7 ms·

I can't imagine that anyone in love with birds is capable of putting them in a cage or on a leash. How could you take away so much freedom yet comfortably state

I can't imagine that anyone in love with birds is capable of putting them in a cage or on a leash. How could you take away so much freedom yet comfortably state that you love your pet? Sure you might think you treat him well, you pet him every now and then and provide it with some food and care, but is that truly an improvement? Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely? I sure do hope that it will become a world wide taboo to hold birds as pets. If you're such an avid bird enthousiast, why not just stick with feeding the locals? Atleast those are free to decide to visit you or not.

ta_due_to_apro 5y ago
While I agree with your overall point (don't keep birds in cages), it's worth mentioning that the quality of life of wild animals is generally awful, with constant bouts of starvation, running for your life from predators and diseases. "Nature" is beautiful, but a harsh mistress, let's avoid romanticizing it.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  Nature is brutal in every single way, I agree. But the freedom it provides is also compatibel with humans loving animals; they can take care of them without the deprivation of freedom. I don't intend to romanticize nature's freedom, but I intend to point out the conflicting point of view a lot of people seem to have.
girvo 5y ago
Would this not be true of basically all animals? Why birds and not cats? (I have neither, I’m genuinely asking, not playing “gotcha”)
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  Mostly due to the saying of people "Free as a bird", but also due to the topic of the paper. Though I dont think there should be a difference. I think that no pet should be kept if it requires a leash, cage or any other form of freedom deprivation. Domesticated dogs can be an exception, but in general a pet should choose to be with you because he likes you and doesn't want to go and should be able to leave whenever it desires too.
  - mellavora 5y ago
    I'm glad you make an exception for dogs. I've been attacked by dogs more than once. Some of these were because it was an ill-treated dog. Most of the time, however, it is just circumstance. Last weekend, I was jogging on a forest path, rounded a corner and suprised a dog whose owners probably considered it a well-behaved pet-- and the owners looked liked 'responsible members of society' (i.e. not trying to prove they were tough). The dog was off-leash. Because both I and the dog were caught off-guard, this immediately turned into an aggressive situation. The dog was threatening to attack me, and the owners had a very hard time getting it to back down-- it wasn't responding to their voice commands, it kept barking and lunging at me. long story short, from my perspective, any domestic animal weighing above 4kg should always be on a leash when out of the house, as a matter of public safety.
    - hetspookjee 5y ago
      I feel you. I have been attacked once and it truly frightened me. I still think most dogs cant be held as most people are to incompetent to care properly for a dog. So my point of view is more that having those dogs in the first place is perhaps a bad idea.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- amcoastal 5y ago
  Many people who have cats (not all, but many) have ample places for their cat to run around in, and some will even let their cats outdoors. I'm fairly certain the proportion of people who let their cats be "Free Range" is much much larger than the people letting their pet birds fly around.
  - girvo 5y ago
    Sadly, outdoor cats are so horrifically bad for the ecosystem where I live (Australia), that any owner who allows it is irresponsible in my opinion. Thankfully, the local government for far north QLD (my state) is now looking into banning outdoor off-leash cats the same way they do dogs, for exactly this reason. They're too destructive here unfortunately :(
junon 5y ago
I have a (large) parrot and I agree with you entirely, though please don't undermine the amount of work good parrot owners put into their ownership. > I can't imagine that anyone in love with birds is capable of putting them in a cage or on a leash. Because sometimes there isn't a choice. Birds born into captivity do not re-hab well. Rescues (as is mine) are generally not able to live in the wild if they were just 'released', so someone has to take care of them. > Sure you might think you treat him well, you pet him every now and then and provide it with some food and care, but is that truly an improvement? Yes. It is. Over the fifteen Rottweilers, the aggressive man-handling, the forced breeding (even though he hadn't even hit puberty, thus why the breeder no longer wanted him) and the absolutely terrible living conditions he was in - yes, my place of living is a huge improvement. Further, good bird owners do way more than "just pet him every now and then". You need to give them undivided attention for at least two hours a day. You need to look at every single poop they make around you because it's the first warning sign of health problems. If they're happy, they're generally content where they are. There's a lot that you're missing here, I think, even though I agree with the overall message. Please don't dillute bird ownership to PETA-esque FUD. > Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely? Sometimes, yes. Just like all animal conservancy. If we didn't care to give them better lives than what they had before, then we'd just put them all down wouldn't we? That's what PETA wants, anyway. > I sure do hope that it will become a world wide taboo to hold birds as pets. Let's instead put the taboo on _trading_ birds, first. That's the biggest problem. Many birds are ripped out of the wild and sold, usually illegally. These birds not only develop severe depression, but they're often horrible 'pets' as they were not brought up in captivity. Lastly, birds brought into captivity often have no idea that a life other than their own exists. They're not 'missing out' on anything they're otherwise aware of. In fact, many owners take their birds out to free-fly quite often. > If you're such an avid bird enthousiast, why not just stick with feeding the locals? This isn't really a fair comparison, sorry. It's also not applicable in most places in the world - parrots generally come from a few specific places.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  I feel like we identify strongly with each other to large extents. I too have a pet rabbit that I got from a children zoo. He had severe syphilis infection that we got him treated for and honestly he lives on a golden platter. His life is atleast 2 to 3 hours of intensive interaction, be it from either me or my partner. In addition we monitor his droppings very well, as well as providing a vast amount of diverse foods that we researched. I think this rabbit has practicaly everything that he can possible wish for; except for the vast amounts of space that he needs to run. In addition I can't, like you, put this domesticated creature back into the wild, it will perish most certainly. Though, recently we moved houses where we now have a garden he can, for the first time in a couple of years roam freely in, and it is stunning to notice the speed that he can achieve while running. Mind you, the entire house is his "cage", yes he does have a cage for his toilet but that door is always open. What I learned from this rabbit is that absolute adores the great food and the amount of pets that he gets, but also how frequently alone he is, or how extremely social this creature is. My life carries on after his pets, but he is just stuck there to wait till either of us is back. I certainly do not underestimate the amount of care that parrot owners provide to their parrot. I think it might be even more than we do for our rabbit. However, I think the parrot, or any other social animal, would be most happy when flying or running around and socializing with his peers. There are simply some things that even the best "owners" are able to provide. To go into your arguments: >Because sometimes there isn't a choice. Birds born into captivity do not re-hab well. Rescues (as is mine) are generally not able to live in the wild if they were just 'released', so someone has to take care of them. I agree, that is the same situation I have with my rabbi. In these instances I'd say that it is what it is, but to let the pool of pets continue to grow would be a bad thing. A law against the procreation of pets would prevent that, albeit very slowly as this might just take couple of decades till most animals in captivity would perish, as you know parrots can grow over 100. Like you say, the undivided attention we provide to our pets, but can you also provide him a social dynamic environment like he'd have if he'd be in the wild with his peers? Escaping for his life, fighting for a wife, eagerly searching for food throughout the day. None of that I believe as that is nigh impossible to provide as pet owner. Aviary's are even more horrid as they now still not have the space they'd really need. I have yet to come across one where you can't find a plucked bird (from NL). >Sometimes, yes. Just like all animal conservancy. If we didn't care to give them better lives than what they had before, then we'd just put them all down wouldn't we? That's what PETA wants, anyway. I am rather cynical about most animal conservancy programs, as they'd barrely ever get put back in nature and seem most often a front for growing zoos. But for all that do, I think that's great and acceptable, to certain extent. >Lastly, birds brought into captivity often have no idea that a life other than their own exists. They're not 'missing out' on anything they're otherwise aware of. In fact, many owners take their birds out to free-fly quite often. I agree for a large part with your arguments here, but not entirely on the not knowing of missing out. Most animals have natural tendencies to express and just do. Some are known, but most are not. Thus I think it's presumptuous to say that a bird doesn't know what it misses >This isn't really a fair comparison, sorry. It's also not applicable in most places in the world - parrots generally come from a few specific places. I think it is: Why do people introduce animals in surroundings that do not belong there? If you love your parrot so much, you'd provide him with the best he can possible get, which more than not is whatever surrounding that they're used to. E.g. no polar bears in the desert, and a parrot in a surround that is comparably hot / cold. Why not stick with authentic, natural originations? I fell in love with magpies and crows and keep them as guards of my rabbit, through some feeding processes. It is truly amazing to see the interaction between the rabbit, and the magpies. I can definitely recommend you to read into magpies. They're possible even more interesting than parrots. Just fall in love with whatever you have around you. Nature is amazing enough as is, and the most boring and simple critters will definitely keep suprising you. You don't need a cage around it. Besides, don't you find observing the natural behaviour even more interesting?
krageon 5y ago
> Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely? Yes, of course it is. That is why a lot of people are nostalgic for their childhood, even though legally and in practice children are slaves to their parents. They have agency only insofar as their parents allow it.
funnyflamigo 5y ago
Disclaimer: I think everyone in this thread agrees we should try to improve the lives of all animals > why not just stick with feeding the locals? At least those are free to decide to visit you or not. This is almost never a good idea (for any animal). Assuming you're feeding them the right type of food (bread is terrible for ducks for example), you're training the animals to rely on humans for food. This both makes it more difficult for them to survive on their own should you stop feeding them, but for some of the potentially aggressive ones (like geese) will become comfortable approaching humans, even the humans who do not want to be near them. I've read your stance on animal rescue places and I generally agree - most aren't good or are glorified zoos. But I do think there's genuine ones that are helpful, and I think between those and rescues where you can give the animal direct attention are the best ways to humanely assist animals who would otherwise die in the wild. My problem is with the traders and terrible owners who only use them as a show piece. A good owner should be providing ample enrichment and attention

ta_due_to_apro 5y ago

While I agree with your overall point (don't keep birds in cages), it's worth mentioning that the quality of life of wild animals is generally awful, with constant bouts of starvation, running for your life from predators and diseases. "Nature" is beautiful, but a harsh mistress, let's avoid romanticizing it.

hetspookjee 5y ago
Nature is brutal in every single way, I agree. But the freedom it provides is also compatibel with humans loving animals; they can take care of them without the deprivation of freedom. I don't intend to romanticize nature's freedom, but I intend to point out the conflicting point of view a lot of people seem to have.

girvo 5y ago

Would this not be true of basically all animals? Why birds and not cats? (I have neither, I’m genuinely asking, not playing “gotcha”)

hetspookjee 5y ago
Mostly due to the saying of people "Free as a bird", but also due to the topic of the paper. Though I dont think there should be a difference. I think that no pet should be kept if it requires a leash, cage or any other form of freedom deprivation. Domesticated dogs can be an exception, but in general a pet should choose to be with you because he likes you and doesn't want to go and should be able to leave whenever it desires too.
- mellavora 5y ago
  I'm glad you make an exception for dogs. I've been attacked by dogs more than once. Some of these were because it was an ill-treated dog. Most of the time, however, it is just circumstance. Last weekend, I was jogging on a forest path, rounded a corner and suprised a dog whose owners probably considered it a well-behaved pet-- and the owners looked liked 'responsible members of society' (i.e. not trying to prove they were tough). The dog was off-leash. Because both I and the dog were caught off-guard, this immediately turned into an aggressive situation. The dog was threatening to attack me, and the owners had a very hard time getting it to back down-- it wasn't responding to their voice commands, it kept barking and lunging at me. long story short, from my perspective, any domestic animal weighing above 4kg should always be on a leash when out of the house, as a matter of public safety.
  - hetspookjee 5y ago
    I feel you. I have been attacked once and it truly frightened me. I still think most dogs cant be held as most people are to incompetent to care properly for a dog. So my point of view is more that having those dogs in the first place is perhaps a bad idea.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
amcoastal 5y ago
Many people who have cats (not all, but many) have ample places for their cat to run around in, and some will even let their cats outdoors. I'm fairly certain the proportion of people who let their cats be "Free Range" is much much larger than the people letting their pet birds fly around.
- girvo 5y ago
  Sadly, outdoor cats are so horrifically bad for the ecosystem where I live (Australia), that any owner who allows it is irresponsible in my opinion. Thankfully, the local government for far north QLD (my state) is now looking into banning outdoor off-leash cats the same way they do dogs, for exactly this reason. They're too destructive here unfortunately :(

junon 5y ago

I have a (large) parrot and I agree with you entirely, though please don't undermine the amount of work good parrot owners put into their ownership. > I can't imagine that anyone in love with birds is capable of putting them in a cage or on a leash. Because sometimes there isn't a choice. Birds born into captivity do not re-hab well. Rescues (as is mine) are generally not able to live in the wild if they were just 'released', so someone has to take care of them. > Sure you might think you treat him well, you pet him every now and then and provide it with some food and care, but is that truly an improvement? Yes. It is. Over the fifteen Rottweilers, the aggressive man-handling, the forced breeding (even though he hadn't even hit puberty, thus why the breeder no longer wanted him) and the absolutely terrible living conditions he was in - yes, my place of living is a huge improvement. Further, good bird owners do way more than "just pet him every now and then". You need to give them undivided attention for at least two hours a day. You need to look at every single poop they make around you because it's the first warning sign of health problems. If they're happy, they're generally content where they are. There's a lot that you're missing here, I think, even though I agree with the overall message. Please don't dillute bird ownership to PETA-esque FUD. > Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely? Sometimes, yes. Just like all animal conservancy. If we didn't care to give them better lives than what they had before, then we'd just put them all down wouldn't we? That's what PETA wants, anyway. > I sure do hope that it will become a world wide taboo to hold birds as pets. Let's instead put the taboo on _trading_ birds, first. That's the biggest problem. Many birds are ripped out of the wild and sold, usually illegally. These birds not only develop severe depression, but they're often horrible 'pets' as they were not brought up in captivity. Lastly, birds brought into captivity often have no idea that a life other than their own exists. They're not 'missing out' on anything they're otherwise aware of. In fact, many owners take their birds out to free-fly quite often. > If you're such an avid bird enthousiast, why not just stick with feeding the locals? This isn't really a fair comparison, sorry. It's also not applicable in most places in the world - parrots generally come from a few specific places.

hetspookjee 5y ago
I feel like we identify strongly with each other to large extents. I too have a pet rabbit that I got from a children zoo. He had severe syphilis infection that we got him treated for and honestly he lives on a golden platter. His life is atleast 2 to 3 hours of intensive interaction, be it from either me or my partner. In addition we monitor his droppings very well, as well as providing a vast amount of diverse foods that we researched. I think this rabbit has practicaly everything that he can possible wish for; except for the vast amounts of space that he needs to run. In addition I can't, like you, put this domesticated creature back into the wild, it will perish most certainly. Though, recently we moved houses where we now have a garden he can, for the first time in a couple of years roam freely in, and it is stunning to notice the speed that he can achieve while running. Mind you, the entire house is his "cage", yes he does have a cage for his toilet but that door is always open. What I learned from this rabbit is that absolute adores the great food and the amount of pets that he gets, but also how frequently alone he is, or how extremely social this creature is. My life carries on after his pets, but he is just stuck there to wait till either of us is back. I certainly do not underestimate the amount of care that parrot owners provide to their parrot. I think it might be even more than we do for our rabbit. However, I think the parrot, or any other social animal, would be most happy when flying or running around and socializing with his peers. There are simply some things that even the best "owners" are able to provide. To go into your arguments: >Because sometimes there isn't a choice. Birds born into captivity do not re-hab well. Rescues (as is mine) are generally not able to live in the wild if they were just 'released', so someone has to take care of them. I agree, that is the same situation I have with my rabbi. In these instances I'd say that it is what it is, but to let the pool of pets continue to grow would be a bad thing. A law against the procreation of pets would prevent that, albeit very slowly as this might just take couple of decades till most animals in captivity would perish, as you know parrots can grow over 100. Like you say, the undivided attention we provide to our pets, but can you also provide him a social dynamic environment like he'd have if he'd be in the wild with his peers? Escaping for his life, fighting for a wife, eagerly searching for food throughout the day. None of that I believe as that is nigh impossible to provide as pet owner. Aviary's are even more horrid as they now still not have the space they'd really need. I have yet to come across one where you can't find a plucked bird (from NL). >Sometimes, yes. Just like all animal conservancy. If we didn't care to give them better lives than what they had before, then we'd just put them all down wouldn't we? That's what PETA wants, anyway. I am rather cynical about most animal conservancy programs, as they'd barrely ever get put back in nature and seem most often a front for growing zoos. But for all that do, I think that's great and acceptable, to certain extent. >Lastly, birds brought into captivity often have no idea that a life other than their own exists. They're not 'missing out' on anything they're otherwise aware of. In fact, many owners take their birds out to free-fly quite often. I agree for a large part with your arguments here, but not entirely on the not knowing of missing out. Most animals have natural tendencies to express and just do. Some are known, but most are not. Thus I think it's presumptuous to say that a bird doesn't know what it misses >This isn't really a fair comparison, sorry. It's also not applicable in most places in the world - parrots generally come from a few specific places. I think it is: Why do people introduce animals in surroundings that do not belong there? If you love your parrot so much, you'd provide him with the best he can possible get, which more than not is whatever surrounding that they're used to. E.g. no polar bears in the desert, and a parrot in a surround that is comparably hot / cold. Why not stick with authentic, natural originations? I fell in love with magpies and crows and keep them as guards of my rabbit, through some feeding processes. It is truly amazing to see the interaction between the rabbit, and the magpies. I can definitely recommend you to read into magpies. They're possible even more interesting than parrots. Just fall in love with whatever you have around you. Nature is amazing enough as is, and the most boring and simple critters will definitely keep suprising you. You don't need a cage around it. Besides, don't you find observing the natural behaviour even more interesting?

krageon 5y ago

> Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely? Yes, of course it is. That is why a lot of people are nostalgic for their childhood, even though legally and in practice children are slaves to their parents. They have agency only insofar as their parents allow it.

funnyflamigo 5y ago

Disclaimer: I think everyone in this thread agrees we should try to improve the lives of all animals > why not just stick with feeding the locals? At least those are free to decide to visit you or not. This is almost never a good idea (for any animal). Assuming you're feeding them the right type of food (bread is terrible for ducks for example), you're training the animals to rely on humans for food. This both makes it more difficult for them to survive on their own should you stop feeding them, but for some of the potentially aggressive ones (like geese) will become comfortable approaching humans, even the humans who do not want to be near them. I've read your stance on animal rescue places and I generally agree - most aren't good or are glorified zoos. But I do think there's genuine ones that are helpful, and I think between those and rescues where you can give the animal direct attention are the best ways to humanely assist animals who would otherwise die in the wild. My problem is with the traders and terrible owners who only use them as a show piece. A good owner should be providing ample enrichment and attention