How to properly clip wings?

[PRD]

Here comes a long post:

Birds dont have hair like humans or other animals, feathers are something different then
hair(and for a reason), different structure etc. Birds with feathers, have (some) wingfeathers which are primary for flight. A part of these have no other function then to generate lift or support fight. So birds have feathers that have the same function as human hair(at the nostrils for example), and birds have feathers that have the same function as human limbs, and that would be propelling them/lift/independance.
Comparing nostral hairs of a human to nostral hairs of a parrot would be a better comparrison in my opinion. But comparring cutting the wingfeathers, which are primary for flight with comparring hair of any creature makes less sense to me then comparring cutting it´s WING to cutting a limb. The bone, meat and skin which arnt harmed during clipping as u say, form the limb ´wing´. Feathers on the backside are of a bird are called also feathers, but it the tail and a limb of a bird, developped into feathers. There are also other creatures with a tail of bones, meat, bones-meat-flesh-skin. Cutting off a conures tail i would find as unacceptable as cutting off a tail of an iguana, even though the iguana tail grows back and it doesnt have feathers.

What makes the difference for ME is that no other animal uses his ´hair´ to flee, get food or water,to get to reach the age of sexual maturity . Therefore if a bird cant escape from predators and keep itself alive, the whole specie will be history.
In the past flying species of birds, who didnt have natural prey in their surroundings-environment and didnt have the need to fly anymore, became exticted because nature decided they didnt have the need to fly anymore untill humans came... This is not the case for pet parrots, but i bring it up to show how important is for a bird to fly and for their existence, so it´s incorporated in its instincts. If he cant fly he cant survive!
Flying is what made insects and birds the most succesfull creatures on this world so for only that reason i wish people(the mayority of parrotowners in Holland) would at least be a bit more open minded for this aspect.
Like i said in my earlier post, even if cutting off the hair of a rhino is not a permanent mutilation and he wont feel a bit of it, i really dont see a reason to do this.

About the neutring/spaying part on my birds and pets in general:
I think a big factor in this discussion is the reproductionrate of the specy, and also the type of animal, conditions etc. I know for sure i wont let my parrots physical interaction with any other parrot(or other animal). If they choose reproduce for what for reason, then thats what will happen.
Neutring/spaying pets in general: Its a way i see as animal control. If u wouldnt do this it would really become a mess, and im sure the more cats-dogs are around on the streets. Animals didnt domesticated themselves.
Sterlilasation is also what humans choose to do to ourselves. But i dont see our people giving willingly freely away a limb or our ability to walk, climb stairs to ride a wheelchair, walk on chruches or any other way that makes it far more difficult to continue our daily activitys. That is for me the big difference for the bird.
This discussion, which people might see as a personal attack, is not a personal attack.
It made me think about what i would consider as acceptable for myself or not. So as a conclusion for myself, i can say this in general, regarding to pets:
I would treat another human being or a pet the way i would like to be treated. With animals i have a whole lot more patience then with people.
If i wouldnt do it to myself or another person i wouldnt do it to my pet, with the exception that i take the animal away of its natural evironment.

Like i said, in holland my experience is that clipping is the standard. Most people get their bird clipped. When they get home they will look via Google for a parrot forum and will registrate there. Once they introduce themselves, alot of the times the wingclipping, diet or featherplucking is discussed.
I do post reactions of websites-youtubevids-or my own experience about this subject, but because people who see the advantages for themselves are overrepresented it is always about 2 against the rest, trying to convince people that it aint that difficult to achieve desired behaviour of a flighted parrot. Once clipped these people will see the advatages for them and the´false sense of security´is being reinforced by most of the reactions. So either if the person has some kind of interest in flight in general, flying birds or doesnt think it´s right to clip a bird i can say what i want but it doesnt help much... But that wont stop from giving my 2 cents

What if one of the goals is to improve the relationship between the owner and the bird? To allow for more interaction, for example. I think the needs of the owner in an owner-pet relationship also matter.

Well, i think u are right about that. I really dont have an idea how a relationship between a clipped parrot and his-her owner is, in relationship to a nonclipped parrot. All i can say is that i have 3 birds, i have invested time in them(i dont want to say u or anybody else doesnt spend time with his-her parrot) and i really dont think anybody can do with his-her own parrot that i cant do or teach him. I talk in this case of my best flying parrot, but i can quite easily get a disired behaviour from my other birds.

[Michael]

While I agree with you in concept and importance of flight, I disagree with many of your arguments.

Birds dont have hair like humans or other animals, feathers are something different then hair(and for a reason)...

I already explained that I don't think that people who compare cutting feathers to hair are discussing the functional aspect of it but rather comparing the regrowth and painless aspect. This is often a useful comparison when explaining to non-parrot owners because they may think that a clip is a permanent mutilation of the wing. I really don't see the point of debating this issue. It's both. It is similar in process/sensation to cutting hair but the effect (even if temporary) as you said is more like breaking the limbs of a terrestrial animal or cutting off an iguana tail. I think the debate about this is uninteresting because people are discussing two completely separate matters.

Therefore if a bird cant escape from predators and keep itself alive, the whole specie will be history.

False. Survival of a species isn't determined by survival of a single individual.

In the past flying species of birds, who didnt have natural prey in their surroundings-environment and didnt have the need to fly anymore, became exticted because nature decided they didnt have the need to fly anymore untill humans came...

You really should stop making arguments like this because it is so fallacious that if I didn't get to pointing this out, the pro-clippers would jump on this and use the inaccuracy of the statement as an argument against keeping flighted parrots. First of all nature doesn't "decide" anything. Second of all, species that no longer needed flight did not necessarily become extinct. That's not how it works. There are many species of flightless birds that evolved better ground capabilities while shedding their flight ones. The Kakapo is an example of a flightless parrot previously devoid of natural predators. If you want to apply the evolution argument to how it pertains to clipping you go about it completely wrong. Instead of saying that birds that don't need to fly, stop existing, you should point out that they eventually evolve structures away from flight because it helps them be more competitive within the species. The ostrich with big wings can't run as fast as the one with little ones, so eventually wing size becomes progressively smaller across the species. However, this process takes millions of years. A snip of the scissors across the feathers does not make the anatomy of a flighted species of parrot suddenly become that of non-flighted.

This is not the case for pet parrots, but i bring it up to show how important is for a bird to fly and for their existence, so it´s incorporated in its instincts. If he cant fly he cant survive!

Once again this statement isn't true. Kakapos, penguins, and ostriches (as just a few examples) survive just fine. Survival is more pertinent to environment and circumstance rather than inborn anatomy. Let's suppose 1 in 100,000 birds are born with under-developed wings and cannot fly. 99.9% of them die because they cannot fly to feeding locations or evade predators. However, if there is a sudden climactic shift that makes flight disadvantages, it is possible the mutated parrot has a better chance of survival on the ground because with smaller wings it can run faster. This is a hypothetical example but just to show the thinking process of how we analyze evolution.

Flying is what made insects and birds the most succesfull creatures on this world

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? If they were most successful then why do we exist? Or fish? Or horses? etc. Their success can only be measured in the occupation of their respective ecological niches. While they are successful at occupying theirs, they are far less successful at occupying others. Penguins are one of few examples of birds occupying water niche along with fish and guess what? They no longer need to be "birds" and shed flight. Ostriches are an example of a bird successful at occupying the land based niche among zebras and lions. Once again they shed flight. Guess why? Cause in the water or on land you don't need flight! They need superior swimming or running capabilities far more than flight. The species that maintained flight did not become successful in those niches so we do not see them occupy them. Please don't make such presumptuous arguments. I really don't want to have to disagree with a pro-flight supporter that I agree with in concept.

Sterlilasation is also what humans choose to do to ourselves. But i dont see our people giving willingly freely away a limb or our ability to walk, climb stairs to ride a wheelchair, walk on chruches or any other way that makes it far more difficult to continue our daily activitys. That is for me the big difference for the bird.

The bird didn't choose to be mateless as much as it didn't choose to be clipped. Perhaps if you offered it a mate and it killed or rejected it, only then could you speculate that it had a choice in the matter but not in the clipping one.

Like i said, in holland my experience is that clipping is the standard. Most people get their bird clipped. When they get home they will look via Google for a parrot forum and will registrate there. Once they introduce themselves, alot of the times the wingclipping, diet or featherplucking is discussed.

Actually you know what really bothered me is that on other forums/discussions people are so accustomed to parrots being clipped that they don't even bother to mention it. They assume all parrots are clipped so you end up looking strange if you say you don't. Like if you mention the word "fly" and your parrot in a post, they'll come back saying "why are you too lazy to get it clipped?"

Entranced, I wonder, would you consider it cruel or unacceptable to keep a horse immobilized all its life? I know it's silly cause people want the horses for the sake of their ability to run (as I want a parrot to fly) but that aside. Supposing someone just wanted a horse as an ornament in their yard and tied its legs up or something so it could just crawl a little but could never run. Would this be inappropriate/abusive toward that type of animal?


Finally, let me provide an anecdotal example that I think demonstrates a specific preference for flight by my parrot. When playing fetch on the floor with Kili, if the object is a few feet away she walks over to get it. If it's 2-6 feet away she'll often do a running hop to get it. If the object is more than 6 feet away she'll often take a short low flight over to get there. This really has nothing to do with the trick (but the trick is just a motivation for her to cross more distance on the floor so it's easier to observe) but it demonstrates how even for a parrot that spends its time "down low" and perhaps doesn't even need flight to get to places it wants to go by flying, that flight is still preferred. Let's say you put little birdie ladders all over your house and made it so that the parrot could go absolutely anywhere it could have gone if it could fly, it is my belief (based on this example for instance) that the parrot would still miss out on flight. The fact that even for movement across walkable terrain, the parrot chooses to fly, I think demonstrates a certain violation of a clipped parrot's choice, preferred method of movement, and the constraints of its physical anatomy. Watching Kili walk or run is funny because she is quite clumsy. While they spend far more time perched than flighted, I think they use their wings far more for getting around than their legs.

[entrancedbymyGCC]

Entranced, I wonder, would you consider it cruel or unacceptable to keep a horse immobilized all its life?

Well, unlike a clipped parrot a completely immobilized horse usually dies. That's why broken limbs are often fatal, a horse doesn't survive well in a sling. Barbaro died, not because of his fracture, but because of another medical issue brought on by his immobilization. But people do hobble horses so they can graze where the area isn't fenced. And perhaps a better analogy is keeping a horse in a 12'x12' box stall which is quite the norm where 24-7 pasture isn't available. And my experience is that it can work just fine when the horse gets plenty of exercise and at least an hour a day out of the stall, usually doing brisk work during the majority of that time. It's not the working show horses and lesson horses that I feel for, it's the horses that get thrown into a stall all week and get pulled out on the weekends. Those horses IMO SHOULD be out at pasture where being ridden only on the weekends would be OK. Same for the retirees who tend to waste away standing in stalls. Since some horse owners argue vehemently that stalling horses is cruel, I think it is a good analogy of a horsekeeping issue that is equally controversial and for many of the same reasons. Horses are definitely meant to be moving around pretty much all of the time, but in a lot of cases (say urban Los Angeles) pasture board, while the ideal and far more natural, simply isn't available. Not within a 3 hour drive. And a dry dirt lot with 10 other horses isn't a very good alternative. So the owner has to put extra work or money into making sure that the horse has enough exercise and mental stimulation for both mental and physical health. And there are some few horses that can't adapt to this and need to be sent to pasture somewhere to avoid self-destructive stereotypic behaviors, probably not unlike parrots that pluck. But it isn't the majority, not when properly kept.

I know it's silly cause people want the horses for the sake of their ability to run

Actually, I don't think this is true. Many people want a horse because of its elemental horse-ness. I know plenty of horse owners that don't ride and many that don't even want to ride. They respect the animal for its inherent nature and are drawn to that. Because it is big, beautiful, and because of the way it interacts with humans. I, personally, favor dressage although I used to enjoy jumping, and that's not so much about running free as about containment and precision. For me, I am drawn to the sum total of what birds are as creatures, flight aside. I'm way more interested in their minds than their feathers. I'm interested in the sum total of their behavior and, yes, how they interact with u us humans. Flight might, or might not, add something to that, but it isn't central.

While they spend far more time perched than flighted, I think they use their wings far more for getting around than their legs.

And what about the ground-foraging species. Are they more or less happy or more or less birds because they spend a proportionally larger fraction of time on the ground walking? Are they more amenable to clipping as a result? Is it black and white or is it shades of grey?

[PRD]

Therefore if a bird cant escape from predators and keep itself alive, the whole specie will be history.

False. Survival of a species isn't determined by survival of a single individual.

In the past flying species of birds, who didnt have natural prey in their surroundings-environment and didnt have the need to fly anymore, became exticted because nature decided they didnt have the need to fly anymore untill humans came...

You really should stop making arguments like this because it is so fallacious that if I didn't get to pointing this out, the pro-clippers would jump on this and use the inaccuracy of the statement as an argument against keeping flighted parrots. First of all nature doesn't "decide" anything. Second of all, species that no longer needed flight did not necessarily become extinct. That's not how it works. There are many species of flightless birds that evolved better ground capabilities while shedding their flight ones. The Kakapo is an example of a flightless parrot previously devoid of natural predators. If you want to apply the evolution argument to how it pertains to clipping you go about it completely wrong. Instead of saying that birds that don't need to fly, stop existing, you should point out that they eventually evolve structures away from flight because it helps them be more competitive within the species. The ostrich with big wings can't run as fast as the one with little ones, so eventually wing size becomes progressively smaller across the species. However, this process takes millions of years. A snip of the scissors across the feathers does not make the anatomy of a flighted species of parrot suddenly become that of non-flighted.

A cut of the scissors across the feathers of a flighted bird has far more effect then of a non flighted bird. It also depends on what type of flighted bird.
The way i stated it in my previous post i may have meant all bird, but there are some exceptions like penguins.

http://www.flipkart.com/book/miracle-flight-stephen-dalton/1552093786
If u really think i should stop making these arguments i really think u should read this book. Not only u, but everybody.
If u are done with it i can recommend Avian Flight by J. Videler............

Sterlilasation is also what humans choose to do to ourselves. But i dont see our people giving willingly freely away a limb or our ability to walk, climb stairs to ride a wheelchair, walk on chruches or any other way that makes it far more difficult to continue our daily activitys. That is for me the big difference for the bird.

The bird didn't choose to be mateless as much as it didn't choose to be clipped. Perhaps if you offered it a mate and it killed or rejected it, only then could you speculate that it had a choice in the matter but not in the clipping one.

I can say that if i clipped my sunny i couldnt give him his independce back that he had with his wings, i couldnt replace his wings. But i cant say if he prefers his independancy or not, i choose to give him his independancy by not clipping him. So hypothetically i am abusing him if he wanted to be clipped rather then be flighted.
As he is my bird, and i work with him everyday and know him best, i can speculate on that for my bird.

Like i said, in holland my experience is that clipping is the standard. Most people get their bird clipped. When they get home they will look via Google for a parrot forum and will registrate there. Once they introduce themselves, alot of the times the wingclipping, diet or featherplucking is discussed.

Actually you know what really bothered me is that on other forums/discussions people are so accustomed to parrots being clipped that they don't even bother to mention it. They assume all parrots are clipped so you end up looking strange if you say you don't. Like if you mention the word "fly" and your parrot in a post, they'll come back saying "why are you too lazy to get it clipped?"

Like i said, what bothers me is that if u are pro flight on dutch forums u are the 1 interrupting something and started a debate, while i will just say things like 'its not true a flighted bird cant be tamed' or something like 'even if it takes longer to tame a flighted bird, u in such a hurry'?. Then the discussion starts, and i dont mind going along with it. If i look silly cause i say my birds are flighted i couldnt care really. All of them adore the video's of flying parrots/freeflighted parrtos/recall trained parrots.....

[Michael]

I just ordered the book. Looks quite interesting. I probably know about this from other books but have not had one specific to bird flight and nothing else so perhaps it will enlighten me on some more details of this.

However, I stand by the points I previously made because I disagreed about your points in matter of phrasing and concept of evolution rather than flight specifics.

If nobody would sell or offer the option of clipping, all potential owners would have to STRONGLY weigh the flight compared to their household and have a much more difficult decision to make. But they would make the decision completely based on information available. Clipped parrots are false advertising because they are still birds and the clipping doesn't change their birdedness. It just prevents them from expressing it (and if it is in any way abusive it would relate to this aspect of it).

[TheNzJessie]

to the person who saids birds cant survive if they cant fly in the wild thats wrong where i live (new zealand) we have the kiwi and the kakapo both flightless birds and they have managed to survive. even thou stoats, rats, cats, dogs, possums and all those animals have been released into new zealand.

[HyperD]

Jesse, I am sure most people are aware of many birds that are flightless but as Michael already pointed out, they evolved like that so their anatomy is already built for no flight.

A parrot whose anatomy is built for flight but not allowed to is different.

[Banksie]

Have you finished reading the book, Michael? It looked interesting.

to the person who saids birds cant survive if they cant fly in the wild thats wrong where i live (new zealand) we have the kiwi and the kakapo both flightless birds and they have managed to survive. even thou stoats, rats, cats, dogs, possums and all those animals have been released into new zealand.

This made me chuckle. Aside from the obvious that these birds evolved into flightless ones, giving them millions of years of evolutionary advantage over our poor flying pet parrots with their wings clipped, are you talking about the CRITICALLY ENDANGERED Kakapo?!

I don't mean to dig up an old thread but I've some catching up to do on some of the 'hot' issues. England seems to be almost completely pro-flight so I didn't even think of clipping as a consideration!

[Michael]

Nah, most people around here clip. The best way to find out how many people clip is to go to a bird store or place that does grooming and watch how many people bring their parrot in and have the wings clipped vs. saying nails/beak only. I think I've only seen one person besides me ask that the wings not be clipped.

As for the book, I did buy it and I skimmed it but have not had time to read it. For the most part it looks like a lot of things I already know about so it's a lot of reading to find out some little details that I may not have already learned about. I've been a bit busy and not so enthusiastic about reading it but I'll let everyone know when I have. I'll try to write up some sort of summary to share my findings.

[Banksie]

I'm not totally sure that'd be a good demographic of parrot owners but it would be interesting to see. For Monkey's first (and only so far) checkup at the vet, they didn't even mention wing-clipping. I don't think it is the norm here but obviously I can't back that up without some kind of research.

I think it adds to that list of "questions you would have asked if you'd had experience of birds when you bought your first parrot".