Fig. 2.1
Defra poster providing authoritative information on the avian flu and allaying fears about pet bird keeping
2.2 Birds as Symbols
Birds cross-culturally have long been powerful symbols linking the natural to the supernatural worlds, since they are transformational creatures who can metamorphose from egg to bird and transcend earth and sky. The earliest known surviving art dates to the Upper Paleolithic period where birds occasionally appear in both portable, and less frequently, in parietal art on the walls of caves (Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1996). The most numerous avian species represented are water birds, including swans, geese, ducks and herons (Bahn and Vertut, 1988).
In pre-industrial society, birds are associated with shamanic transformation, clairvoyance, and the ability to prophesy and communicate with the supernatural (Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1996; Eliade, 1964). In shamanic cultures birds are regarded as psychopomps (conductors of souls to the afterworld) and “becoming” a bird while yet alive confers the capacity to “undertake the ecstatic journey to the sky and beyond” (Eliade, 1964). In addition, ancient Maya kings dressed as birds during accession rituals celebrated by human sacrifice (Taube, 1987).
The souls of dead humans were reincarnated as birds, according to ancient beliefs in United Kingdom, an idea that persisted in Europe, at least into the twentieth century (Armstrong, 1970). However, birds such as crows, ravens and magpies were condemned as diabolical by the missionaries who brought Christianity to Britain; men who considered “all things black – except their own robes – as typifying the powers of darkness”, and thus black birds came to be considered familiars of witches (Ingersoll, 1923; Sax, 2003). Consequently, the raven, who was once identified with the Norse god, Odin, became identified with Satan throughout northern Europe, and all the Corvidae are known as “Devil’s birds” in the folklore of the North (Ingersoll, 1923).
According to Ingersoll (1923) the common adage “A little bird told me,” may be linked to a world-wide folk belief that at one time all birds had the gift of human speech. In fact, Ingersoll notes that “Breton peasants still credit all birds with the power of using human language on proper occasions”.
Birds do possess several similarities to humans; both birds and humans are bipedal, have musical ability, can form abstract concepts, can use intelligence flexibly for problem solving and “play with joy and mate erotically” (Barber, 1995). Thus, birds in general, especially parrots, with their potential to learn and speak human language cognitively, are problematic because these special qualities tend to blur the boundary between human and nonhuman animal, and in so doing cause disquiet. Armstrong notes that, “suspicion or fear tends to be evoked by real or imagined similarities between the characteristics of other animals and our own. People are apprehensive of anything which appears to have some human qualities without being human” (Armstrong, 1970).
Birds continue to serve as powerful symbols in post-industrial society, but with ambivalence. The bald eagle, for example, both the living bird and representation, has long been a powerful symbol of American nationalism (Lawrence, 1990). However, this special status and federal protection do not confer immunity to the bird, as noted by Lawrence (1990) who describes the illegal killings of several eagles by ranchers erroneously convinced that the animals were predating their livestock. Further, between 200 and 300 bald eagles were deliberately killed over a three-year period in South Dakota to supply a black market in Native American artifacts (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983). A quick Google™ search of the web reveals other instances of eagle killings across the United States. Depending on the context and the gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class of the individuals involved, the eagle takes on different meanings and may be perceived as merely a marksman’s target, a threat to livestock, or as a means of profit, rather than a symbol of nationalism.
Interest in the keeping of one species of bird does not mean that people necessarily extend consideration to all avian species, particularly if they are believed to be a threat to their preferred birds. For example, a multi-state investigation by the US Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in the charging of members of roller pigeon clubs in California, Oregon, and Texas with the fatal beatings and shootings of federally protected raptors (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007), who were perceived as threats to their free-flying pigeons. Further, an acquaintance, who is an avowed hunter and conservationist, recently confided to me that she would really like to “shoot those darned hawks,” as there are “too many” and they “could kill [her] pet chickens.”
Birds, especially colourful tropical birds, are popular symbols used in advertising and parrots may be found advertising beer, casino gambling (Fig. 2.2), clothing stores and restaurants. In these contexts they may symbolise the exotic, the tropical, the luxurious, and the wild. Neither the actual bird nor its welfare are important; it is the idea of the tropical bird that imbues the viewer with a feeling that they are outside their normal social boundaries and can perhaps behave outside the accepted social norms.
Fig. 2.2
The image of a stylized fantasy bird on the side of the steamboat welcomes entrants to the floating steamboat/casino, Isle of Capri Hotel and Casino, Bettendorf, Iowa. Images of both fantasy birds and actual macaws appear outside and inside the hotel casino complex. Photo taken by author
2.3 Birds as “Pests”
How is an organism determined to be a “pest”? According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 1986), pest is defined as, “esp: a plant or animal detrimental to man or to his interests.” This definition indicates that “pest” is an anthropocentric cultural construction, and it is clear that cultural beliefs and cultural context influence the determination of what is a pest species (Leach, 1989).
Humans tend to arrange animals into hierarchies or what is described as a “sociozoologic scale”. According to this scale, animals are categorised into “good” versus “bad” animals, depending on their relationship to humans. “While phylogenetic systems of classification rank animals on the basis of biological distinctions, sociozoologic systems rank them according to how well they seem to ‘fit in’ and play the roles they are expected to play in society” (Arluke and Sanders, 1996).
“Good” animals (farm animals, pets, animals used as tools) are those that serve humankind without choice and consequently have elevated moral status because they “willingly accept their subordinate place in society” (Arluke and Sanders, 1996). Because they are compliant with human desires, they help to reinforce societal norms and are valued for their contribution. In contrast, “bad” animals have a low moral status because their place relative to human society is unclear, or because they become closer and more visible to humans and thus are seen as potential threats to the order of society (Douglas, 1984). “Since these creatures are perceived as both symbolic and real threats to the social order, they may be killed” (Arluke and Sanders, 1996).
“Vermin” or “pests” are animals that come into human territory, thereby crossing arbitrary human-drawn boundaries, and thus are believed to potentially contaminate individuals or the environment:
“Although vermin are not usually a physical threat, people often have feelings of disgust or hatred toward them because they are thought to be literally or symbolically ‘dirty.’ They are believed to pollute what is regarded as pure and create disorder out of order. Segregation, avoidance, or destruction are frequent responses to them” (Arluke and Sanders, 1996).
Thus, birds who appear in agricultural fields or in other socially constructed spaces may be seen as problematic, even though they are simply engaging in natural foraging activities without knowledge of human need to profit from their crops. In other words, their activities should more properly be regarded as neutral or natural, not as calculating or vicious. Further, they may be completely innocent of charges and in fact may be engaging in the eating not of the crop, but of crop damaging insects or seeds from weed bearing grasses found growing in the fields (Dyer and Ward, 1977; Mott and Stone, 1973).
One salient example is the case of the Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis), a native species of parrot that once inhabited most of the eastern United States (Forshaw, 1977) and was considered to be a threat to orchard crops (Audubon, 1999; Lawson, 1967). It is noteworthy that alleged agricultural damage by the Carolina parakeet was never accurately measured. Further, damage from birds is greater in poorly managed than in well-managed crops (Bucher, 1992; Spreyer and Bucher, 1998).
There is a worldwide tendency for farmers to overstate bird damage, especially when the bird is as conspicuous as a parrot (Dyer and Ward, 1977; Bucher, 1992; Spreyer & Bucher, 1998). From an anthropological perspective, birds are often culturally constructed as pest species with little or no scientific basis for these accusations, yet irresponsible and damaging statements are repeated, prompting agriculturalists to demand lethal control measures, as occurred in the case of the Carolina parakeet. In reality, the Carolina, as illustrated by Audubon feeding on a cocklebur plant (Audubon, 1953), favoured the seeds of this plant that grows in disturbed soils in and around agricultural fields. Consequently, at least one farmer considered the bird to be a “friend” to agriculture for its consumption of cocklebur seeds, a “weed” that is a nuisance to farmers (John Mason Peck, 1831, cited in McKinley, 1960).
The Carolina parakeet was the loser in the human-bird conflict, as the species became extinct in a relatively short time following European colonisation of North America. The last known captive Carolina parakeet, “Incas,” died after 32 years at the Cincinnati Zoo on February 21, 1918 (Laycock, 1969). The demise of the native parakeet was due to several factors, including persecution by farmers and the clearing and settling by humans of its preferred habitat, fertile river bottom forests. Saikku concludes that this habitat destruction, combined with persecution as a “pest”, the cage bird trade and scientific collecting, jointly caused the extinction of the species (Saikku, 1990).
Humans, who tend anthropocentrically to reconstruct environments according to cultural design, have introduced thousands of animals, plants, and microbes into nonnative ecosystems globally (e.g. Crosby, 1986; Smith, 1999). According to Van Driesche and Van Driesche (2000) few introduced species actually become ecological problems, since most do not adapt, and of those that do, “only one or two cause significant harm”. However, some do cause major harm to birds by either predating on them or competing with them. Some of the most harmful to birds include rats, pigs, cats, and snakes (Birdlife International, 2007d). The brown tree snake has recently decimated the avian population of Guam; and introduced pathogens such as West Nile Virus, avian botulism, and avian cholera threaten populations on other islands (Birdlife International, 2007c). In the past 500 years, over 65 species of birds have been lost to invasive species, making “making this the most common contributory factor in recent losses to the world’s avifauna” (Birdlife International, 2007c).
Habitat destruction caused by human expansion, however, has certain and disastrous results and is the most serious threat to avian species (Steadman, 1997). Unfortunately, humans are relatively slow to recognise and react to the current acceleration of mass species extinction and the global destruction of habitat, while the importance of earth’s remaining biodiversity remains under-studied. Of the 1.7 million species recorded, only 5% are considered well documented and the relationships between many species remain unknown (Broswimmer, 2002).
Some of the most vulnerable victims of human expansion are birds and at least four species have been lost from North America within the past 200 years (great auk, Labrador duck, passenger pigeon, and the Carolina parakeet)6 (Steadman, 1997). Historically, the avian species at greatest risk are highly endemic populations that inhabit remote islands, but the number of threatened continental species now exceeds the number of threatened island species (Steadman, 1997). According to Birdlife International’s Red List, “1,221 species are considered threatened with extinction” and an additional “812 bird species are now considered ‘Near Threatened’”. In short, conditions have deteriorated steadily since 1988, when the conservation status of avian species was first comprehensively assessed, and 22% of the world’s bird species are now threatened with extinction (Birdlife International, 2007d).
2.4 Birds as Objects
The shift from hunting to farming “produced a fundamental change in human relationships with animals,” from an essentially egalitarian state to that of master and slave or servant (Serpell, 1996). Domestic animals are dependent on humans for survival.
Since the process of domestication began, humans have interfered with the reproduction of animals and manipulated them for human benefit, often with little regard to their welfare. However, within the context of industrial capitalism, animals have come to be “totally incorporated into production technology” (Noske, 1997). The animal industries have become increasingly mechanised, automated and “rationalised” since World War II, while intensive chicken farming caught on even before (Noske, 1997; Singer and Mason, 1980; Striffler, 2005).
Members of capitalist societies are taught to equate capitalism with progress and civilisation. Although we may not think of the term “capitalism” on a daily basis, there is little doubt that it profoundly affects the way one sees the world, by influencing our “material, spiritual, and intellectual life,” and “values” (Robbins, 2002).
Under capitalism everything is assigned a value, including humans and animals. Historically, there has been a tendency to believe that an animal that is not productive cannot be kept, but must be sold for market value or slaughtered for human consumption. Pet keeping, of course, breaks with this tradition, and some criticise pet keeping as an extravagance, when there is still human suffering and poverty in the world. “Food” animals, however, are not fictive family members but are considered objects to be exploited, with little or no legal animal welfare protection allowed for them in the United States, as this would be seen as questioning the rights of the farmer. There are certain social and psychological barriers that are erected between humans and the animals they manipulate, in order to create a strong boundary between human and animal, the consumer and the consumed. This boundary is an even deeper chasm when the animals being considered are birds; animals that are perceptually distant, biologically.
Social scientists have long observed that there is a tension in the way that certain animals bred for human consumption are viewed. The relationship is one of ambiguity, and the “paradox of livestock was marked by their spatial separation from humans” (Franklin, 1999). Historically food animals were part of early cities, albeit as residents destined for human consumption, but during the early nineteenth century food animals and their place of slaughter became relegated to the rural areas outside cities, and hence isolated from the public view. Slaughter houses were tastefully renamed “abattoirs,” the French euphemism “to fell,” and became part of the processes of rationalisation and production lines (Franklin, 1999).
With the mechanisation of agriculture and slaughter, the whole animal carcass was no longer always viewed in the window of the local butcher, but increasingly often as plucked, cleaned and dismembered parcels of body parts in the supermarket. Although carcasses are still on display in butcher’s shops in the United Kingdom, in the large chain supermarkets in the United States, apart from the bones, the only memory that these dismembered body parts were ever part of an actual bird may be a highly stylised picture or cartoon character on the wrapper. In processed chicken sold by fast food chains such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonalds, even the bones are removed so that the consumer can be totally detached from the inconvenience and the reality of the death of the individual bird. The meat may be promoted as “Popcorn Chicken” or “McNuggets™”, suggesting that these products are not really meat. Striffler (2005) observes that Americans have “come to know chicken in the form of nuggets, fingers, strips, and wings. And along the way we have gotten a lot fatter.” Ironically, chicken was promoted as a relatively cheap and healthy meat in the 1970s and 1980s United States, but it is now part of the burgeoning obesity problem in the manner that most Americans consume it. Nor is it cheap (Striffler, 2005).
In late modernity, cheap meat has been widely available and concerns have shifted from acquiring sufficient protein to personal regulation of animal protein and fat intake (Franklin, 1999), in addition to concerns about food safety. However, as Franklin notes, idealised representations of farm animals persist in children’s literature such as the “free-ranging mother hen and chicks roaming safely around the open farmyards”. Franklin sees this discontinuity between representation and reality not as a rejection of factory farming, but as the:
“… impossibility of recommending the new intensive production systems as suitable human moral tales for children. In late modernity, the mythic farmyard of children’s books is replayed in the proliferation of hobby farms, backyard menageries and city farms, and through the purchase of free-range eggs, hormone free beef and ‘stress-free’ meats of all kinds. While battery egg production has been the basis of a moral issue for many years, the public has been carefully screened from other forms of food production systems and, as a result, has continued to accept intensification uncritically” (Franklin, 1999).
Various authors have noted that the literature associated with the raising of livestock for human consumption reflects the perceptual distance between human and nonhumans who are objectified as inanimate production units (Harrison, 1964; Noske, 1997; Serpell, 1996). There is no guilt in treating food animals like nonsentient objects if perceptually they “do not” feel pain or emotion.
Dr. Donald Broom has done much research into animal welfare conditions in the United Kingdom, and points out that the intensive breeding for meat production in livestock has profound costs for the animals. These include skeletal failures caused by the extra weight, so valued by the producer for high meat yield per animal. For example, the leg bones of poultry often break, resulting in excruciating pain for the animals (Broom, 2006).
Students taking my anthrozoology course are usually shocked at the revelation that the meat that they consume is from animals raised under such inhumane conditions. The pleasant fiction of “old McDonald’s farm,” however, persists for the mainstream.
Even pet birds are expendable to many. During my study at the veterinary clinic, a client who had a gravely ill cockatiel was urged by her husband to forget this bird, and “just get another one”! Like other pets, birds can be bought and sold, and killed at the owner’s pleasure when they no longer fulfil expectations. Some owners simply release their birds into the wild with the belief that they will survive or even be better off, when in fact they are exposing the bird to predation, infectious disease, potential starvation, and/or death from exposure. If the bird survives to procreate with other rejected pets of the same species, then they may form new populations of naturalised birds who may potentially compete with native species for food and nesting sites, or come into conflict with humans who perceive them as an inconvenient menace, or become targets of eradication efforts or “sport” for marksmen.
Within the context of consumer culture humans tend to treat animals as consumer goods or inanimate artifacts (Sabloff, 2001). Consequently, in addition to being “created” by humans, these “artifacts” are not sentient beings, are expendable, and have no moral standing apart from their status as property. Pet stores also encourage the idea that pets are expendable and replaceable, with profit in mind. Sabloff suggests that the new pet “starter kits” sold with birds and other small animals tend to encourage the idea of the pet as dispensable, and replaceable; you can always buy another:
“These shops also sell ‘starter kits,’ items that tend to bolster the idea of a living pet as a toy or a project and of caring for the pet as something of a game. Starter kits consist of a brightly packaged assemblage of rudimentary paraphernalia for housing and feeding (and sometimes ‘amusing’) one’s newly acquired pet fish, bird, gerbil, or hamster. When the child has used up the contents of the starter kit he or she is meant to obtain refills with which to maintain the animal. However, this kind of boxed presentation, suggesting the end of the game or project once the contents are used up, tends to encourage subliminally the notion of throwaway pastimes, muting the reality that the animal in question has a lifespan and needs of its own surpassing the limited resources in the box” (Sabloff, 2001).
The concept of the “expendable” bird even permeates the veterinary profession. In clinic, an avian veterinarian confided to me that a veterinary colleague had visited with their client and patient during consultation on a hyacinth macaw, a rare bird that often sells for upwards of $11,000 USD in the United States pet trade. During the consultation, the referring vet stated something to the effect, “now here’s a bird that you will really treat well (unlike a little budgie who costs much less)”. The avian veterinarian told me that he answered that he treats all birds equally well, from budgie to hyacinth macaw, regardless of the bird’s monetary value.
Colour breeding is another way in which the bird may be objectified as a consumer product or human artifact. Breeders selectively breed birds for colour mutations that would not normally survive in nature, due to increased vulnerability to predation. Most parrot species are green or mostly green to blend in with vegetation, a natural camouflage. However, breeders have incentive to breed for colour due to the challenge of developing a new mutation, and also because the colour mutations tend to sell for a much higher price than do birds of a normal colour. For example, a natural green hand-raised Quaker parakeet may sell for $200 USD, while the rare lutino (yellow) colour mutation sells for approximately $2,000 USD. Blue Quakers, who are now more common than previously, sell for around $500 USD.
Although there has been little research on how colour breeding can affect the welfare of companion birds, it can be objected to on three major grounds: (i) it reduces the bird to a consumer trend or collectible object, and the naturally coloured birds may be rejected as “run of the mill” (Anderson, 2003); (ii) it could potentially threaten species conservation and the long term genetic diversity of both domestic and wild parrots (Ken Welle, personal communication, 2002); and (iii) it can result in the selection of other traits that are detrimental to welfare (see also Chapter 5 this volume).
A further way in which humans have objectified animals, including birds, is through the breeding of animals for neoteny. Large domed heads, and large eyes as well as behavioural infantilisation, are characteristics of neoteny or paedomorphosis (Lawrence, 1986). Certain pigeon breeds are classic avian examples of physical neotenisation, particularly the Short-face Tumblers who were developed in Europe. The Budapester and the Vienna have disproportionately large round eyes, as do the Ancient Tumblers (see photos in Green-Armytage, 2003). As in dog breeding, where neotenisation has caused whelping complications and breathing difficulties in some breeds, among other problems (Serpell, 2003), birds may also suffer from selective breeding practices for breed standards. “In many cases, the shape of the head and beak [in the Short-face Tumblers] causes feeding problems, particularly with the young, and help from humans or from pigeon foster parents may be needed” (Green-Armytage, 2003).
2.5 Interacting with Birds
Our interactions with birds should be tempered by the fact that first and foremost, most birds are prey animals and humans are predators. Consequently, we must be aware of how a prey animal views the world in order to prevent stress and accidental injury to birds under human control and care. Prey animals tend to be neophobic, an adaptation which helps them survive in the wild but which can cause great stress in captivity (Wilson and Luescher, 2006). This is an important welfare issue with farmed domestic fowl; stockperson–bird interactions are covered in more detail in Chapter 9 this volume.
Recent studies at the University of California-Davis (Meehan et al., 2004), reveal that orange-winged Amazon parrots whose cages were placed near a doorway began feather plucking, an abnormal stereotypic behaviour related to stress. When the same birds were moved to a more secure location, they ceased plucking. Thus, cage location is critical in assuring the welfare of birds, even psittacines who have been captive reared. Further, orange-winged Amazons housed with conspecifics were less likely to develop abnormal behaviour such as stereotypies, and were more easily adapted to novel situations. In addition, introduction of environmental enrichment reduced and even reversed feather picking (Meehan et al., 2002).
Sudden movement can be frightening to a prey animal, particularly if the bird is already nervous from being exposed to novel people, objects, sounds or settings. I remember one veterinary intern that caused my parrots considerable anxiety as she attempted to interact with them by speaking loudly and, flapping her hands in quick and large exaggerated movements, actions which cause stress in birds (Cooper, 2003).
Cooper (2003) discusses a list of stressors and their potential impact on the welfare of captive birds, reminding us that, “all animals have ‘fright, fight, flight’ distances that vary according to the species and background: a hand reared parrot will tolerate much closer contact with humans than will a recently imported tragopan”.
Additional stressors listed by Dr Cooper, with additional commentary by current author, include the following.
Exposure to noises or sounds in the household (including vacuum sweepers, television and other electrical equipment) or outside (e.g. fireworks, road works and other construction).
Exposure to other animals, even conspecifics. For example, a male canary that is kept close to others of the same sex may suppress their singing and sexual activity. Nonavian species, such as dogs walking past an aviary or cats that climb on bird enclosures, can also be threats, and although some birds may adjust, others may not.
Unsatisfactory social groupings. A social bird accustomed to gregarious living may be stressed if isolated, whereas a raptor, that in the wild is solitary except when breeding, may do better alone. Parrot chicks should not be reared alone, as this may predispose them to phobic behaviour as adults (Wilson and Luescher, 2006).
Incorrect lighting. Whenever possible, birds should be exposed to their natural photoperiod. Too much light or too little light can be stressful and the amount of light required is relative to a species’ natural adaptation. Related to light is the amount of roost time a species receives and this should also be similar to what the bird would experience in the wild. Pet birds are frequently housed in family or living rooms, and even though the cage may be covered, the bird is unable to sleep securely if a television is blaring and people are talking and moving about. In addition, aviaries in extended care facilities for people with disabilities and seniors may be kept in a lobby or other public area that is illuminated all the time. Neonate parrots are often housed in glass aquariums with fluorescent lighting in pet stores, and this may cause stress and weight loss as neonate parrots normally would develop in the darkened environment of the nest cavity (Welle, 2000). In fact the over-exposure to light in young parrots can predispose them to phobic behaviour, and fluorescent lighting, in particular, should be avoided with phobic birds, due to their ability to perceive flicker (Wilson and Luescher, 2006) (see also Chapter 6 this volume). Over time, sleep deprivation can lead to behavioural problems and impaired welfare.
Temperature extremes. Excessive cold or heat, or abrupt temperature changes can be stressors, although adult birds are endothermic. Thermometers should be installed and checked daily to make certain the temperature is appropriate. In addition, proper levels of humidity, specific to a species natural adaptation, should be maintained.
Further, Dr. Cooper (2003) advises that those working with birds should avoid:
the wearing of white or brightly coloured clothing; neutral colours are preferred;
speaking in a loud voice and making exaggerated gestures;
working under bright lights, especially with nocturnal species;
long periods of restraint during examination of birds.
When working with psittacines, whose cognitive abilities are comparable to those of primates, it is important to remember that these are very intelligent and sensitive beings. In fact, Pepperberg suggests that working with parrots is closer to paediatric medicine than veterinary medicine. In an address to the annual conference of MidAtlantic States Association of Veterinarians, she described the handling of her star pupil, Alex, when he was hospitalised with aspergillosis:
“I spoke with the technicians who cared for him…. The technicians told me that if they explained what they were doing, he would stop fighting them and, if not submit entirely, at least give only token resistance” (Pepperberg cited in Wilson, 2000).
Visual boundaries between birds and predator species can help reduce stress (see also Chapter 3). At a recent parrot show I attended, a raptor exhibit, including a corvid (African raven), had been set up in the centre of the exhibit hall, and a cage full of Quaker parrots was in plain view of the predators. After much aggravated and loud panicked distress calls, the owner of the parrots covered the sides and backs of the cages so that the predators and parrots were no longer visible to each other. The raptor exhibitor also placed the raptors on short perches on the floor so that they were hidden to other parrots in the building. The parrots subsequently became much calmer and the building much quieter.
Prey species tend to have vision that is very good for detection of movement peripherally, and therefore the eyes tend to be located in the sides of the head, rather than binocularly like predators. Parrots often turn their heads or bodies sideways, as visual resolution may be higher in the lateral or monocular field, rather than the frontal field (Graham et al., 2006). Therefore, when working with nervous birds it may be better to look at them sideways or with one eye so as to emulate a bird’s field of view and to avoid the impression that you are stalking them.
Subtle changes in a bird’s environment can be cause for alarm, as in the wild these changes may indicate that a predator is nearby. In my research, many companion parrot owners report that their birds have distinct dislikes of certain colours, a preference that varies with individual birds. When someone changes their appearance, such as in cutting or colouring their hair, wearing a hat, painting their nails or wearing new articles of clothing, they may appear as a stranger and potential threat to birds. Further, the addition of an illustration or even a stuffed toy with prominent eyes within a bird’s field of vision can also trigger stress and anxiety, as the large staring eyes may be perceived as those of a predator. Companion parrot owners are cautioned to introduce new objects – toys, cage appointments, and other things, gradually – so that the birds are not frightened (Doane, 1998). Glendell (2007) encourages companion parrot owners to handle a new object, and especially put it to (but not actually in) one’s mouth a few times while naming it, before offering it to the bird.
Wilson and Luescher (2006) note that bullying a parrot into accepting something new will only result in increasing the bird’s fear, while gradual desensitising to the stimulus is the most productive and humane strategy.
Birds will certainly be fearful of predators who they can see through a glass boundary. Tragically, as reported on an Internet list serve of which I am a member, a parrot recently died due to self injury in trying to escape a hawk who hovered outside the window where the captive parrot was placed, trapped in a cage. A transparent curtain over the window will still allow the bird to see out, while restricting the vision of predators. Doane (1998) cautions bird owners to turn off wildlife programmes depicting predators such as swooping hawks or owls as these may cause the birds to react with fear. Other birds will react to the sound or appearance of snakes on television, as reported on another Internet group.
In addition, sounds from the routine cycling of heating or cooling units may cause distress and the introduction of a low, constant source of “white noise” may help to reduce stress levels in captive birds by muffling sudden, loud background noises (Anderson et al., 2003).
In the wild, shadows may presage a predator attacking from above or behind, and I have noticed, even in my domestically reared parrots, that late in the day when shadows lengthen, they become nervous and wary, and may even begin saying “night, night,” to encourage me to put them to roost for the evening.
Further hazards to captive birds include windows, mirrors, and light coloured walls, all of which appear as open spaces to birds who may be unable to detect the solid matter until they strike it. Additional dangers in the home include open vessels of liquid, including pots of water or oil, and open toilets, and fumes from non-stick cookware, air fresheners, and caustic cleaners, all of which have been known to kill birds. In addition, smoke from tobacco, marijuana, candles and fireplaces may also be potentially toxic to birds with their sensitive respiratory systems.
2.5.1 Communicating with Birds: Intersubjectivity
Barber (1995) suggests that people tend to dismiss birds as a group as complex robotic automatons, rather than as individuals, each with unique personalities and life histories. Why do people treat birds so dismissively, and how can the public be persuaded to see things from the avian perspective? Barber outlines a series of reasons why people tend to treat birds as mechanomorphs: (i) few people ever become acquainted with an individual natural bird because most wild birds fear people; and (ii) because of the assumption that all birds of a given species and sex are interchangeable.
When scientists describe the behaviour of a specific bird, it is perceived as representative of a species, not as an individual living a life with a history and experiences. Sabloff (2001) suggests that this perception is encouraged by the atmosphere of the pet store, where animals sold as pets usually arrive already weaned and often singly, and therefore the store personnel rarely see them interacting with their parents or other conspecifics. Instead the animal nature of the future pet is “muted” to transform it into a living toy or pseudohuman. Thus birds are caged and their wings trimmed so that they are deprived of natural flight.
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
