particle77

I saw this article, and it reminded me of this old discussion, so thought I'd add it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8481448.stm It seems that for the first time ever scientists beleive they know what color a dinosaur was, based on fossils preserving the structure of melanin in the dinosaurs feathers.Anyway, I thought it was pretty cool

Earl has been mistaken for a pigeon, a falcon, an amazon, an eclectus, and to my amazement a monkey...

AbbysDaddy wrote: the main advantage that any harness designed for birds provides, is that it distributes the force, so its not all applied in one place. This is were the tether attached to the leg is a problem because all the force ends up pulling on that one leg. In addition the aviator uses a somewhat elastic leash, which means a parrot will feel increased resistance for awhile, rather than a sudden SNAP. This certainly seems better than a leg tether to me, although I believe leg tethers are popular in the falconry community, someone with experience in that area might have more knowledge of any danger with leg tethers.<br><br>Post edited by: particle77, at: 2010/01/14 22:46

I think I might be coming across as far more polar than I am... I'm not crazy about the red grey. Its not particularly attractive to me, I'm just not convinced breeding it has resulted in any harm, so in my mind if no harm is being done, and there is a market for it, then ok. I agree selective breeding can and often is taken too far, and don't like what has happened with purebred dogs. However I also think some good can come of selective breeding. for example selective breeding can prevent health problems if that is the goal of the breeder. selective breeding for traits that make an animal easier to live with might also result in fewer cases of abandonment. (sure, we can all say people should do there research, and talk about how horrible it is to abandon pets, but that's not really working...) and really all captive breeding is selective breeding to some degree, so when does it become a problem? Does a breeder have to be ignorant of the fact that the animals chosen for breeding impact th offspring to be ok? I doubt many breeders select animals completely blindly. Do they have to be unaware of what makes them choose one animal over another? or is it ok if they know they chose those animals because they were slightly bigger, or because they seemed cuter, etc.

Dan, thats a great point you bring up about the dobermans. even when not attempting to produce "fawn" colored dobermans, purebreds often have health problems because so many of them carry recessive genes for health problems. this is definitely a danger with selective breeding that can arise if the initial population lacks sufficient diversity, and new members from an outside population aren't continually allowed to enter the population. I think its a bit of a leap though to assume that the red greys don't currently occur in nature because of linked genetic disorders. I suspect its more likely that like albinos of many species, these red greys are more susceptible to predators in the wild. However it is possible that being red itself is inherently unhealthy for some currently unknown reason.

Jill, I agree that those practices are ill conceived, but selective breeding doesn't require this. that is the main point I've been making though out these posts. I also disagree with in-breeding, but take issue with people saying selective breeding is bad and then implying that in-breeding is always involved in selective breeding. In-breeding is a short-cut that some people have chosen to take because it is easier than identifying animals which are not closely related, but which posses the trait the breeder is interested in. If there is evidence the breeder of the red Greys did this, then I agree it should not have been done. The same results could be achieved without in-breeding.

Since you are asking if the results can come from a sexing test that occurred in the past, I think its extremely unlikely. It would be much more expensive for them to collect enough data from the sample to be able to do this, than just determining sex. Certainly give them a call to see though. The problem is that even crime labs don't fully sequence DNA samples, this would be extremely time consuming and expensive. Instead they basically check values at specific places and create a profile. this method is not full proof, and there have been cases where different people have had matching profiles. Its believed that this is fairly rare, but its something that is actually being questioned by some scientists and lawyers: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527424.700-unreliable-evidence-time-to-open-up-dna-databases.html?full=true

Jooles, it sounds like you have a great first goal. train him to accept a treat without lunging . First, I don't think an empty room is necessary. The main thing is to try to setup a place were you can hold his attention at least briefly. So there shouldn't be all sorts of interesting things for him to be chewing. If you can get him to stay on a cleared off table briefly you are set. Here is how I would approach this. note I've never dealt with a parrot that actually bites, so be prepared to make modifications: Start by setting him on the table and immediatly dropping something he likes in front of him. if he tends to fly of or run away, etc. you'll need to train him to wait patiently. Do this by dropping another treat after a few seconds, but before he moves off. repeat this process over and over, slowly increasing the interval before you drop the treat, but only drop the treat if he doesn't move off(its best to use a stop watch ad slowly increase the time, rather than trying to judge time yourself) Its important that you avoid too many failures in a row. my general rule is that if we fail twice in a row I take a step back to the last point where we were successful. Eventually he should be willing to wait patiently in one place for a treat. Once this is accomplished its time to start working on taking the treat from you. Start by placing your hand on the table, but off to the side enough that he doesn't go after it. then drop the treat in front of him with your other hand. Repeat this step over and over slowly moving your hand closer to where you will be dropping the treat. Only reward him if he does not lung. as before if he lunges twice in a row go back to the last distancce that was working. Eventually you should be able to get to the point were you can put your hand directly in front of him, and drop a treat right nxt to it without him lunging, and finally in the hand without lunging. Once that's happening you can try placing the hand in front of him with the treat already in hand. I do recommend always doing this in the same spot until he's completely learned it, then try a new spot and then another spot, each location should go much faster until you find he will do it anywhere. Stop if he looses interest in the treats. try to alternate different treats during training, this keeps him interested. Anyway, like I said, I've never dealt with a biter, so maybe someone who has will have some additional input.

I've also had no problems with flying in the house, or on the aviator harness. In my opinion, outdoor free flight training should only be attempted under the guidance of a professional trainer with significant experience. I also would not judge people who do choose to clip wings. I know someone who lost a cockatiel that had been flighted for many years without problem, because something scared him, and he crashed into a window in a moment of panic.

ecodweeb wrote: I think Dan hit the nail on the head. People bring there own preconceptions about what is or isn't a domesticated animal when they try to define the term, and end up creating rules that often unintentionally include or exclude animals. Domestication could probably best be described in degrees, rather than a static yes or no. However currently the term is ambiguous.

JillyBeanz wrote: In your view, Is this too many? or not enough? Taking more generations avoids many health problems, by ensuring a large enough base population. JillyBeanz wrote: I'd expect it would be treated much the same as an albino. I doubt a captive flock would be concerned. JillyBeanz wrote: I don't really agree, but thats my personal preference. JillyBeanz wrote: All of this depends on the practices of the breeder. selective breeding is exactly the same process that happens in the wild. The only difference is that humans are manipulating what environmental traits are successful, as such its certainly possible to run a selective breeding program without producing sickly animals. Large scale commercial breeding of any animal frequently results in a less than ideal situation for the animals, that is not specific to selective breeding though. Post edited by: particle77, at: 2010/01/12 15:52<br><br>Post edited by: particle77, at: 2010/01/12 16:17

Dan, thanks for making some great points. Feral populations are definitely another subject that further confuses the meaning of domesticated. I agree that tame is a much clearer term.

ecodweeb wrote: just to continue to muddy the waters... The Fort Worth Zoo recently demonstrated that with positive reinforcement training, its possible to continue to work with and train breeding King Vultures. Not only did these king vultures allow zoo staff to continue to interact with them during this time(including holding still unrestrained, while zoo staff took blood samples), but they allowed the zoo staff to work with and train the babies also. Based on those results I have no doubt that the same is possible with Greys. However, I think it could be argued that this is a measure of tameness, not domestication.

kittykittykitty wrote: I agree entirely, particularly when two small a population is used.

Dave007 wrote: As I said, there is not complete agreement on what constitutes a domestic animal. By some definitions Grey's would be considered domesticated, others would consider them semi-domesticated. Dogs are as far as I know universally accepted as domesticated. Cats are widely accepted as domesticated, but this is disputed by some. Budgies and lovebirds are also widely considered domesticated, and are sometimes referred to as the only domesticated parrots, but all of this depends on who's standard of domestication you choose. Dave007 wrote: I would also note that parrots that have been trained to return on command, can and do return when they escape. However even wild animals can be tamed and trained to do all manner of things, so this is really a moot point. Dave007 wrote: domestication isn't something you do with an individual animal, the proper term in that situation is tame. domestication occurs in a group of animals as they are bred by humans.

Dave, AbbysDad is actually basically correct. Mutation's can and do occur naturally. In this case the mutated Alleles responsible appear to have already been present naturally, and the breeder bred several generations of birds with these mutated Alleles to obtain a bird that received these mutated Alleles from both parents. This is also how natural selection works, and it shows us that if there was an advantage to being red, African Grey's as a species could easily adapt to exploit that advantage. The difference here is that the advantage to being red is artificial. In any event all captive bred species have artificial environmental pressures shaping them, whether the person doing the breeding is aware of it and planning for an outcome or not, because even at the most basic level accidents can occur, and animals that learn to cope with the artificial environment they are bred in are more likely to produce more offspring. This is how domestication slowly occurs, and for this reason wild animals being bred in captivity are always on the road to domestication unless they are being released to continue to breed in the wild before too many generations go by. In fact there is not complete agreement on what constitutes a domestic animal, and some definitions would already encompass our Greys. I do agree that morally breeders should not purposely engage in inbreeding or force any breeding that is known to result in high rates of mortality, birth defects, or in general results in unhealthy animals. However I believe that is a separate issue from selective breeding, and I haven't seen any evidence of that taking place with this breeder(not saying it didn't, just don't have any reason to think it did.)

Good blog, I follow it also, and he's taken the time to respond to questions I had in the past.

Well, here is an update. Earl and I ended up flying Continental Airlines. It was between Continental and US Airways, both of which allow parrots in the cabin, but Continentals pet carrier size allowed for a tiny bit more space. The trip to Maine was uneventful, Earl chewed on a couple of foraging toys filled with pellets and dried fruit for the entire trip and never made a sound. He's had a great Christmas and opened all his presents himself . Since we are here for more than 10 days he has to get a second health certificate before we return. The airline never checked that we had one when we came here, but I want to be compliant, and I figure if I ever didn't have it, thats when they would ask for it. I will say that airport security is the one time I recommend a feather tether over an aviator harness. You need to walk your Grey through security after removing him from his cage, and putting an aviator harness on a flighted parrot in a strange environment could be sketchy. I put Earl's Feather tether harness on without the leash attached, in the car, then put him in his carrier, and only had to snap the leash onto the harness when we got to security, then it was easy to removing the harness and the leash after he was back in his carrier on the other side of security (since the feather teather doesn't require the wings to be extended when its removed).

Earls Diet: 40% Harrisons High Potency (easy to get in a bowl) 5% Roudybush (In a foraging toy) 10% Zupreem (In another foraging toy) 10% Dried fruit (in Foraging Toys and as treats) 5% Seeds (As treats) 5% nuts (provided only partially cracked, requires effort to get) 15% Fresh Fruit/Veggies (easy to get in bowl) 5% Beans (easy to get in bowl) 3% Pasta (easy to get in bowl) 2% Chicken/Eggs/Fish (easy to get in bowl)

Its possible, but "just begun to talk" can mean very different things to different people. I've heard alot of people claim birds were saying things when all I heard was a random squawk with possibly the same number of syllables as the word or phrase they claim the parrot is saying... I'm guessing Talon is a TAG, and there is some evidence that TAGs mature faster than CAGs(wild TAGs leave there family units much sooner than CAGs, and some polls of grey owners have shown TAGs speaking earlier on average). So its not as surprising to hear of a TAG speaking at a very early age.

JillyBeanz wrote: Hmm... this was done through selective breeding(the same process that has resulted in all domestic plants/animals). Its a technology that humans have been using for thousands of years.

I'm not sure which kaytee pellets I looked at. It lists the protien content on the bag. Earl is on Harrison's at this point, and seems happy with it.

I do live in the US. most grocery stores seem to carry them from time to time here(both in Maine and Texas), but I'd never bought one before. Here is a picture of one:

I decided to buy one of these Kiwano Melons for Earl the last time I went grocery shopping and he's crazy about this. He eats it rind and all, and so far none of it has ended up on the bottom of the cage. This fruit is native to africa, not sure if it naturally occurs in the same area as wild African Greys though.

Dan, thanks for adding to the discussion. The polar bear info you provided is interesting to consider. I've read that some scientist now feal that polar bears should be classified as a subspecies of black bears(Grizzly bears already a a subspecies of black bears) an interesting article I found on Grizzly and Polar bears: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/arctic-bears/how-grizzlies-evolved-into-polar-bears/777/