Hybrid Parrots - Wonderful Or Wrong ?

[SailBoat]

I think hybrids are wrong to create as the effort had just begun to pump up the wild populations and restore genetic diversity.( think spix, buffon's, scarlet, hyacinth, lears) . HOWEVER they now make SENSE due to the overly restrictive cites rules for macaws. Get a purebred who is classified? Or a hybrid that "doesn't exist" or matter in the CITES restrictions? Sadly, it's becoming a practical to go with a hybrid.

During the first half of 2015, our Avian Vets, as a group, was involved in getting changes to the CITES rules to allow transport of Classified Endangered Parrot to be transport within the United States for the reason of assuring the DNA strength of the US population. That effort was strongly stood against by groups who have long stood against the ownership of Parrots.

This subject will again be raised in 2018 and our Avian Vets plan to again work to lift the restrictions that have and are resulting in inbreeding. At present, the 2018 CITES review will be opening for adding yet more MACs, in addition to other Parrots.

If you, as an individual, have a position regarding CITES, please pass it along to your Avian Vet.

 

[Violet_Diva]

Wow, lots of interesting information.
I knew nothing of CITES until this thread.
It seems kinda weird that something designed to preserve species is now endangering them!

 

[Kiwibird]

During the first half of 2015, our Avian Vets, as a group, was involved in getting changes to the CITES rules to allow transport of Classified Endangered Parrot to be transport within the United States for the reason of assuring the DNA strength of the US population. That effort was strongly stood against by groups who have long stood against the ownership of Parrots.

This subject will again be raised in 2018 and our Avian Vets plan to again work to lift the restrictions that have and are resulting in inbreeding. At present, the 2018 CITES review will be opening for adding yet more MACs, in addition to other Parrots.

If you, as an individual, have a position regarding CITES, please pass it along to your Avian Vet.

As someone who is involved in the communities you speak of, there is a lot of misinformation about captive bred exotics. I've debated this issue over and over again. Many people think a little too much with their hearts and fail to engage their brains on some subjects. They do not realize that, sadly, the reason many species still exist is only because of the domestic pet trade and that when it comes to the future of the species, the best chance or preserving a level of genetic diversity that would allow the species to be brought back from extinction in the wild is in our pets. The breeding pair themselves may not be suitable for re-release programs, but their offspring could be, if placed in appropriate programs. There is also a serious lack of understanding that a captive bred parrot (or other exotic species) cannot just be "turned loose to nature", not to mention if enough are turned loose in the wrong area, could easily become invasive, devastating local ecosystems (just like the pythons in Florida). Restricting further legal captive bred parrots from being bred, bought, sold or transported will not help any in preservation of those critically endangered species. Zoos and professional breeding programs geared towards re-introduction to the wild will never be able to keep up with the pet trade in how many offspring are produced or keeping gene pools of captive stock healthy. Plus, there is no way there is enough funding to preserve genetic diversity at this time in professional conservation programs, but there are plenty of people willing to open their homes to these animals as companions, thereby preserving a wider gene pool. Sad, but true.

 

[Violet_Diva]

I can remember seeing a programme whereby poachers were transitioned into guardians (can't remember what animal it was though.) Sounds crazy I know. But if the reason people take birds from the wild is money, couldn't there be a financial incentive to protect the birds instead? Either that or have restricted and protected areas for breeding programmes like that of the Kakapo... Sorry if I sound really ignorant, but this is not a topic I am versed in, and I do greatly appreciate all of your input so far. I'm keen to learn more about the current situation with regards to wild parrots, pet trade and breeding programmes.

 

[SailBoat]

I can remember seeing a programme whereby poachers were transitioned into guardians (can't remember what animal it was though.) Sounds crazy I know. But if the reason people take birds from the wild is money, couldn't there be a financial incentive to protect the birds instead? Either that or have restricted and protected areas for breeding programmes like that of the Kakapo... Sorry if I sound really ignorant, but this is not a topic I am versed in, and I do greatly appreciate all of your input so far. I'm keen to learn more about the current situation with regards to wild parrots, pet trade and breeding programmes.

There are numerous examples of poachers /catchers become guardians /keepers as Governments of those areas see the financial advantage of the Tourism Trade. When the choice is starvation or poaching /catching, most Humans with select the short term choice of money for food. When that same person is provided money for caring for the animals that they once poached /caught - for them its a simple choice.

Central America and limited parts of South America's Governments are setting aside large tracks of land for the Tourism Trade. The problem than faced is that those Jungles, Wet Forests to Plains now lack the numbers and cross-section of specifies to attract the Tourism Trade. And, the circle than reverses and very young Parrots from North America are re-introduced to their original habitat.

Yes, there are programs in other parts of the World.

 

[Piasa]

Interesting discussion. I'm very much against hybridizing parrots for all the aforementioned reasons.

Fine if it were to happen in the wild; this is what happened with ancient humans, denisovens, and neandertals after all. But to couple animals that would normally never interbreed, let alone ones that would never even see each other geographically seems incredibly irresponsible to me.

Plus I think it is cruel to the hybrid bird. If you look at other hybrids like tigons, ligers, and various equids, they all have issues with health, bone structure and fertility. How would you feel about a human-chimpanzee hybrid? Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should.

 

[Jayyj]

I think the main thing that makes me uncomfortable with the breeding of bird hybrids is that it's often talked about in terms of colour and appearance without regard to temperament, so you're cross breeding species in order to achieve a particular look but you're also potentially crossing aspects of how those species behave and that isn't necessarily in the interests of creating an animal that is well suited to being a pet.

Ultimately parrots are highly interactive and demanding pets where it is crucial that owners pick species that are temperamentally suited to them - whilst I appreciate people will be attracted to a particular look it should be the be all and end all. I'd like to think the days of parrots as ornaments in the corner of the living room are fading but I suspect that's not really the case, and hybrids seem to be pandering to that mentality. I'm not implying that everyone who likes the idea of a hybrid is of that mentality but worry that a process where you risk putting appearance over temperament is not a good influence on the pet trade.

 

[Violet_Diva]

I think the main thing that makes me uncomfortable with the breeding of bird hybrids is that it's often talked about in terms of colour and appearance without regard to temperament, so you're cross breeding species in order to achieve a particular look but you're also potentially crossing aspects of how those species behave and that isn't necessarily in the interests of creating an animal that is well suited to being a pet.

Ultimately parrots are highly interactive and demanding pets where it is crucial that owners pick species that are temperamentally suited to them - whilst I appreciate people will be attracted to a particular look it should be the be all and end all. I'd like to think the days of parrots as ornaments in the corner of the living room are fading but I suspect that's not really the case, and hybrids seem to be pandering to that mentality. I'm not implying that everyone who likes the idea of a hybrid is of that mentality but worry that a process where you risk putting appearance over temperament is not a good influence on the pet trade.

I hope I didn't come across as 'that mentality'. I commented on colours as I have little to no knowledge on the topic of hybrids (hence the birth of this thread) so, I could only really have an opinion regarding the appearance initially! I have no idea as to what the temperaments of these birds are likely to be and therefore haven't commented on this aspect.

I think that your point about the dangers of choosing a bird by appearance alone is a very good point to make, both in relation to standard breeds and hybrids. I see so many adverts for people selling parrots that are a year or two old, saying things like "don't have the time" etc. Did these people seriously not think about the commitment and care required long term? It does make me mad, I suspect many of these people of having their parrots as ornaments and once they've figured out its actually quite similar to having a child for decades they suddenly want their life back.

I did a fair bit of reading about general personality traits and behaviours of parrot species that I was attracted to in order to find what species would be the best fit for me. I looked at Lorikeets, Macaws, Cockatoos, Parrotlets, Conures, Caiques, before deciding on an Eclectus as my first parrot.

It was suggested to me to buy a bird like a Cockatiel, Budgie or Canary purely as a 'practice' pet before getting a larger bird. I found it a very strange and upsetting concept. Buying any bird should be because you are committed to loving that bird for life. I really didn't like the implication that one species was regarded as effectively lesser or disposable.

 

[Anansi]

...it was suggested to me to buy a bird like a cockatiel, budgie or canary purely as a 'practice' pet before getting a larger bird. I found it a very strange and upsetting concept. Buying any bird should be because you are committed to loving that bird for life. I really didn't like the implication that one species was regarded as effectively lesser or disposable.

Amen!!!!!!!!

 

[SirEdwin89]

Honestly, I think it's a subject with far to much grey area to be one side or the other. As with most things I believe it's as important to look at the motivation behind the decision, as it is the decision itself. As well as how exactly it is done. For example hybrid species of most of the larger Macaws, isn't necessarily a behavior forced by humans. It may not have been possible in nature due to regional differences, but once the birds were introduced the decision was ultimately theirs.

As far as a human chimpanzee hybrid as a standpoint for comparison, that's not really the same thing. It would be much more accurate to look at it as a standpoint of bi-racial couples going far enough back. At one point in time, it would have been impossible for an Asian and a Caucasian to reproduce not because of physical limitations, but because they were separated geographically.

 

[SailBoat]

Honestly, I think it's a subject with far to much grey area to be one side or the other. As with most things I believe it's as important to look at the motivation behind the decision, as it is the decision itself. As well as how exactly it is done. For example hybrid species of most of the larger Macaws, isn't necessarily a behavior forced by humans. It may not have been possible in nature due to regional differences, but once the birds were introduced the decision was ultimately theirs.

As far as a human chimpanzee hybrid as a standpoint for comparison, that's not really the same thing. It would be much more accurate to look at it as a standpoint of bi-racial couples going far enough back. At one point in time, it would have been impossible for an Asian and a Caucasian to reproduce not because of physical limitations, but because they were separated geographically.

NOTE: And at this point, this Thread has traveled far enough from its origins that the discussion is near or at the edge of losing its comfortable exchange of opinions. Therefore, I would recommend that 'we' pull back to the roots of the Thread or simply pass on commenting.

Steven (SailBoat)

 

[Violet_Diva]

I think if the parallels are helpful and remain scientific, we should be ok

I have pale freckled skin and red hints in my hair. My father was a redhead. So due to my geographical location, there is a very good chance that I have neanderthals in my ancestry. Now technically, it is debated as to whether they were a distinct species of the homo genus - homo neanderthalensis or a sub species of homo sapien.

Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA (a chimp’s is 99.8 percent identical). But also consider that Humans share 50% of DNA with a banana or 92% with a mouse! Just recently it was stated that Giraffes have long been assumed to be one species, but geneticists have now discovered there are actually four separate ones.

If our understanding of nature through science is always changing, how can we ever realistically make informed decisions relating to the morality of our actions when breeding birds?

I think my current opinion is that wild parrots are of number one importance in terms of trying to ensure their species purity and numbers whilest trying to avoid inbreeding. I don't think I have a problem with hybrid Macaw parrots in theory if they are being responsibly kept and not allowed to cross with pure species of wild parrots. With regards to hybrids like the Galatiel, that feels a bit more of a grey area for me. But ultimately these birds paired and mated because they wanted to.

Can a bonded pair be wrong if they care for one another and seemingly produce healthy offspring?

 

[Jayyj]

But also consider that Humans share 50% of DNA with a banana or 92% with a mouse!

That would certainly explain my love of cheese...

 

[Anansi]

...As far as a human chimpanzee hybrid as a standpoint for comparison, that's not really the same thing. It would be much more accurate to look at it as a standpoint of bi-racial couples going far enough back. At one point in time, it would have been impossible for an Asian and a Caucasian to reproduce not because of physical limitations, but because they were separated geographically.

Actually Chris, you're a little off on this one, brother. Human beings are all part of the same species and sub-species: Homo Sapiens. I understand your point about geography being the sole restrictive element in some cases, but many of the other concerns discussed thus far regarding inter-species coupling just aren't an issue between different "races" of human beings.

So, yes, mating a lion and tiger, or a macaw and conure, would indeed be more readily compared to a human/chimp crossing than it would to a cross between human beings from two different regions of earth.

 

[SirEdwin89]

...As far as a human chimpanzee hybrid as a standpoint for comparison, that's not really the same thing. It would be much more accurate to look at it as a standpoint of bi-racial couples going far enough back. At one point in time, it would have been impossible for an Asian and a Caucasian to reproduce not because of physical limitations, but because they were separated geographically.

Actually Chris, you're a little off on this one, brother. Human beings are all part of the same species and sub-species: Homo Sapiens. I understand your point about geography being the sole restrictive element in some cases, but many of the other concerns discussed thus far regarding inter-species coupling just aren't an issue between different "races" of human beings.

So, yes, mating a lion and tiger, or a macaw and conure, would indeed be more readily compared to a human/chimp crossing than it would to a cross between human beings from two different regions of earth.

I'm not referring to cross bird-species hybrids, so much as Hybrids within the same species. Harlequins, Catalina's etc. Which seemed more the point of the original statement. And I hate to disagree with you, but cross breeding anything with a human and comparing it to other forms of cross breeding for hybridization is always a bad example due to the vast difference in intellectual scope.

 

[Anansi]

I'm not referring to cross bird-species hybrids, so much as Hybrids within the same species. Harlequins, Catalina's etc. Which seemed more the point of the original statement. And I hate to disagree with you, but cross breeding anything with a human and comparing it to other forms of cross breeding for hybridization is always a bad example due to the vast difference in intellectual scope.

I hear you. The intellectual gulf does indeed take away from its efficacy for comparison. I was only speaking in terms of degree, really, as all humans inhabit the same sub-species. As such, even crosses between different sub-species of parrot doesn't work as a comparison to crosses between humans from different regions.

 

[chris-md]

Let's keep the terminology accurate. To be clear, harlequins/Catalina's are all in fact cross species hybrids (INTERspecific). Take harlequin macaws: Ara chloroptera x Ara ararauna. Each parront is different species, but both in the Ara genus. . Macaw is typically a deliniation along genus lines, not species. Lion/tiger hybrids fall in this bucket - both are in the same genus - Panthera - but different species.

That said, it gets more complicated. Macaw x conure (I.e Hahns macaw x blue crown conure) aren't even in the same genus (Ara vs aratinga). These are what are known as intergeneric hybrids. Sheep/goat hybrids and the mythical human/chimp hybrid are in this bucket.

 

[SirEdwin89]

Let's keep the terminology accurate. To be clear, harlequins/Catalina's are all in fact cross species hybrids (INTERspecific). Take harlequin macaws: Ara chloroptera x Ara ararauna. Each parront is different species, but both in the Ara genus. . Macaw is typically a delimitation along genus lines, not species. Lion/tiger hybrids fall in this bucket - both are in the same genus - Panthera - but different species.

That said, it gets more complicated. Macaw x conure (I.e Hahns macaw x blue crown conure) aren't even in the same genus (Ara vs aratinga). These are what are known as intergeneric hybrids. Sheep/goat hybrids and the mythical human/chimp hybrid are in this bucket.

Nice clarifications Chris, my terminology was a bit skewed.

 

[Violet_Diva]

Let's keep the terminology accurate. To be clear, harlequins/Catalina's are all in fact cross species hybrids (INTERspecific). Take harlequin macaws: Ara chloroptera x Ara ararauna. Each parront is different species, but both in the Ara genus. . Macaw is typically a delimitation along genus lines, not species. Lion/tiger hybrids fall in this bucket - both are in the same genus - Panthera - but different species.

That said, it gets more complicated. Macaw x conure (I.e Hahns macaw x blue crown conure) aren't even in the same genus (Ara vs aratinga). These are what are known as intergeneric hybrids. Sheep/goat hybrids and the mythical human/chimp hybrid are in this bucket.

Loving the clarity - buckets of sense

 

[Phoenixjay]

I've noticed that the bird community in the few online ones I have been in are very respectful when talking about opinions. I think it is because even if we are all completely different people, we all have an obsession with birds and because of that, we really understand each other. I love bird people. <3

But moving on. I don't really have a set opinion on hybrid birds. I majored in anthropology, so I studied biological processes and evolution (though mostly in primates, we did discuss birds being dinosaurs one class period). We have natural selection, which is the progression of beneficial traits through lineage, and there is artificial selection, which is when the progression of traits is manually altered by humans for a specific appearance of an animal. Actually, this is what helped us domesticate animals in the first place, so to a certain extent, it is the desire to artificially control traits that makes us human. It helped us create society because animals would do some of the work for us so we had time to create cities and culture. We are the first species to ever do it. The issue with artificial selection is that eventually, we started breeding for appearances rather than working ability. So basically purebred dogs are a sham. Dogs with flat faces like pugs can barely breathe and some breeds have serious bone issues because their ancestors weren't really allowed to create the genetic variation required to create healthy dogs. Natural selection relies on variation. If an species' genetic variation is low, the species has a much higher chance of extinction (we see this with cheetahs currently). The difference between natural and artificial is that in natural selection, the animals with traits that are beneficial towards survival (faster runners get food first, or darker colors help camouflage from predators) are more likely to create offspring and pass on the beneficial traits. That's what is kinda iffy about artificial: we don't really care about the traits necessary for the animal to survive. We care that the traits more appealing to us are passed down.

My point is: we don't really need artificial selection anymore. There are points where it is going too far. I'm mainly talking about those poor pugs who can barely breathe (sorry if you have a pug; I like pugs too, but I really do feel bad for them). I don't think birds have really hit that point yet, so I personally don't think there is much wrong with it unless it gets out of control and really does become harmful for the birds (please educate me if it has, and I just missed something). But the real point is it isn't really necessary. We just like new colors. (I'm mainly talking about crossing macaw and macaw. I'm very cringy about hybridizing macaws and conures personally) I'm not really completely educated on what conservation experts of macaws think of hybrids, but I thought I would put this perspective in there. Hybridization may seem like a great idea, but it can have serious consequences. And someone else made a good point that we may not have enough parrots in the wild to start playing with bird traits yet.But I do kinda stand in the middle of this issue.

Disclaimer: I'm not the most knowledgeable on parrot species, so totally correct me if I am completely off balance.