[rec.birds] Birdwatchers vs. bird owners

john@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) (07/30/89)

Although I'm a birdwatcher and not a bird owner, I for one
don't mind the pet bird postings.  I'm curious about birds
generally, and I find the discussions of bird behavior and
diet quite informative.

This is a low-volume group; even though this week was the
first time I ever had to use subject search in rec.birds,
the volume is nowhere that of most of the groups I plow
through.

The suggestion that the bird owners move to rec.pets is an
old one.  They have often replied that they have trouble
finding bird postings amongst the many cat and dog items.  I
don't think splitting up rec.pets or rec.birds will work
either; I have seen efforts to split groups out of
rec.music.misc fail repeatedly despite much larger interest
groups.

Finally, I'd like to throw one entirely gratuitous flame in
the direction of the bird owners.  Please try to avoid
buying birds that were taken from the wild.  There are many
species being bred in captivity, so whether you like them
small or large, quiet or vocal, you have many choices that
don't diminish dwindling wild populations.  I commend the
efforts of breeders to establish self-sustaining captive
populations.

And please don't tell me that the Black-and-Blue Macaw is
plentiful enough in the wild to survive some harvesting.
The passenger pigeons used to blacken the sky.  Now they're
extinct.
-- 
John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, New Mexico
USENET: ucbvax!unmvax!nmtsun!john  CSNET: john@nmtsun.nmt.edu ``A lesson from
past over-machined societies...the devices themselves condition the users to
employ each other the way they employ machines.'' --Frank Herbert

gh0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gordon Hester) (07/31/89)

Like John Shipman, I don't really mind the postings from pet bird
owners, although I agree that they are inconsistent with original
purpose of this bboard. However, I would like to suggest that both
birders and bird owners take care to use subject lines that make it easy
to tell in which class their messages fall. That should, I would think,
be sufficient to avoid any conflicy over net use.

I'm inclined to think that I recall that birders' messages pick up
significantly during migration seasons and are also somewhat more
frequent in winter than in summer. I could be wrong about the latter.

gordon hester

susans@cfi.COM (susans) (07/31/89)

In article <3012@nmtsun.nmt.edu> john@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes:

>The suggestion that the bird owners move to rec.pets is an
>old one.  They have often replied that they have trouble
>finding bird postings amongst the many cat and dog items.  
>
	I was wondering when someone was going to point out that
	discussing birds in rec.birds is frowned upon if
	you've actually GOT the bird.  The name of this group
	should have been rec.birdwatching, but it's not, and
	the volume of birdwatcher postings is sooooo low
	that I wish the birdwatchers would just accept the pet
	bird postings.  It gets tiresome wading through the
	kitty poop postings in rec.pets.

>Finally, I'd like to throw one entirely gratuitous flame in
>the direction of the bird owners.  Please try to avoid
>buying birds that were taken from the wild.  

	Here Here!  Well said.
-- 
                         Susan Scheide

                Just Another Friend of Bill's

mm@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Mike Mahler) (08/02/89)

In article <3012@nmtsun.nmt.edu>, john@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes:

> Finally, I'd like to throw one entirely gratuitous flame in
> the direction of the bird owners.  Please try to avoid
> buying birds that were taken from the wild.  There are many
> species being bred in captivity, so whether you like them
> small or large, quiet or vocal, you have many choices that
> don't diminish dwindling wild populations.  I commend the
> efforts of breeders to establish self-sustaining captive
> populations.

    Interesting point John and one that I've pushed myself since
    being involved with birds.  Wild birds are often much
    cheaper than hand raised babies and other domestic birds
    which makes it tough to convince the beginner to buy a
    domestic bird when they will often have to pay 50-100% than
    what they'd pay for the wild caught birds.  I've noticed
    that many parrots are "in vogue" lately and that the higher
    income bracket people are buying hand raised babies (one
    local shop only carries hand raised babies of all species he
    carries) which is good but some birds don't breed well in
    captivity (as you are well aware I'm sure) and are pursued in the
    wild.   In Australia many cockatoos are killed by farmers
    routinely (and legally) due to heavy crop destruction.  Birds
    that used to be killed with shotguns are being captured 
    and sold to buyers in the US (though that's being limited as well).

    It's a complex situation.  Do we push to have the birds imported
    rather than killed?  On the other hand the Hyacinth Macaw is 
    very rare and there are efforts to see that people yearning to
    own one had better yearn to own it's other half for breeding
    attempts which is a very positive move.  Do we limit the importation
    of the Hyacinth where the importation (with associated restrictions)
    itself might help future survival of the species?

    No easy solution but I'm all for doing my part.  People own wild
    caught birds may be supporting black marketeers who regularly smuggle
    birds in fenders, wheel covers and body panels of vehicles heading
    accross the boarder.  Result:  50-60% mortality rate!  

    Buy from a reputable dealer.
    Insist on papers.
    Buy domestic when possible.

sandra@pyrtech (Sandra Macika) (08/04/89)

In article <552@cfiprod.UUCP> susans@cfiprod.UUCP (Susan Scheide -CFI-) writes:
>	I was wondering when someone was going to point out that
>	discussing birds in rec.birds is frowned upon if
>	you've actually GOT the bird.  The name of this group
>	should have been rec.birdwatching, but it's not, and
>	the volume of birdwatcher postings is sooooo low
>	that I wish the birdwatchers would just accept the pet
>	bird postings.  It gets tiresome wading through the
>	kitty poop postings in rec.pets.
>

I had 47 articles! I read the new regularly, and don't consider this 
to be low volume.

Let's stick to the original charter of the group.

Sandra