An Essay:
MAKING WAVES
My Life in Aviculture and My Weekend at the AFA (2004)
by Sally Blanchard

This article is copyrighted and may not be reprinted without the written permission of Sally Blanchard or the PBIC, Inc. Reprinted and updated from Issue #65 of Companion Parrot Quarterly

Controversial

It only took one weekend at the AFA (American Federation of Aviculture) in 2004 to remind myself how “controversial” I am, but then I have caused waves almost from the moment I started working with parrots — especially in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I have been studying, observing, and working with birds for over 35 years — close to 30 of those years have been with parrots. I have continued to educate myself about parrots whenever I have the opportunity. Over the years I have had hands on experience with hundreds of parrots and discussed these amazing birds with thousands of companion parrot caregivers, breeders, pet shop owners, avian veterinarians, trainers, conservationists, ornithologists, and researchers who observe parrots in the wild. Most readers know of my long-term dedication and commitment to quality parrot care.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

I am not a stranger to criticism or to controversy. From the first moment I became vocal about my opinions about parrot care and behavior, I have been treated like a pariah by some and a prophet by others; both can be uncomfortable. I was lucky in the beginning because I was so absorbed in my work that I remained somewhat oblivious to much of the harassment I received. As I became more aware of it, it just motivated me more to get what I considered to be good information out to people. I was also naive enough to believe that people who kept birds always loved and respected them.

The first negative remarks that I heard were based on the theme, “Who does this woman think she is telling us about parrots when she has NEVER been a breeder!” I still hear that this is being said on a regular basis. Of course, the insinuation is that if I (or anyone for that matter) am not a parrot breeder, I couldn’t possibly know anything about parrots.

Perhaps it is a valid criticism if I was giving technical advice on how to breed birds but I know that this is not my area of expertise. I was also taken aside by more than one person and told that I shouldn’t make waves and that I was providing fodder to the animal rights people if I didn’t act like everything was wonderful in the world of birds. I was being asked to sweep the dirt under the rug so no one would see it. The fallacy was that people did not need me to point out problems.

When I first moved to the Bay Area I started teaching parrot care classes at the San Francisco SPCA, the Peninsula Humane Society and the Marin County Humane Society. I taught the SFSPCA class the last Sunday of every month for several years, which provided me with extensive information about what people wanted to know about their parrots. Because of my years of working with people and parrots, I believe that there are few people who have as much understanding of the needs of companion parrot caregivers as I do. I believe that the mere fact that I aligned myself with humane societies was enough for several people in aviculture to be upset with me. At the time I wasn’t making a political statement — I was simply looking for venues to educate people about the care and behavior of their pet parrots.

I witnessed a conversation an avian conference I attended. One woman, who was a breeder, picked up an early copy of the Pet Bird Report and then threw it down in disgust stating the proverbial, “Who does this woman think she is coming out of nowhere and telling us what to do? She has NEVER been a parrot breeder” She exclaimed that the magazine was trash. The other woman said something complimentary about my work and was immediately ridiculed with the derisive words, “Oh you must just be a pet owner ...” The second woman replied, “Yes I am a pet owner, but I am also an avian veterinarian.”

Within some of the organized bird groups in the Bay Area and beyond, it became a serious indiscretion to associate with me or to promote or even agree with any of my ideas. Over the years I have spoken at several bird clubs where people who do not agree with me chose to be rude by purposefully creating a disturbance and/or noisily leaving the room as soon as I started talking. At one parrot related event, I sat down at a table and the other people got up and moved to another table — I had even showered that morning. At this same event an observant woman did talk to me to say that she did not understand how I could remain so dedicated with all the “politicrap” I had to put up with. I never could have if I was not so dedicated to parrots. I was smart enough to know that when some people became vocal about me, it was proof that I was making a difference in regards to the care of parrots.

A Threat?

Why are some people so angry with me? I am sure that there are a variety of reasons but I think that the most common was that my ideas were a threat to them in one way or another. Sometimes criticism, even to the point of harassment, provided me with proof that I was being heard. A classic example is my passionate promotion of pelleted diets (when they first came out) and fresh foods instead of people relying on seed as a total diet for their parrots’ nutrition. One day my avian veterinarian called to ask me about something he had received in the mail. It was three cartoons stapled together under the title, “The Mis-adventures of Sally B.” Under the title was the statement, “any resemblance to a living person is intentional.”

The first panel of one cartoon showed me holding a Yellow-nape Amazon and telling a group of parrots, “remember, you are what you eat.” Then in the next square, the Amazon replied, “Gee Sal, if I ate the way you did, I’d be a green pig.” The next square showed me with a pig face wondering aloud if Twinkies or Hohos came in pelleted form. The second cartoon showed me beating parrots, chasing them with a baseball bat, and locking them away for being bad. The third cartoon showed me starving “Mongo Barie” (Bongo Marie, my late great grey) because she wouldn’t eat her pellets. The drawing showed that I had her on her back trying to force pellets down her throat. These cartoons were sent out to the pet stores and veterinarians and passed out at bird shows.

At the time I could think of at least three “suspects” who would go that far but I was still surprised that someone would be so threatened that they would take the time and energy to do such a thing. A few years later a friend of mine who owned a bird shop told me she had a booth at a bird fair next to some people who bragged about doing the cartoons. It did not surprise me at all that it was the employees of a seed company that was based in my area at the time. I guess that too many people where switching to pelleted diets.

For a short time I distributed bird products. There was a paucity of quality products available to bird owners in the Bay Area and I decided to remedy that situation. I was the first distributor for several of the products that are still in business today, but many of the companies went under and/or were bought out. Because I was a distributor, I visited many bird shops in the Bay Area. A few were excellent, some were good or mediocre, but a few were so atrocious that I did not want to do business with them. My father’s long illness and death eventually got me out of the distribution business because I had to spend so much time away from the Bay Area. Although I realized that I was not happy doing that kind of work, it was a valuable experience and I learned a lot about pet products and the pet industry and I met a lot of wonderful people — and a few that proved to me without a doubt that there were people exploiting parrots for financial gain without any concern for their welfare.

It’s a Tough Job, but Somebody’s Gotta Do It

I was responsible for closing one bird shop down. When I went into the shop I was appalled. The owner had an Amazon taped to the counter on his back and was forcing 8in1 diarrhea remedy down the bird’s throat with a funnel. The parrot aspirated and died right then and there. It was obvious that many other birds in the shop would join the several dead Amazons and other parrots in the trash can. This was not simply a bad pet shop; it was a parrot death camp with rampant psittacosis. The ignorant shop owner didn’t care about the health of his parrots — he told me that vet care was too expensive and besides he knew as much as most vets did. He told me to get out of his shop — I did.

I immediately went to the shopping center management office. I knew the manager because I had done a pet fair at the shopping center a few years before. I explained that psittacosis was a disease that could make people sick and even kill a person with a compromised immune system. I asked her how deep the pockets of the owners were and they would react to a lawsuit if someone became very ill or died. I called my veterinarian, the county animal control, and vector control for “back up.” Management put a lock on the door that afternoon and the store was closed. The next day the over 200 remaining birds were removed to a facility where they would receive veterinary care. Many of them were in such poor health that they could not be saved.

The fact that I had been responsible for closing this store got around quickly and I became even more of an outcast — after all, this was absolute proof to some that I was anti-pet industry and an enemy of aviculture. Of course the label “animal rights fanatic” was often added to my name. It still appalls me to think that there is an extreme faction of aviculture that believes without any question that this store had a “right” to not only stay in business but to continue business as usual even if the birds were dying one after another because of the owner's ignorance and callousness. Aviculture still has strong minded vocal people with these beliefs and they do all that they can to fight for the rights of people to own parrots regardless of the care the birds receive.

The Absurdity of Domino Paranoia

Until the last decade or so, all of the bird clubs were breeder oriented. If there was a speaker I really wanted to hear, I would go to a meeting. I remember at one meeting a bird club maven gave a talk about some legislation initiated to protect animals in traveling shows. Her comment, “If this legislation passes, your 14-year-old son will not be able to take his Budgie to the vet without being arrested,” reeked of paranoia to me.

As I attended more bird clubs as a speaker, I heard more and more of this type of exaggerated statement that seemed intended to whip people into a state of paranoid frenzy. At one club, a man got up and with great fervor announced that, “Albuquerque has outlawed the keeping of parrots and you’re next!” The city had not outlawed the keeping of parrots; they supposedly were discussing legislation that required licensing birds. While this may indeed be detrimental to the needs of aviculture, I believe that a factual statement creates a more intelligent and less emotional response.

It is my experience that most lawmakers are much less likely to support people who come from an emotional and/or anger base. They want to hear rational arguments as to why something is true or not. I found this to be true with the proposed legislation in California dealing with unweaned birds. The assemblywoman listened to me when I tried to provide a logical, thought out explanation about why the first draft of the bill was punitive, impractical and unworkable. By the time I talked with her she had been inundated with emotional calls, some of which were quite insulting.

I have heard a lot of what I call the domino theory of paranoia. This theory essentially states that if one law is passed dealing with parrots there will be a logical progression until no one in the United States is allowed to breed or keep parrots for any reason. I think that inspiring this type of paranoia is an easy way to solidify people who already agree. It is also an age old way to influence emotional people to agree with you if they don’t have the intelligence to see through it or to think for themselves.

The entire thirty years that I have been involved with parrots, I have heard the propaganda that if we let any legislation get through it will just be a matter of time before we are not allowed to keep parrots ... Chicken Little, the sky is falling!— thirty years and the sky hasn’t fallen yet. There has been some legislation passed in various states and so far there have been no laws enacted to deny the rights of people to keep parrots. While there have definitely been zoning issues involving aviaries (a few quite unfair!), even this does not mean that eventually no one will be allowed to keep parrots. But the most common quote from the more fanatical aviculturists is ... “and you’re next!” I have talked with a number of companion parrot owners who have been whipped into a paranoid froth because they read this type of propaganda and believed that some day someone would come and confiscate their parrots.

While the recent Newcastle’s situation proved that the homes of some parrots could be threatened under certain situations; rumors, innuendos, and exaggerations still whipped people into a paranoid frenzy. An example: Two readers canceled their subscriptions because they were mailed from California even though we were close to 500 miles from the location where Newcastle’s disease was found in poultry. Many companies from all parts of California and the west coast reported a down slide in their business because of the misinformation on the Internet. The most important thing that any parrot caregiver can do is to know what their rights are as far as local laws, zoning, and the attitudes of their neighbors.

Switching to Domestically-raised Parrots

During the last two decades, more and more people were breeding and buying domestically-raised handfed parrots. This was viewed by most people as a vast improvement to the capture and importation of wild parrots. It was ... but ...

At first the challenge was to simply keep the babies alive and that was the major concern of just about all breeders unless they believed in the concept of acceptable loss. Breeders began to share information about their triumphs and tragedies in magazines and conferences. With trial and error and experience, techniques of raising chicks improved and the mortality rate dropped significantly. Several breeders became well known because of the information they provided about breeding and raising parrot chicks. Some of the breeders changed with the times and evolved, while others stayed doing the same things over and over. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But there are problems that the shortsighted did not anticipate. I know this because I talk to the “end users” of the production breeder’s “product.”

In my effort to find as much information as possible about parrots, I realized that there was little or no information about wild parrots at the time. Because of this aviculture had to come up with their own ideas about raising parrots. Unfortunately some of the information was based on erroneous biology. For example, the still prevalent, yet ignorant, idea of keeping young babies in well-lit aquariums is in total opposition to the fact that parrot babies live in dark cavities until they leave the nest.

For years, I often read that parrots imprint and therefore, baby parrots should be taken away from their natural parents at a very young age or should be incubator hatched. This way they would not “know” they were parrots and would make better pets. This erroneous concept also became the justification for the idea that breeders should not spend time socializing young parrots — supposedly the mistaken logic was that the parrots would bond to the breeder/handfeeder and not be able to transfer that bond to another person. I knew that this was simply not the case both from my ornithology studies and my experiences working with wild-caught birds who had formed strong bonds with new people.

Proper Early Socialization is Critical

I was the first writer to emphasis the need for early socialization for domestically-raised parrots. According to much avicultural thinking at the time, human raised baby parrots would be the perfect pet. As more domestically raised chicks came onto the market, I began to notice that some species of domestically-raised parrots often had serious problems. Many of the chicks that I saw were not robust; they were stunted with disproportionate heads and poor hydration. They were too slow to develop both physically and emotionally.

Some poorly-socialized African greys became phobic when they were introduced to new and unfamiliar situations. Food rigid cockatoos who were only gavage fed never learned to manipulate food, cried constantly, and were so insecure they became excessively demanding and overly dependent. Macaws weaned too soon drove their new families crazy with their constant food begging behaviors. Baby Amazons were so untame that they had no idea how to step on anyone’s hand and so aggressive they intimidated the most patient caregivers. I even worked to "tame" hand-fed baby Amazons at a Bay Area bird shop.

Often these problems did not start until the parrot reached their independence stages but some exhibited problems almost immediately when they came into their new homes. A production breeder who wholesales all of their parrots at a few weeks old most likely will never know how their babies adjust to life as a human companion.

I was often able to find a correlation between certain breeders and bird shops and problem parrots and it became clear to me that there was a significant lack of early socialization. I was brazen enough to write that I believed that a wild-caught African grey who had received some socialization from his parents before capture would make a better human companion than a production raised domestic baby. I am not advocating the return of parrot importation; I am fervently wishing that the production breeding of parrot chicks becomes a thing of the past. Unfortunately due to the efforts of several factions in aviculture including the AFA and OOP, Kaytee Preferred Birds and the large chains such as Petco, PetSmart, Petland, and others it is my opinion that production breeding of parrots has become a bigger business.

I adamantly believe that there is biological proof that baby parrots NEED socialization. In my opinion, anyone who ignores or disputes this fact has another agenda. Parrots are what is called a K-selected species. (An interesting note is that a speaker at the AFA ranted about my erroneous use of the term as “K-select species” [as opposed to the correct K-selected species] as evidence in his quest to discredit my work; my apologies to my readers for neglecting to put the “ed” on the end of select. Yet at the same time he made a biologically ignorant statement that even cockroaches could be K-select species!)
 
According to the extensive Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology Home Study Course in Bird Biology, a K-selected species is one “with a large body size, slow development, delayed onset of breeding, small clutch size, infrequent reproduction, prolonged parental care, and a long life span.”

Combining the fact that large parrots are a K-select species and what I have observed in over 30 years of working with parrot family birds, it is obvious to me that young psittacines receive and require “prolonged parental care.” The purpose of prolonged parental care is the learning of social and survival skills. The production breeding ethic of assembly line breeding ignores this absolute biological fact. Whether they are in the wild or in our living room, socialization requirements demand prolonged parental care for behavioral health and stability. It is certainly not anthropomorphism to say that parrots need early socialization when it is a biological fact that they do.

The Poultrification of Parrots

Over the years, I have written several articles about what I consider to be production ethics in parrot breeding. (Please read the Poultrification of Parrots) It is my passionate opinion that raising parrots and raising chickens should be two entirely different processes. Creating a contented companion parrot can be the responsibility of many people including the breeder, handfeeder, bird shop, and, ultimately, the new caregiver. Failure to respect the needs of a young parrot can create a companion with a host of behavioral problems.

The term “production ethic” refers to the breeding and raising of parrot chicks using techniques that ultimately do not promote or develop the optimal physical and emotional health of the parrot. These non-nurturing techniques and concepts are generally used so that a greater number of chicks can be produced solely for monetary gain. Certainly not all aviculturists use any or all of these methods. Production ethic practices include but are not limited to:

- Over-breeding of parent birds forcing them to produce multiple clutches by manipulating the environment and removing all of the eggs for incubator hatching.

- Poor or limited care of breeding stock including poor hygiene, feeding substandard foods because of cost of quality food, and not providing enrichments.

- The concept of acceptable loss, which means that if you breed for quantity and not quality a certain percentage of chick mortality is acceptable and even expected.

- Routine incubator hatching or pulling the chicks at day one. No contact is allowed with parents or other parrots.

- Routine assembly line gavage (using a tube to put food directly into the crop) or power feeding — according to a strict timetable rather than each baby’s need.

- Deprivation weaning at an arbitrary time rather than paying attention to the individual bird’s needs.

- Poor early socialization with little or no handling or instructional guidance.

- Little or no exposure to new experiences, people, or situations.

- Keeping young birds in small enclosures that prohibit exploration. An example is the use of a “weaning cage” where the parrot is only given food and no other stimulation with the mistaken belief that if there are no distractions the birds will have to eat.

- Selling chicks unweaned to buyers with little or no hand feeding experience.

- Weaning to a diet limited to seed or pellets only.

- The routine prophylactic use of antibiotics as a substitute for proper hygiene, physical care, and/or veterinary care.

- Little or no education or follow-up opportunities for the buyer.
 

Defining the Middle Ground

It is obvious to me that people who keep and have parrots often have little else in common. While the majority of CPQ readers and the people who attend conferences and seminars seem to be middle-aged, middle-class women; bird keepers come from all walks of life and economic situations. They also have varying political and religious beliefs. Although many parrot keepers are passionate about their birds, I believe that those who are active in organized avicultural or bird groups are in the minority. However, this minority is very vocal and, over the years, concepts about parrot keeping seem to have polarized into two extremes.

One is the most extreme of the avian rights people — the “avian rights fanatics.” These are not the people who are running legitimate rescue and sanctuary organizations. They seem to believe that parrots should not be pets and do a great deal of guilt mongering to make people feel badly that they breed or have companion parrots. They try to force their opinions down your throat and when you don’t buy 100% of their jargon, they dismiss you as a shill for the pet industry.

The polar opposite is the “avicultural rights fanatic.” These are people who believe that their “right” to keep parrots is an absolute that should not be questioned. Parrots are a money producing product and no one has the right to question the way people care for these living possessions. They believe that any law or regulation regarding parrot keeping violates their rights and will lead to increasing restrictions until no one is allowed to keep parrots. Some view the pet owner or “parrot consumer” with great disdain and often dismiss people who care about their parrots as being idiots or “anthropomorphic.” They tend to dismiss small breeders as “back yard breeders” and believe that they are a negative to the bird business. In my opinion, their rhetoric is often full of paranoia. Some of them seem to believe that their industry is infiltrated with animal rights fanatics whose goal is to undermine their unquestionable rights. This must seem true to them because everyone who doesn’t believe what they believe is automatically an animal rights fanatic who is out to destroy aviculture.

Just as not all people who believe in animal rights are animal rights fanatics, not all aviculturists are avicultural rights fanatics. There are many shades of gray in the middle ground. It is the people in the middle ground who will continue to make a positive difference in parrot keeping. I believe that the middle ground are the people who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of the parrots they raise and keep. The care of parrots is the first criteria they use to judge breeders and bird shops. They are also concerned about restrictive legislation that would affect keeping parrots but they also believe that some legislation may be needed to insure quality practices within the industry in regards to the care of birds.

So What about the San Francisco AFA Convention 2004?

I was asked to be a speaker. I was a little wary about this but graciously accepted the invitation ... after all it was just across the Bay. I really enjoyed the AFA convention. I spent time with friends, talked with people I hadn’t seen in years, and met an incredible number of wonderful supportive people who are doing positive things for parrots both in captivity and in the wild.

It was nice to have so much support from rational people when it was one speaker’s goal to discredit my work and mock the aspects of parrot keeping that many companion caregivers hold dear. Early in Howard Voren’s lecture (quoted from the written version of his lecture), he made the statement that, “every person in this room is in danger of loosing (sic) their right to keep their birds.”

Included in his diatribe was the Amazona Society, behaviorists in general, Avian Rescue and Sanctuary, plus PETA, the Taliban, and Al Queda. He concluded his program with the words, “Because MARK my WORDS! The NEXT one they are Coming for is YOU!” This quote doesn’t surprise me at all ... I think that this is exactly the kind of exaggerated information that increases paranoia in people who don’t usually think for themselves. In his three speaking opportunities, Mr. Voren was quite vitriolic about my years of work with parrots, the Amazona Society (who sponsored me at the AFA as a speaker), parrot rescue groups, and animal welfare and/or right’s organizations.

I noticed several aspects of the event that were significant to me and my ideas about aviculture and parrots. There were a few people who were extremely rude to me, but I expected that. One woman yelled at the people that I was going to dinner with accusing them of being hypocrites for inviting me to join them. Another aviculturist stood outside the door to my second program loudly exclaiming that I was not worth hearing.

The majority of people that I talked with were quite apologetic. Even the president of the AFA, Dr. Benny Galloway, was kind enough to talk to me about the situation and compliment me on my decorum. Most of the people at the convention genuinely care about the welfare and care of parrots. The middle ground was certainly represented and highly visible and there were a good number of companion parrot caregivers in attendance.

The AFA Does Not Represent Me

I first joined the AFA in the late 1970s but after I moved to California I realized that the organization did not represent me and was too often quite elitist in dealing with pet owners. Any reader who believes that the welfare and care of the actual birds has been and is a major concern of the AFA as an organization is mistaken.

However in the last few years many more moderate people have tried to change some of the more rigid aspects of organized aviculture. My good friend Diana Holloway tried for several years but after the Amazona Society was attacked so virulently at the convention, she decided to give up.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that much of AFA policy is still being dictated by the more extreme version of aviculture based on the rigid protection of the breeder/collector, often with little or no regard for the actual care of parrots. The first agenda is protecting the rights of anyone to own birds without any interference in regards to their care or welfare. In the last few months a group of people concerned about parrot care tried to get legislation passed in an obscure county in the Northwest. Their concern was the care of birds in a particular breeding establishment where neglect and abuse was documented. A person representing the AFA was sent to the area to stop the legislation without the knowledge of several members of the AFA Board of Directors.

Two Extremes

It was quite controversial for me to speak at the AFA and some of the “avicultural rights” people were quite vocal in their opposition. I wanted to see for myself if the group had embraced a more middle ground philosophy. My first lecture was essentially about finding the middle ground among people who care about parrots.

However, it is clear to me that the extremists on either side — the animal rights fanatics and the avicultural rights fanatics — will never find common ground. One long time AFA aviculturist stated in a panel that aviculture needed to work with cattlemen, ranchers, chicken farmers, hunters, etc. and other animal users to prevent any legislation regarding bird keeping. The term “animal users” made me cringe and I seriously wonder what aviculturists who raise baby parrots as human companions have in common with people who raise animals with the end product being food? (This is not a condemnation of the people who raise animals for food, but a comment on the differences between raising companions and raising food.)

One of the most irritating aspects of the avicultural rights fanatics is their tendency to label everyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% as an animal rights fanatic. Sadly, another is the tendency to label people who love their parrots as being anthropomorphic.

In fact I have witnessed more than one breeder derisively insinuate that pet owners are anthropomorphic idiots. Yes, there are pet owners who are too anthropomorphic and some who are probably idiots just as all parrot breeders and bird shops cannot be lumped together as to quality.

Alienating the companion parrot caregivers is not wise as I believe that they will have a tremendous impact on the future of aviculture, parrot education, and conservation. In fact, these are some of the people who are already making a positive difference in parrot keeping, rescue, and conservation.

Over-population of Companion Parrots

The avicultural rights people refuse to admit or believe that there is a parrot overpopulation problem. They want statistical proof, but I sincerely doubt that anything could convince some of them that there actually is a problem. They cite three “facts as evidence that there is not a problem:
- 1. There is still a market for baby parrots,
- 2. The humane societies are not swamped with unwanted parrots as they are with unwanted dogs and cats that have to be euthanized,
- 3. Surplus parrots can always be placed in breeding situations.

I believe there is fallacy in all of these arguments;
- 1. A thriving market for baby parrots doesn’t mean that their aren’t older parrots in need of homes,
- 2. Unwanted parrots are not surrendered to humane societies or animal control facilities as often as they are to pet shops, veterinarians, breeders, and parrot rescue situations
- 3. Some parrots are not suitable for breeding situations and “surplus” parrots in breeding may produce the possibility of even more “throw away” parrots.

I talk to dozens of people on a weekly basis. I know of several bird shops that also do their best to place unwanted parrots that are dumped off on them. I talk to people from legitimate rescues who can’t accommodate all of the parrots that people want them to take.

Most of my subscribers have second hand birds and many have more parrots than they can manage properly because they know they are the only home possible. Four of my seven parrots came from homes where they were no longer wanted.

For the last few years we have been doing an in-depth companion parrot survey. Due to a lack of time not all of the information has been entered but I believe that the information clearly shows a pattern that many companion parrots change homes frequently. One of the questions we asked is, what would make you get rid of your parrot. While a good number of people stated, “nothing,” there is an equal number of people who cite various behavioral problems with aggression being the most frequent. Statistically well over half of those who responded, had at least one second hand or rescue parrot.

Worth Supporting?

Is the AFA worth supporting? This depends on your point of view. Companion parrot breeders and caregivers definitely need an organization representing parrot concerns. This is especially true in situations where people are being forced to get rid of their parrots because of changes in zoning or local laws. The AFA was formed in the mid 1970s because of a Newcastle disease break out. I have heard that hundreds of parrots were “depopulated” because of the suspicion that they might have been exposed to the virulent disease that nearly ruined the southern California poultry industry. The organization met an important need then but does it still represent the needs of people with parrots?

Years ago I tried to talk to the AFA powers about starting a grass roots parrot education program but they turned a deaf ear. My guess is that it was because of my reputation among aviculturists in Bay Area aviculture and the fact that I was just a pet owner. I guess I was ahead of my time? At that point I decided to create my own educational organization, which eventually included the Pet Bird Report.

As an organization, I believe the AFA has failed the companion parrot caregiver but we have to remember that providing an instruction manual for the parrots that aviculture produced was never their purpose.

I am not anti-aviculture, nor am I anti-pet shop. I am adamantly against the parrot production ethic and adamantly pro-quality in aviculture and the pet industry. I strongly urge supporting the people who strive to do right by the parrots. Ultimately I hope that I have made a positive contribution to quality in parrot care. Many individuals within the AFA have dedicated themselves to providing quality information about the parrots they breed and sell. I have incredible respect for the aviculturists who care deeply about the welfare of the parrots they keep and breed and those who have dedicated themselves to making a difference in conservation of wild parrots. I also applaud the bird shop owners and employees who are concerned about the birds in their care and the education of their new caregivers.

Over the last decade the AFA has experienced a declining membership. I have talked with many aviculturists who believe that the organization no longer represents their concerns. Some think of the AFA as an anachronism whose influence is no longer valid.

Making A Choice

In my opinion, the two extremes are the aviculture rights people who want to join forces with other “animal users” (where the final product is a consumed dead animal), and believes that there should NEVER be ANY laws dictating the proper care of parrots, and that they have an inalienable right to keep parrots in any manner they see fit. The other extreme believes that parrots simply shouldn’t be pets and laws should prohibit keeping them.

I see a possibility of three choices us middle ground people can make in regards to the AFA and the future of aviculture for breeders, bird shops, and companion parrot caregivers.

   - 1. Ignore it because it will work itself out. The extremists on either side insist that you agree with them. Personally I can’t support either of them nor can I ignore them because I would have a very difficult time with either of them controlling the future of parrots as human companions.

   - 2. Join the AFA and try to work within it to create a more moderate approach to protecting our ability to raise and keep parrots. So far the people I know who are trying to make this difference have not been able to do much in this regard. As long as some people can continue to operate on a business as usual policy without the consent of the members or the Board of Directors making decisions, I don’t have much hope for the organization finding a middle ground in the near future that would be comfortable for me.

At the Saturday night banquet it was announced that Petco is now sponsoring the AFA’s Watchbird magazine. I am presuming that this alliance is a financial consideration to keep the AFA and its magazine going. As most readers know, I am not a fan of Petco and the fact that they sell parrots. It has always seemed like hypocrisy to me that their marketing applauds Petco for not selling dogs or cats, yet they now sell parrots — a far more complex animal. We have received a great number of complaints reporting the neglect and abuse of birds in their care and recently Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. had to pay over $900,000 to settle two lawsuits that accused the company of mistreating animals and overcharging customers. It would be a gross understatement for me to say that I don’t think that the AFA’s association with Petco is a positive development.

   - 3. Form another organization that represents the middle ground; including companion parrot caregivers, aviculturists, and other professionals with utmost concern about the parrots. This would be an organization consisting of people who put the parrots first; people who could determine which legislation is needed to help parrots and which realistically hurts the people who keep them; people who are rational enough to know that they are often not the same thing. If I was 30 years younger I might take this on myself. I would be willing to get the ball rolling ... but I don't want to have to catch it too.

Update: I tried to get the ball rolling with a group of strongly opinionated people who appeared interested. Sadly, there was not enough interest or agreement among these people to really get anything accomplished. I did not have the time to continue working on it with my mother's illness and the decision to move to Colorado. I still am hoping that someway an ethical organization can be formed with the welfare of parrots both as companions and in the wild as its primary focus. 
 

Contact us for more info