simpson@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Patricia Simpson) (03/02/88)
In article <1988Feb27.172540.5737@utzoo.uucp> jackson@utzoo.uucp (Don Jackson) writes: > > parrots, children, IQ tests, puzzle solving, different cultures, cetaceans, > etc. etc. WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT? Why is there such raving animosity between the so-called two groups of people who use rec.birds? The original writer was sharing some of her experiences with a particular bird. I found it entertaining and enlightening, particularly since I've never raised a bird and so know very little about them. The response to that posting was NOT entertaining or enlightening, but an oblique attack on the original poster via a critique of the use of the word "intelligence". Crows are intelligent, it seems to me. And if I were to post observations about the diversity of sounds with which crows communicate, I am certain that no long, vilifying harangues would follow. Correct me if I'm wrong: I suspect that poster #2 does not like poster #1 as a person, because poster #1 keeps captive birds. This is valid. If that is the case, then poster #2 should say so. Conjectures about the nature of intelligence could begin a fascinating discussion in rec.definitions.of.intelligence. In conclusion: Say what you mean. There are serious issues for discussion here, regarding the morality/immorality/causes/effects/joys/sorrows of capturing and raising birds. If this is what the argument is about, argue it! But please cut out the personal attacks and wandering diatribes; they serve no purpose.
jla@inuxd.UUCP (Joyce Andrews) (03/03/88)
(1) > Crows are intelligent, it seems to me. And if I were to post observations > about the diversity of sounds with which crows communicate, I am certain that > no long, vilifying harangues would follow. Correct me if I'm wrong: I suspect > that poster #2 does not like poster #1 as a person, because poster #1 keeps > captive birds. This is valid. If that is the case, then poster #2 should > say so. Conjectures about the nature of intelligence could begin a fascinating (2) > In conclusion: > Say what you mean. There are serious issues for discussion here, regarding > the morality/immorality/causes/effects/joys/sorrows of capturing and > raising birds. If this is what the argument is about, argue it! But please > cut out the personal attacks and wandering diatribes; they serve no purpose. (1) I knew a wild crow who "hung out" at a public riding stable where I taught riding. The crow learned to mimic the teachers and would yell "trot" in the instructor's voice when the horses were walking. Many of the beginner's horses had become voice-trained over the years, and it caused a bit of a problem. Question is: was it a coincidence that the crow would yell "trot" only when the horses were walking, or did he have some idea of what would happen if he yelled the word when the horses were walking or standing still? And why did this wild crow, of thousands that flew over the stable every year, stay and learn to talk? (2) That's fodder for an interesting discussion. I have a parrot. I also have fish in an aquarium. I also have a dog, a cat, two domestic ferrets, and a python (most have been purchased by my children). I never thought anything wrong with having a dog, cat or domestic ferret, because they are NOT wild animals but bred to be domestic pets. The bird, the fish, and the python, however, are "tamed" even if they were born in captivity. Now that the question is raised I am wondering if I am environmentally consumptive (wow!). I usually put the fish back out on the reef when they get too big for my 55 gallon aquarium (I live in the Florida Keys and communicate electronically via Indianapolis), but I can't send the bird or python "home." Perhaps I should be trying to prevent further capture? I don't know. What are the ideas of others who read this net? Parrots are really no different from dusky seaside sparrows or hummingbirds, when you think about it. -- Joyce Andrews King ihnp4!inuxd!jla AT&T, Indianapolis