick link stuck with one end of it there, and the other end under his tongue Too bad NOTHING is 100% safe, eh? I swear, for any toy or substance you can name, I have had a call about a disaster involving same! Like my friend whose Umbie loves rawhide. Apparently, the bird was eating little tiny particles of it, and they became stonelike in her crop, accumulating until she got VERY sick. So, no more rawhide here either! Hugs to you! Debbie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Debbie, > I agree with you and Kevin. That’s why I am going to remove the > split rings. [I PROMISE to do it today. ] My point, as I have said, > was that it really isn’t fair to generalize one decision to the rest of a > person’s activities, judgments, etc. I’m not easily intimidated, and I’m > seldom at a loss for words (more’s the pity, sometimes), but for someone > who is, such a response as Kevin gave, however accurate and heartfelt, is > less likely to change the behavior, which is the goal, than to drive the > guilty party away from what I have found to be a wonderful source of > information, amusement, and entertainment. And I do prefer civil > discourse to inflammatory rhetoric. (Although, for someone like Layne’s > Reynoso, I’m always ready to make an exception.) And now, if you’ll excuse > me, I have to go buy some quick links. > Judy/WV
Response:
> >The smartest psittacine is mentally equal to a >four-year-old human (and emotionally equal to a two-year-old >human > Where did you get this factoid….Do you have a source or is > this a comparison to your own children??
Right here on rec.pets.birds someone said they saw a scarlet macaw on a TV program do a colourful jigsaw puzzle meant for a four-year-old human. Also in Mattie Sue Athan’s book she mentions something about the relative intelligence of birds. My children have feathers and fur…. —
Response:
> think it was fair of you to extrapolate my decision, which really > was made after some consideration, to my parenting ability or to > my concern for my birds in general. I think you are probably
Not enough consideration though. I’m sorry for insulting you. —
Response:
Some double-blind tests were done several years ago. I don’t remember all the details, but I *believe* Greys were figured at gifted five year old level. Debbie (Who is at LEAST a gifted 6 year old!) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The smartest psittacine is mentally equal to a >four-year-old human (and emotionally equal to a two-year-old >human > Where did you get this factoid….Do you have a source or is this a > comparison to your own children?? > Sometimes the lights are shining on me, other times I can barely see.
Response:
You must be out of your mind… a five year old child..emotions.. reference yor material or admit you are fantasizing Sometimes the lights are shining on me, other times I can barely see.
Response:
arrg do you you mean to say all of us parrot owners are keeping a being as intelligent as our 4 year old kids in a cage !! Sometimes the lights are shining on me, other times I can barely see.
Response:
split rings >Not enough consideration though.
You’re right. Mea culpa. The rings are gone. (And so, too, is this discussion, I hope.) Judy/WV
Response:
> arrg do you you mean to say all of us parrot owners are keeping > a being as intelligent as our 4 year old kids in a cage !!
I’ve seen four-year-old humans that should be kept in cages. Actually that wouldn’t be fair, their parents should be in cages. We put our birds in their cages when we’re not here. It’s for their own safety. We wouldn’t leave four-year-old humans unsupervised either. I don’t know why you find it so astounding that birds have appreciable intelligence and emotions. A good book for you to read would be "The Human Nature of Birds," by Theodore Barber, PhD. ISBN 0-312-09308-X. To quote Dana of rec.pets.birds’ Dana and Sally, "The is a very good book that will introduce you to bird intelligence. It is called *The Human Nature of Birds* by Theodore Barber, Ph.D. the ISBN # is 0-312-09308-X. The publisher is St. Martin’s Press, New York. Not only is it a good introduction to the intelligence of birds but it is a good reference book for other sources." What kind of bird(s) do you have? —
Response:
Yes this is true and you wouldn’t leave a four year old at home unattended either. That’s why we have daycare centers! Maybe we need to form daycare for our birdie friends. Anyway I’ve thought that many a four year old that I’ve been around belonged in cages! Lately it occurs to me, what long strange trip its been. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> arrg do you you mean to say all of us parrot owners are keeping a being as > intelligent as our 4 year old kids in a cage !! > Sometimes the lights are shining on me, other times I can barely see.
Response:
>arrg do you you mean to say all of us parrot owners are keeping a being as >intelligent as our 4 year old kids in a cage !!
In a manner of speaking I live in a cage (my home). I stay in my cage even more then my bird stays in his. The cage is part of the environment that my bird grew up with, and he uses it as a shelter, for food, for sleep, etc. __ http://www.hooked.net/users/dherr/
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.