Parrots and Travel

[seagoatdeb]

I don't agree with the premise that everybody who owns a parrot did it out of a selfish decision. This only applies to people who either buy a baby or adopts just to have a pet. There are people who take in animals simply because the animal needs a good home and not for their own benefit. Marc Johnson usually makes a point of this saying that no parrot should be adopted because the human wants it but only because the parrot needs it -and he is not the only one who feels this way. So, if you look at it this way, the 'fulfillment' versus 'safety' takes a completely different aspect...

I agree with Michael, it is always selfish. Even if we feel we are rescuing the parrot and its for them we do it because it satifies our urge to help. There have been many philisophical debates about that. "because we do what we choose, and choose what we want, it follows that we're 'selfish'" is one standard argument. I believe any atttempt to say it is selfless is an illusion at best. So looked at it this way it is alway selfish and we are trying to balance fullfillment and safety.

[seagoatdeb]

What I don't understand is:

-putting bird in a cage on the seat. Bird is high enough to see out the windows. Bird gets enrichment from seeing trees and people and whatever else is out there. Bird is a little bit safer in a crash. If seatbelt is around cage then a little bit safer still. Bird is near owner so feels good! Bird is restrained if it displays an unexpected or new behaviour. Carrier may pop and lead to escape anyway.

Bird loose in car- bird is high enough to see out windows. Bird gets enrichment from scenery/people outside car. Bird is near owner so is happy. Bird is at higher risk of injury or escape from a crash. Bird may distract driver- just once is enough. You can never 100% predict animal behaviour. If your driving and concentrating on the road then your not watching your birds body language and are even less able to predict the unexpected.

Both methods have the same benefits but only one reduces the negatives.
There are no benefits to having your bird loose while the car is in motion. Stationary is a different matter and I do have Ollie out when parked up.

Dont agree with this senario Marie, its not always that way. My red belly parrot would never feel the same in a cage as on my shoulder, not at all. She would continually beg to be let out of the cage. My Meyers does ride in his cage in the car if they both come unless we are stopped, and he is fine with that. My hubby is usually driving so I am in the passenger seat with my parrot on my shoulder and she is a pro. She can tell when the car is going to require her to grip more tightly.

I still remember taking her to a vet in a travel cage for the first time when she was a baby and how scared she was in there and how she cried. The next vet appoinment she rode on me, and I took her into the vets office tucked under my shirt.

[liz]

When I worked at the farm coop one of the customers always came in with her parrot on her shoulder. Then one day she did not have him. After years of being on her shoulder he just flew away.
Both my kids would rather travel without a carrier and they both complain the whole time. I would not let a kid ride without a seat belt no matter how much they wanted out of it.

[Pajarita]

I don't agree with the premise that everybody who owns a parrot did it out of a selfish decision. This only applies to people who either buy a baby or adopts just to have a pet. There are people who take in animals simply because the animal needs a good home and not for their own benefit. Marc Johnson usually makes a point of this saying that no parrot should be adopted because the human wants it but only because the parrot needs it -and he is not the only one who feels this way. So, if you look at it this way, the 'fulfillment' versus 'safety' takes a completely different aspect...

I agree with Michael, it is always selfish. Even if we feel we are rescuing the parrot and its for them we do it because it satifies our urge to help. There have been many philisophical debates about that. "because we do what we choose, and choose what we want, it follows that we're 'selfish'" is one standard argument. I believe any atttempt to say it is selfless is an illusion at best. So looked at it this way it is alway selfish and we are trying to balance fullfillment and safety.

Yes, I am aware of the concept of psychological hedonism but I don't believe in it. I mean, if one goes by it, there would be no saints, no altruism, no charity, no compassion, not even love for one's own children and heroes and villains could be lumped together. There would be no Nobel price for peace, no medals for valor, no mission... sheesh! one could argue that even Jesus died for selfish reasons! So, yes, philosophically and psychologically speaking, you are right, there is such a concept but I doubt you will find anybody who actually agrees with it in real life. And, in any event, even if it does exist and self-pleasure is the ultimate factor, I would say that most people would agree that there are degrees and that you can't compare buying a baby of a particular species just because you want it to taking in the bird that needs a good home the most, regardless of the species, gender or condition, right?

[seagoatdeb]

When I worked at the farm coop one of the customers always came in with her parrot on her shoulder. Then one day she did not have him. After years of being on her shoulder he just flew away.
Both my kids would rather travel without a carrier and they both complain the whole time. I would not let a kid ride without a seat belt no matter how much they wanted out of it.

Yeah, I never understand why somone would walk around outside with a parrot on their shoulder and into a store with an unclipped bird. In my area I always see posts of people looking for their unclipped birds that are lost. One person posted they would not return the bird since the person who lost it was irresponsible, I dont know what ever happened with that one, police were involved and everything. There are harnesses you can use, so the bird cant fly off. I wont even bring Gaugan into a pet store, they allow dogs in there so she could easily get freaked out and I also think they could have bird illnesses there.

I put kids in seat belts too its the law. However, when I had to babysit my granddaughter when she was a baby, she had to be in the back seat in a approved child seat that seemed like a torture device. Every few years, that torture device would be illegal and you had to buy a new one. She is in a child seat now, and more comfortable. I still go with the low risk of having Gaugan in the car, and not the higher risks. Thats my choice.

[seagoatdeb]

I don't agree with the premise that everybody who owns a parrot did it out of a selfish decision. This only applies to people who either buy a baby or adopts just to have a pet. There are people who take in animals simply because the animal needs a good home and not for their own benefit. Marc Johnson usually makes a point of this saying that no parrot should be adopted because the human wants it but only because the parrot needs it -and he is not the only one who feels this way. So, if you look at it this way, the 'fulfillment' versus 'safety' takes a completely different aspect...

I agree with Michael, it is always selfish. Even if we feel we are rescuing the parrot and its for them we do it because it satifies our urge to help. There have been many philisophical debates about that. "because we do what we choose, and choose what we want, it follows that we're 'selfish'" is one standard argument. I believe any atttempt to say it is selfless is an illusion at best. So looked at it this way it is alway selfish and we are trying to balance fullfillment and safety.

Yes, I am aware of the concept of psychological hedonism but I don't believe in it. I mean, if one goes by it, there would be no saints, no altruism, no charity, no compassion, not even love for one's own children and heroes and villains could be lumped together. There would be no Nobel price for peace, no medals for valor, no mission... sheesh! one could argue that even Jesus died for selfish reasons! So, yes, philosophically and psychologically speaking, you are right, there is such a concept but I doubt you will find anybody who actually agrees with it in real life. And, in any event, even if it does exist and self-pleasure is the ultimate factor, I would say that most people would agree that there are degrees and that you can't compare buying a baby of a particular species just because you want it to taking in the bird that needs a good home the most, regardless of the species, gender or condition, right?

Sure there would be saints, altruism, charity and compassion, and love for ones chilldren and why would you lump everyone together. It just means we do what satisfies self, thats all. Also, it is very easy to find people to agree with this, the majority of the philosphy class all agreed.

I believe that it is not better to take a rescued bird than a baby bird. Neither is Better in that kind of black and white way. I also believe that people who bought that bought a bird for a pet can become great owners. Many who buy a parrot because they believe they are rescuing may get overwhelmed and be a bad home. There is no black and white or absolute, so I dont put much stock in what Marc Johnson has to say about that. There are so many things to look at everytime someone takes a parrot that to be able to come to any kind of determination you would have to look at many factors for each situation. As long as we do the best we can for each being that comes into our lives, we are doing okay. Every member can become better in this group, no matter why they first got their parrot by doing the best they can.

[Wolf]

While I tend to agree that in most cases people do what they do for reasons that satisfy something in themselves, I do not consider that to always be selfish. If you look at the definition of the word then you find that in addition to the reason being to satisfy some personal thing such as profit or pleasure that it also incudes the lack of consideration of others as part of its definition. If you disregard half of the definition of the word then every thing that we do could be said to be selfish and probably be right. Even allowing for the entire definition then most of the things we do could likely still qualify as being selfish, but not always.
Since the intended object in this discussion is birds. I really must say that my attitude for most of 60 years has been that birds do not belong in houses. I certainly never wanted a bird in my home, they are messy, loud, destructive, and poop every where. Then early one spring morning a strange bird arrived at my home wanting to come inside. I realized that it was not a native species of bird and so I let it in, I did not even think beyond the fact that it appeared to have been a tropical type bird, That was all that it took since it was in the low 30's that morning. My only thought at the time was that the bird could not survive in those temperatures. I knew absolutely nothing about birds other than chickens and that tropical animals can't survive for long in the cold. I started learning that day.
Now you can say that this had a selfish rationale in it, but since I had no motive other than the survival of that bird, I would have to disagree. Every act in regards to that bird from the point that the bird was out of danger of freezing may or may not have some selfish elements in it, but not the initial act. That bird is Kiki Senegal and from that time it was over a year before she finally quit taking chunks of my flesh in return for letting her in my home.

[Chantilly]

We never leave Tilly for more than a day by herself. and we only ever leave her for that long like three times a year at most. And if we ever needed to do it for longer, some of the wonderful people I volonteer with have said that if we ever needed them too they would be happy to baby sit all the animals.
And we used to take her out oto markets in her harness, but now her hate for it has stopped that.

[Chantilly]

You make some good points. I may not have phrased my thinking properly. I understand the odds of risk are the same and greater exposure just increases the likelihood that the risk would occur at least once in that greater interval.

What I think is important is not only to understand what risks we are taking with our pets but also if these risks are purely for us, purely for them, or mutually beneficial. And no one on this forum or who owns a parrot is completely guilt free. Everyone who has chosen to own a parrot did so for themselves and not the parrot. In the case of rescues, they are improving the situation compared to before but probably still not as good as being in the wild from the start. This isn't a point worth arguing much about but I just want everyone to realize that no one who owns a parrot is completely perfect because from the initial choice to have a parrot as a pet we are making a selfish decision for our own benefit. It is just up to us to make its life with us as fulfilling and safe as possible. However, this has to be within our capabilities and budgets.

Yes, We need to balance safety with fullfillment.... well said.

I don't agree with the premise that everybody who owns a parrot did it out of a selfish decision. This only applies to people who either buy a baby or adopts just to have a pet. There are people who take in animals simply because the animal needs a good home and not for their own benefit. Marc Johnson usually makes a point of this saying that no parrot should be adopted because the human wants it but only because the parrot needs it -and he is not the only one who feels this way. So, if you look at it this way, the 'fulfillment' versus 'safety' takes a completely different aspect...

I agree with you, Pajarita..

[liz]

I never planed to have birds. My first one was a gift from my sister when she did not want it anymore. I know that every one that I have is getting better treatment than the homes or shelters they came from but to me that is not good enough. Horders have the state of mine that they are getting more than they did before and that the critter is better off with them and what they give is good enough.

When I let my birds out to eat their French fry given as a reward for going to the vet they like to sit on the top of the front seat. They after go back in the carriers when the French fry is done. Until someone invents a bird seatbelt my kids will have to just complain about the carriers.