How to properly clip wings?

[Michael]

I think everybody has the right to own a pet, given he/she provides him a good home and treatment/space/environment the animal needs. For example, if u dont have a large area for a horse to properly strech its legs on a regular basis u cant provide the right environment for the horse (let's say u live on the 10th floor of a high building) so in my opinion a horse is not a suitable pet. But i dont think anyone has the right to physically adapt an animal to our environment. Especially where there is no reason to do it other for our convenience. A blind parrot for instance i can imagine clipped for his own safety. We dont do it to animals other then birds to my knowledge.
All physical adaptations people do to other animals are considered animal cruelty to most petowners.

Thank you.

[entrancedbymyGCC]

But i dont think anyone has the right to physically adapt an animal to our environment. [...] We dont do it to animals other then birds to my knowledge.
All physical adaptations people do to other animals are considered animal cruelty to most petowners.

I disagree with you, and I think that while your point of view MIGHT work in a perfect world, where the definition of perfect includes not just that everyone wants pets but is willing to completely shape their life around their pets. Even in that hypothetical world, I am not sure your statement is necessarily true. In the real world, I think taking that viewpoint would be to leave most companion animals homeless.

Even when you trim your bird's toenails, you are "adapting it physically" to your environment. It's a matter of degree, not kind. There are a ton of things we do to horses to adapt them to our environment -- give them haircuts, put shoes on their feet if they need them, have them wear blankets in the winter. We vaccinate our cats and dogs. We trim our cats toenails. Some people declaw cats -- I am not a proponent of that except under very unusual circumstances. We spay and neuter them, we geld horses routinely as well. Some dogs have surgical alterations to their ears and tails strictly for appearance's sake -- I am not a proponent of that either, but done with proper surgical care and aftercare I wouldn't consider it cruelty. Horses may have their tails docked or set, and I'm not wild about that because then they cannot use them to swish away flies and in most environments, that is a negative impact on them.

Like it or not, keeping an animal as a companion is asking it to adapt to living with us. It is pretty much taking it out of its natural context. Admittedly, birds are not truly domesticated yet in the sense that dogs and cats are, but this is true of dogs and cats to an extent as well. Unless you accept that an animal can be happy in "unnatural" circumstances, you are making a huge compromise to keep a pet at all. Once you accept that "unnatural" isn't necessarily bad, IMO you then need to look to the animal to see if it is well and free from problematic behaviors to determine if your husbandry practices are cruel or not.

Anthropomorphizing IMO often leads us down the wrong path. Assuming a bird pines for flight is anthropomorphizing.

[DUHK]

But i dont think anyone has the right to physically adapt an animal to our environment. [...] We dont do it to animals other then birds to my knowledge.
All physical adaptations people do to other animals are considered animal cruelty to most petowners.

I disagree with you, and I think that while your point of view MIGHT work in a perfect world, where the definition of perfect includes not just that everyone wants pets but is willing to completely shape their life around their pets. Even in that hypothetical world, I am not sure your statement is necessarily true. In the real world, I think taking that viewpoint would be to leave most companion animals homeless.

Even when you trim your bird's toenails, you are "adapting it physically" to your environment. It's a matter of degree, not kind. There are a ton of things we do to horses to adapt them to our environment -- give them haircuts, put shoes on their feet if they need them, have them wear blankets in the winter. We vaccinate our cats and dogs. We trim our cats toenails. Some people declaw cats -- I am not a proponent of that except under very unusual circumstances. We spay and neuter them, we geld horses routinely as well. Some dogs have surgical alterations to their ears and tails strictly for appearance's sake -- I am not a proponent of that either, but done with proper surgical care and aftercare I wouldn't consider it cruelty. Horses may have their tails docked or set, and I'm not wild about that because then they cannot use them to swish away flies and in most environments, that is a negative impact on them.

Like it or not, keeping an animal as a companion is asking it to adapt to living with us. It is pretty much taking it out of its natural context. Admittedly, birds are not truly domesticated yet in the sense that dogs and cats are, but this is true of dogs and cats to an extent as well. Unless you accept that an animal can be happy in "unnatural" circumstances, you are making a huge compromise to keep a pet at all. Once you accept that "unnatural" isn't necessarily bad, IMO you then need to look to the animal to see if it is well and free from problematic behaviors to determine if your husbandry practices are cruel or not.

Anthropomorphizing IMO often leads us down the wrong path. Assuming a bird pines for flight is anthropomorphizing.

Wow, great points!

[PRD]

I disagree with you, and I think that while your point of view MIGHT work in a perfect world, where the definition of perfect includes not just that everyone wants pets but is willing to completely shape their life around their pets. Even in that hypothetical world, I am not sure your statement is necessarily true. In the real world, I think taking that viewpoint would be to leave most companion animals homeless.

Even when you trim your bird's toenails, you are "adapting it physically" to your environment. It's a matter of degree, not kind. There are a ton of things we do to horses to adapt them to our environment -- give them haircuts, put shoes on their feet if they need them, have them wear blankets in the winter. We vaccinate our cats and dogs. We trim our cats toenails. Some people declaw cats -- I am not a proponent of that except under very unusual circumstances. We spay and neuter them, we geld horses routinely as well. Some dogs have surgical alterations to their ears and tails strictly for appearance's sake -- I am not a proponent of that either, but done with proper surgical care and aftercare I wouldn't consider it cruelty. Horses may have their tails docked or set, and I'm not wild about that because then they cannot use them to swish away flies and in most environments, that is a negative impact on them.

Like it or not, keeping an animal as a companion is asking it to adapt to living with us. It is pretty much taking it out of its natural context. Admittedly, birds are not truly domesticated yet in the sense that dogs and cats are, but this is true of dogs and cats to an extent as well. Unless you accept that an animal can be happy in "unnatural" circumstances, you are making a huge compromise to keep a pet at all. Once you accept that "unnatural" isn't necessarily bad, IMO you then need to look to the animal to see if it is well and free from problematic behaviors to determine if your husbandry practices are cruel or not.

Anthropomorphizing IMO often leads us down the wrong path. Assuming a bird pines for flight is anthropomorphizing.

U are right that we physically adapt our pets to a certain degree if we decide to take it in our environment as u state.
However if u look at the consequentes for the bird of clipping, its the only pet we physically adapt in order to restrain/control the movements for our convinience. You also restrain/suppress an instinct of the bird, the instict that makes them birds and so succesfull in life. So the discussion should be wheter its acceptable to do this to a parrot we keep as pets. I dont think its acceptable to take away its independancy by clipping its wings and therefor making him unable to go/move/fly somewhere when he wants to, unless for his own safety. Just by taking them into our environment, (and therefore take away their independancy in life) doesnt give us the right to take away its natural way of movement. And let's be honest, most people do it because they think its easier to tame/train the bird, the bird can hurt himself during cooking, we can leave the door/windows open, we can go outside with the bird etc... This is not only more convinient for the owner, but this is also quite easily achievable without clipping the bird.
We dont physically adapt other pets we keep to restrain/control the movements because it would mean we would have to tie up/cut off the legs. Cutting a wing is cutting the hand of the bird. The fact that the bird doesnt feel it is because his hands are made of bones which arnt cut and feathers.

We know we cant teach a parrot not not scream or bite, cause these is natural instictive behaviour. This is the same with flying. But we can learn how to control him and achieve the desired behaviour.

[Michael]

Anthropomorphizing IMO often leads us down the wrong path. Assuming a bird pines for flight is anthropomorphizing.

It's not an assumption. We can see many common "parrot issues" solved with flight: plucking, screaming, obesity, and biting for starters. I do not have any formal research on the subject but visit discussions all over the net and you will hear many owners say that flight reduced these problems. We can observe how they use flight in the wild for survival and how flight is central to their anatomy.

And let's say for the point of argument that we are anthropomorphizing that the parrot desires to be flighted. We could not go wrong by giving in and leaving it flighted (by making necessary arrangements to ensure this). If it doesn't care about being able to fly, by not clipping wings it still won't fly but will have choice. On the other hand if it is clipped but wants to be flighted, we are definitely imposing a restriction. If it is clipped and doesn't want to be flighted, once again by not clipping it has the choice not to fly anyway. Therefore even if we do anthropomorphize the desire to fly, we are definitely playing it on the safe side and giving the parrot the choice. By clipping, you void the parrot of any ability to make its own decision and thereby imposing your own belief that birds should walk and not fly. My parrot would disagree with that notion if it could. How do I know? Because I didn't clip her when feathers grew back and she uses that to fly to me or where she wants.

There is no need to guess whether the parrot wants to fly or not. Give it the opportunity and see what what choice it makes.

[entrancedbymyGCC]

It's not an assumption. We can see many common "parrot issues" solved with flight: plucking, screaming, obesity, and biting for starters.

I would argue, rather, that birds with these issues are missing something in their environments, and that it is easier for them to solve the problem themselves if flighted. That does not mean that flight is the ONLY way to address them. In some ways I could argue it's the easy way out!

I will agree that having a clipped bird puts more onus on the owner to provide for the birds basic needs -- in many ways it is MORE work than allowing flight. But in some ways I think that can be an advantage and can make the relationship stronger. It's a bit like choosing to have a horse in an environment where 24/7 pasture is not available. A stabled horse CAN be kept well and happy, but it takes much more work to address their basic needs and keep them happy. You can throw a horse out on pasture and pretty much ignore it and it will be happy. In some ways that is "better" but it doesn't mean keeping a horse in is inherently wrong.

Honestly, I'd be a lot more likely to be persuaded by people who took the attitude that flight has many benefits when it is feasible than by people who took the attitude that it has to be my way or the highway. I can imagine folks coming here with the intention of taking top notch care of their birds and getting so beaten up because they clip that they turn their birds over to a rescue. I don't THINK that's what you really want.

[Michael]

You're right, in some regards flight is easier and more likely that the parrot gets what it needs: enrichment, exercise, etc. So why not?

The difficult area of flight is managing it. I definitely agree that some things (like biting) became easier to deal with since flight. Not that I wasn't managing it previously but given the choice the parrot typically chooses to fly away rather than bite. And yes it is harder to maintain tameness and relationship with flighted parrot. But isn't that the most fun/important thing to work on anyway??

[PRD]

The difficult area of flight is managing it. I definitely agree that some things (like biting) became easier to deal with since flight. Not that I wasn't managing it previously but given the choice the parrot typically chooses to fly away rather than bite. And yes it is harder to maintain tameness and relationship with flighted parrot. But isn't that the most fun/important thing to work on anyway??

I definately agree with this.
About maintaining the relationship with your pet: isnt that what it's all about? Even if it takes a little more effort? I experience it as playtime so i am looking forwrd to this part.
Isnt that what life is all about? Maintaining relationships to who we are close to???

That does not mean that flight is the ONLY way to address them.

Again i agree with u. Its the same for the diet of parrots. In captivity and wild parrots can become 60 years on a bad diet(no pellets, snacks all day). That doesnt mean it's healthy (and the only way)for a parrot, that diet.
Flying is definately part of their primary basic instinct, which is at least a couple of million years old. We cant change it with a few scissorcuts, and a couple of years/ages of 'domesticaton'(if we can even speak about domestication).

I will agree that having a clipped bird puts more onus on the owner to provide for the birds basic needs -- in many ways it is MORE work than allowing flight. But in some ways I think that can be an advantage and can make the relationship stronger.

I can imagine it's more work then allowing flight. If i would have to transport my birds, especially my sunny, to the extend they fly/commute daily i could hire a person to do this for me.
I am interested in what u consider as 'a stonger bond'. For me the ultimate bond would be a bond with a wild flock, or have parrots who are trained to do free flight. In no where, in my opinion, a bond with a clipped bird would come even close to this, let alone a stronger bond. The clipped bird would definately miss the confidence a trained non clipped bird would have at all times.
In my opinion clipping birds has become/is the standard(in Holland/west europe for sure). The way people describe it as being an individual choise based on personal environment i have to disagree with this. I have been to several parrotowners day for example, where they encourage and teach u how to clip the bird, non clipped birds will break their necks flying into windows and all other aspects except the 'flying/non clipped birds' in our environment aspect. Also on forums, the first thing people advise is clipping the bird. Pro-flight owners are definately in the minority. There also no Recall Flight training instructions, websites about flight traing or things like that in dutch. Even my vet, who is specialised in birds, recommends clipping the bird, and not for the birds safety...
I always wonder if people, who use their (young) children as an excuse to clip their bird, will let the bird grow its wings back and teach it how to fly (again) once the kids are moved out of the house.....
People use it as the first solution, the easy way out and the most convinient for us. Thats what i think is wrong. If u would use it as the last solution for a problembird it could be justified, but judging on my research on the internet/books and my own experiences it's definately not necesary.

Birds, bats and flying insects are the most succesfull creatures that excists, because they can fly. This is an evolution of millions of years. To think the bird would be better off clipped is to think we know better then nature, and can adjust nature with 2 scisorcuts. We cant even make equal adjustments to a simple aircraft or glyder without thourough knowledge, research/calculations and hours of testflying.

My 2 cents

[pchela]

I would just like to throw into the mix that if somebody has to carry their bird from place to place, or their bird can not get to where he wants to go on his own, then he is clipped far too severely. That seems to be one of the biggest problems with clipping. People do it wrong. Two of my birds are flighted, one is clipped. Notice I did not say he couldn't fly. He can. He can fly quite well. The only places he can not access are the high cabinets and my flighted birds don't go there either. A clipped parrot should still be able to fly. It should not be able to gain altitude. Any parrot who drops to the floor when it tries to fly is definitely suffering from animal cruelty. I do feel that clipping for safety (if done correctly) can be a good choice. I also feel that a leaving a bird fully flighted has many benefits. I think it depends on your individual circumstances. I would not compare it to docking the tails and ears of dogs or de-clawing cats. Those are all cruelty issues that are done for purely aesthetic reasons or in the case of de-clawing, human convenience.

[entrancedbymyGCC]

Also on forums, the first thing people advise is clipping the bird. Pro-flight owners are definately in the minority.

Gee, are any of those forums English-speaking? Because it seems wherever *I* go I'm being constantly lobbied to have my bird fully flighted! I got so wound up I wrote the AAV to see if they had a policy statement on clipping. They wrote back and said they'd had a meeting to discuss my question (!!) and that they felt this was a decision best made between a vet and an owner based on the total picture. Which I personally think is the right answer.