New flock member + discussing birdie laws

[Elaihr]

Hi there!

As a few of you might remember, I wrote a post about adding a second bird to my flock a few months ago. At that point I wasn't entirely sure which species to look for, I have my Blue-headed Pi Penny and wanted company for her, but I was thinking maybe it could work out with an amazon or another parrot of similar size as well.

However, Swedish law made this all very easy for me; from July 15, 2014, one must have at least two parrots of the same genus. Which means, if you have a lone poicephalus, you have to get a second one, if you have a lone pionus, you have to get a second one. Another species won't do at all. If I understood it all correctly, you must get a companion for your bird even if your bird shows aggression towards other birds. If this is the case, they can be kept in separate cages, but they must be able to communicate visually and "verbally" with each other. In cases where the parrot goes completely bananas around other birds, and start harming themselves or stressing themselves out in other ways, I think it was alright for the parrot to have a room for it's own, but if I recall correctly there should still be another bird in the household so that they can communicate verbally... I might have gotten this last part wrong, but I think that was it.

The reason I'm writing about this here is because there's so many sites not recommending you to get a second bird only for your birds sake, but rather because you want more than one bird and feel like you can care for more than one. This law kind of turns that piece advice upside down... It's no big deal to me personally as I was considering getting a second bird anyway, but I suppose there are people who will have problems with this. Just imagine someone having one macaw, one gray, one pionus and one amazon (or whatever). All of a sudden four parrots will have to turn into eight :S Another problem I can see is if you've had an only parrot who's a bit older, let's say it's 26, and there are no other parrots of the same genus and age available. This means you'll have to get a baby, which will most likely end up alone when the older bird has passed away. How to solve this?

On the other hand, the good thing about this is that people who would otherwise leave a lone bird at home for several hours, will be forced to provide company for their birds. I suppose this is the intention of the law, that even if it might not be very practical in some circumstances it'll probably do more good than harm, to the birds.

What do you guys think about this? I've already discussed this on Swedish forums, but it would be interesting to see what people from other parts of the world think about this

Also, I am happy to announce Penny will get a little sister! We decided upon another Blue-headed Pi, also female, and we'll be bringing her home next weekend I'm super excited, the new girl is named Joy (which I think is a fabulous name) and she's was born in April, so she's still a baby. She's completely parent-reared (which by the way also is mandatory in Sweden since July 15, hand feeding is only allowed if the parents won't do the job, and I also think the point is you're not meant to use "bad" parents for breeding anymore). I think it's good that she's parent-reared, but I'm wondering if this makes any difference when I introduce her to Penny. Is there something I need to be aware of because of her being parent-reared, that I wouldn't have to think of if she was hand-reared? I know all the basics like quaranteen, having separate cages, introducing them to each other on neutral grounds etc, so that's not what I'm thinking about, I'm thinking more about if there's anything specific related to her being parent-reared while Penny is only partly parent-reared. Is a partly hand-reared bird more likely "bad" at bird language, than an entirely parent-reared one? Will the taming of Joy be harder if she bonds to Penny really soon? I was thinking I should work on taming her as much as I can during the quaranteen period, when they won't interact with each other anyway, but feel free to give advice on this as I've never really done this before. Any advice is welcome!

I hope you've had a great summer and that your birdies have too

Best regards,
Sara & Penny

[Hookturn]

Congrats on the new baby! As for the law, to me it sounds ridiculous. I am a new bird owner so I don't have any experience to back up my opinion. I rely solely on common sense in forming my opinion. But why on earth would the government force the purchase of pets on people. It seems like a recipe for disaster in so many ways. If the law is actively enforced, I would think that bird rescues better gear up for lots of new birds. Was there any explanation as to the reasoning behind the law? Any idea what group(s) lobbied in favor of it (e.g. Breeders, pet stores, vets, etc.). Knowing who sponsored the law might shed some light on the motivation behind it. It just sounds so ridiculous to me it's hard to believe that it would actually pass. Then again, very little surprises me when it comes to government action.

[Elaihr]

Thank you!

I'm actually not sure "who" is behind this, but as this law came to at the same time as hand-rearing became illegal, I have a hard time thinking it's the breeders, who used to benefit loads from selling hand-reared parrots. Also, forcing people to buy two (when getting a parrot for the first time) would most likely also make it harder for the breeders, as one parrot is expensive enough for many buyers. For people to be able to afford two, they'd have to set the prices even lower (I imagine). Basically, parent-reared parrot = lower price than hand-reared. Hand-rearing parrots being illegal = breeders lose a lot of income. People having to buy more than one parrot = more expensive for the buyer = makes it less likely that they buy any bird at all, if the breeder doesn't keep the cost for a pair of birds affordable = also less cash for the breeder. I can't see how this could be a good situation for them :S

As far as I've understood the whole thing, the main purpose is to make life better for birds that are being kept as pets. A lot of people buy a parrot, not realising that parrots are social animals that need interaction even when you're at work. Being away for 9 hours a day (which most full time jobs in Sweden include) won't do if your parrot is all alone during that time. I guess whoever pushed for this law to happen thought that if people were forced to buy at least two of the same genus, the bird wouldn't have to be alone, which in itself is a good thing. Basically you can't buy an only bird anymore, at least not if you don't plan on spending enough time with the bird for it to count as an equal amount of social stimulation as the bird would've gotten from a bird friend (i.e, it's fine if you're a stay at home mom, out of work, work from home or whatever, and if you're available to your bird at all times, more or less).

So, it's not so complicated when it comes to new bird owners, they simply have to get two or more. Where it gets tricky is for those who have had a lone parrot for a long time, and I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this. As far as I've understood it, you won't lose your parrot if you get a visit from whatever-it's-called (like, pet inspectors?), and can prove that you spend a lot of time with the bird, and the parrot appears to be well with no signs of stress or odd behaviors. If the parrot has behavorial problems though (which it most likely would if it's being left alone for the biggest part of the day), you'll have to get a companion for it.

I have no idea how they will control this, but I suppose the purpose of the law is to make new bird owners at least think before getting a parrot and consider how much social interaction a parrot actually needs. It's kind of the same with the law that states how large a bird's cage must be, I don't think they go door-knocking to control it, but by the law being there it partly forces salesmen to provide cages that are big enough (and scrap the ones that are not) while also making people think one extra time before getting a parrot.

I think you might have a point about rescue-birds though, some people might feel pushed to get another bird but won't find one that fits, so they might feel like the right thing to do is to get rid of the one they have as they 1. don't wanna break the law and 2. don't want their parrot to be alone. My guess is that the parrots that are alone already will remain alone, at least a majority of them. The next generation of parrot owners might decide to keep at least two or none at all though, which I guess is a good thing.

There's an organisation in Sweden where a lot of people have collected questions to see how certain situations would be dealt with. For instance, some people may have an amazon and a pionus, the birds seem perfectly happy and healthy. Do they have to get another bird of each species? Nobody knows the answers yet (except from those who made the law), but I'm following the discussion so I guess we'll find out soon enough!

[Wolf]

Thank you for the update on what is going on there. Time will tell whether this works out as a good thing or not, but from what you have said the intent of the law is most definitely to improve the lives of the parrots, and I can only think of that as a good thing. I would also suspect that the rescues and other animal rights groups are the motivation behind this type of law.
I think that the main difference that you will encounter is that it will take more time and effort to bond with a new bird, so it is a good idea to start on bonding with the bird during its quarantine period, but I could not imagine not doing that any way. Also it appears that parent raised birds are stronger healthwise than are other birds.
Please keep us informed and if you can find an English version of the law and post the link ,I would love to read this law, myself.

[Pajarita]

WOW!!!! FABULOUS FABULOUS FABULOUS LAW!!!! It will never happen in the States -unfortunately for the birds- but it's a great law that has nothing but the birds wellbeing in mind. TRIPLE KUDOS TO SWEDEN FOR IT!

[Hookturn]

As with many things that governments do, my fear is that its consequence will be the opposite of what is intended. How many birds will not get adopted because the new owner would have to either adopt two or, if a second of the same type is not available, the new owner would have to buy a second bird. Not to mention the fact that I would think there are many people who are willing to commit to one bird but are not willing to commit to two for various reasons (eg space, resources, etc.). And,if enforced, how many current owners with well adjusted, well cared for, and loved birds will surrender their birds due to the owner's inability or unwillingness to take in another bird?

I notice that many people who post here have 3 or more birds of different types. I wonder how many of them would be willing to add 3 or more new birds to their home. And, even if willing, whether such a decision would necessarily be good for the birds.

As another example, suppose an owner has just one bird and doesn't want or can't afford a second. Might he skip a trip to the vet in order to not be found out and reported? And again I have zero experience with birds, but is it necessarily true in all cases that two birds are better (for the birds) than one?

[Wolf]

Hookturn ;

I share some of your concerns as well, especially with older birds who are already acclimated to their lives at present. But in the case of newly weaned birds I do think that they would be better off with a companion of the same species and same approximate age. I am also concerned with how to control the probable inbreeding that is inevitable through the purchase of siblings to fulfill this new law.
I too, have seen many well intentioned law turned into a club that was not intended by those who championed the cause and am curious as to what safeguards if any are built into this law to prevent its abuse.

[marie83]

I love the law in theory but it would be impossible to enforce and there are too many other issues too regarding inbreeding, expenses, space etc, plus you could go on indefinitely replacing birds that have died.
I've thought of the latter a lot, I wont ever have less than two birds- my current two might not be the same species but I do think they benefit from each others presence when I'm not there. That situation isn't my ideal one but I don't want to get off course with my point so I'll drop that point for now... anyway whilst I hate to think about it and anything could happen at any time Harlie is at least 8 years old now, she had a rough abusive start in life and a poor diet up until recently because it's taken me years to even get her to try anything with any real moisture content, including soaked seed. In theory she will be my next birdy loss based on that as much as she seems the picture of health at the moment and has more "life" and get up and go in her than ever before. Obviously that would then leave Ollie on his own so I would actively seek a companion for him (If I hadn't already taken in more birds by that point). In theory I could go on like that forever and as much as I would like to I need to draw the line somewhere in the future. Ultimately I want what's best for my pets and so do others, I can easily see that people who grow too old to take on a new companion refusing to acknowledge that that means they should look for a home elsewhere for their bird (my god it kills me to even think of it but it would be for the best) just like some people can't/won't make the decision when its time to help a pet pass on.

Unfortunately like most laws in the world people find ways around them, go underground etc. So yes whilst I support the law in itself just because it will hopefully go some way towards people becoming more aware, I just cant see it being enforced. I also support parent reared birds 100% and making minimum cage sizes a legal requirement.


As for the trade side of things it will either make people lie and say they already have another bird at home (realistically a breeder with many birds to sell wont homecheck), breeders will sell regardless just like they do with un-weaned babies which is already against the law, prices will either drop significantly meaning many more birds are "farmed" to prevent a drop in profits by trying to increase turnover or breeders will concentrate on breeding less (which would be a good thing for parents) but the prices will rise dramatically making the reality of pet parrot ownership unobtainable for some (not necessarily a bad thing either).

Other issues I can see is breeders getting accused of hand rearing when in fact a bird has been parent reared but well handled and vice versa (birds that are handfed but very wild because they literally have no interaction with the handfeeder- this does happen, the breeder wants hen to produce more eggs but doesn't want to "raise the babies")

[Pajarita]

I am sure this law was written with the collaboration of experts and already has lots of safeguards in it (like grandfathering the existing birds, licensing breeders which would require reporting clutches and parents, annual inspections, etc). It's easy to tell if a bird was handfed or just handled so that's a non-issue, actually. And, yes, there will be snags as there are with any new law but the important thing is that it was conceived with the birds welfare in mind and that lots of people will think twice before getting two parrots. As to inbreeding, I seriously doubt it will be worse than it is here in the States where it's an acceptable practice in aviculture! Good pet owners don't want the hassle and danger of breeding their birds and it seems to me that this law is meant to encourage a better class of parrot ownership.

I've never agreed with hand-feeding, I think it's basically unhealthy from a physical point of view as well as a dirty psychological trick we play on the poor babies, and extremely cruel to the parents so this is right up my alley.

I've also always tried to get all my birds a companion of their own - so much so that, as a matter of fact, the only times I actively look for a bird is when I take in one I don't have anybody for (I looked to adopt a second cockatoo after I took in Zachary and always take in budgies and tiels as the older ones die in order to maintain a balanced flock). It's the least we can do for species that need 24/7 company to feel content, especially if the owner works. Birds in pairs always do better than single birds (remember the gray study about telomeres?) and even super recalcitrant and deeply human-imprinted birds eventually accept a companion bird if given enough time (it might take years but it usually happens).

Will there be people who try to ride it under the radar? Of course! Same as there are people who break other laws but it's a known fact that the rule of law acts as deterrent for the largest majority of people so, in my personal opinion, enacting a new law that provides a better, more natural life for birds is a great thing no matter how you look at it.

[marie83]

Oh I agree with most of what you put pajarita but the truth is most countries (I don't know about sweden) do not have the resources to check licences and do inspections let alone on a yearly or even bi-yearly basis. My friend has a petshop licence, as a matter of fact it is a very very good petshop as petshops go, but not once has she had anyone inspect the premises, check her licence (which anybody could apply for and get in theory) or anything else (shes had and renewed the licence for 17 years now).

As for the easiness of being able to tell if a bird is HR or not then no that's not always the case. I've had parent reared that were tamer than hand reared, if anyone was inspected they would not hang about to see if a bird displayed sexual interest in a human or not. The only way I could tell my parent reared birds were parent reared is their reaction to a mirror as they would try to court their reflection whereas the HR couldn't give a toss. Another clutch HR 'tiels brought into the farm had no interest in humans at all, they were literally kept in a card box which had a heat mat under it until they were feathered and a spoon was shoved in against their beaks to feed them, they never got picked up and barely saw the light of day let alone a human. The guy who had them couldn't care less if he found one dead cuz it didn't have as much food as the others and lost weight, his exact words were "doesn't matter, I've another 4 clutches at home and about 20 more eggs to pull when I get back"