Saving the African Grey

Interesting article.

https://www.ft.com/content/b542e45a-12a7-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I would also not advocate keeping them in captivity after seeing how intelligent and social they are. To many that are in rescues needing a good home as it is, as people don't understand what required to keep these guys happy in captivity and buy on impulse. Then you have rescues that are not really rescues, but modern day bird mills, bird flippers, or hoarders which is a whole another problem? When you have a rescue for example with 850 birds making it nearly impossible for most to adopt due to ridiculous rules they have in place and expectations, or price is more about the same, or more then what most breeders ask for a baby, then actual medical cost and supplies, then focus is clearly not to re-home a bird in need and more to hoard, or flip birds and loopholes for being considered a non-profit organization and more for owner to pay mortgage and support high lifestyle and for owner, or board members to take advantage of people with good intent, then a benefit to the bird they claimed to rescue? Research is key when looking for a reputable rescue, or volunteering for one as well. With that being stated only still recommend adopting one in need of a home and not supporting the pet trade overall, only way it help solve the problem. As less of a demand means less poachers overall, as no longer worth the risk to them. Otherwise pretty much like the drug market for them, or business in general. The more demand for a product, the more someone going to try to supply that demand and higher the price goes up, which makes it worth the risk for them? It is a shame that people treat them as a commodity and not give them the respect they deserve and let them live free in the wild where they belong.

This is not directed at the person that posted this as a interesting article as I know it was not their intent and know he just trying to bring awareness to a growing problem with good intent, but for those that read the article and want to donate as the article author intended it for!! This article and subsequent request for donations are disingenuous. The author request for donations does not benefit or provide any protection to the African Grey parrots in question, so please don't donate for that reason, donate if you want to help the organization in efforts to help communities in Nepal and Kenya build sustainable livelihoods, escape poverty and protect their wildlife. Donations raised for this are destined for Nepal and Kenya neither of which have African Grey Parrots? So article in a way is kind of misleading people, but doubt they have bad intentions, just kind of sidetracking two different issues. If you want to save these parrots adopt and rescue only and don't buy, vote with your wallet. Don't support bird mills, flippers, or wild bird trade period. Breeders didn't mention as is a whole another topic, as you have good and bad in everything and balance is key? This will have more of a hopefully positive impact long term.

ParrotGenie said:

this article and subsequent requests for donations are disingenuous

Click to expand...

Help me out here. A respected 200 year old charitable Conservation and scientific organization whose mission is wildlife wellbeing and education....

Puts out a request for donations to help wildlife....

And you malign and impugne them as disingenuous??

I think perhaps you may want to clarify your objection, because it would seem you left some important dots unconnected; this logic isn’t flowing.

A year ago I was reading a lot about if CITES I is good or not for them and I have a question what is your opinion? The article mentioned it but if something is "more" forbidden doesn't mean more illegal transport? If yes, CITES I is nonsense for grey parrots...

chris-md said:

ParrotGenie said:

this article and subsequent requests for donations are disingenuous

Click to expand...

Help me out here. A respected 200 year old charitable Conservation and scientific organization whose mission is wildlife wellbeing and education....

Puts out a request for donations to help wildlife....

And you malign and impugne them as disingenuous??

I think perhaps you may want to clarify your objection, because it would seem you left some important dots unconnected; this logic isn’t flowing.

Click to expand...

Maybe I was a little to harsh and more concentrated on the subject matter "Saving The African grey parrots", then no it will not benefit them in my opinion, especially considering where the funds will be allocated to? "If you are a UK resident and you donate before December 31, the money you give will be matched by the UK government – up to £2m. This fund-matched amount will be used by ZSL projects to help communities in Nepal and Kenya build sustainable livelihoods, escape poverty and protect their wildlife" Which I did mention. Nepal and Kenya neither of which have African Grey Parrots? The article was implying about saving the African Grey Parrot? Yet the donations they were requesting are suppose to go towards helping communities in Nepal and Kenya build sustainable livelihoods, escape poverty and protect their wildlife? It is misleading as the way article was written?

Rozalka said:

A year ago I was reading a lot about if CITES I is good or not for them and I have a question what is your opinion? The article mentioned it but if something is "more" forbidden doesn't mean more illegal transport? If yes, CITES I is nonsense for grey parrots...

Click to expand...

That pretty much the way I see it. If anything it put them more at risk as poachers/smuggles will end up killing 100's to attempt sneak in a handful.

I wouldn’t call that misleading. Seems quite clear to me. The money people donate is being sent for the birds, as promised.

Government match, which has nothing to do with the donors and everything to do with the charity, is going elsewhere. It’s not like donors were promised Matching funds would go to birds, only to find out later they aren’t.

They are both being quite transparent, and in my opinion clever by killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. I have no problem with it. But there’s the one part you are right about: with this level of transparency, you can indeed make an informed decision and vote with your wallet. If you DO in fact have a problem with it, don’t donate.

chris-md said:

I wouldn’t call that misleading. Seems quite clear to me. The money people donate is being sent for the birds, as promised.

Government match, which has nothing to do with the donors and everything to do with the charity, is going elsewhere.

They are both being quite transparent, and in my opinion clever by killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. I have no problem with it.

Click to expand...

It was clear to me where the funds was going towards, that I agree with, as they did state where the funds will be going towards in the end and yes they been around since 1826 and is a very reputable charity. So yes I was wrong & harsh in stating it was a scam and since corrected that, but still think it kind of misleading on the author part? I would have geared the article toward the issues with wildlife in Nepal and Kenya. You have to understand that most won't likely read the full article and will read and think that it going towards Saving The African Grey Parrot, since it is what the article title is and at first implies, that why I stated what I did earlier.

ParrotGenie said:

Rozalka said:

A year ago I was reading a lot about if CITES I is good or not for them and I have a question what is your opinion? The article mentioned it but if something is "more" forbidden doesn't mean more illegal transport? If yes, CITES I is nonsense for grey parrots...

Click to expand...

That pretty much the way I see it. If anything it put them more at risk as poachers/smuggles will end up killing 100's to attempt sneak in a handful.

Click to expand...

I've just read a new article about CAG's and this seems to be right - CITES I doesn't help. Illegal transport still increases

chris-md said:

ParrotGenie said:

this article and subsequent requests for donations are disingenuous

Click to expand...

Help me out here. A respected 200 year old charitable Conservation and scientific organization whose mission is wildlife wellbeing and education....

Puts out a request for donations to help wildlife....

And you malign and impugne them as disingenuous??

I think perhaps you may want to clarify your objection, because it would seem you left some important dots unconnected; this logic isn’t flowing.

Click to expand...

NO !!! All they implied was there are a fair number of rescue places that "ARE" of this nature, that cause a lot of problems and PREVENT those of us that do have good intentions from adopting. Just because everyone doesn't have money to buy the expensive birds and cages. does't mean we wouldn't accept them if they are offered. YOU are both correct to point out people should take care of who the bird is being given. " I ", for instance feel that I'm "generally" accepted with a flavor of being a flipper. I resent it "BUT" I usually qualify the inference, with they don't KNOW me either and try not to take such exception. I have to believe sooner or later that someone will actually contact me and figuire that out. jh