Abstract
Dear Sir:
I have just returned from the AFA Convention in San Diego which I greatly enjoyed. It was well done and one of the most important parts of any convention - it was on time. I enjoyed speaking as I always do and I felt well received.
I have been a member of AFA since the beginning and have always supported it in many ways, but I must take exception to your speech as president of AFA at the banquet. I and all the other people at our table, as well as many others that I talked to afterwards, felt the AFA was against hunting and felt that the hunting people took advantage of political power in their pursuits.
I am not sure if you are misinformed or misguided as to what the hunter, especially the bird hunter, has contributed to the preservation and welfare of wildlife. Ducks Unlimited, for one, has raised millions of dollars and spent it on the purchasing of wetlands in the U.S. and Canada. Without their dedication to preserving these thousands of acres of wetlands they have purchased, ducks, geese, many of the shore birds and small passiforms would now be in very serious trouble. There would not be 30% of the population left now. It may be self-serving so that they may be able to kill birds, but the hunting groups are ready to put their money where their mouth is. I might add that I have not shot a shotgun in ten years.
I personally feel that if AFA is now going to take a stand against the hunter I will withdraw my support. I feel that AFA should take heed to Ducks Unlimited and hope that they, too, may be as powerful and helpful in preserving wildlife.
Sincerely,
L.H.
Camarillo, California
DearL.H.,
Thank you for your letter of 12 August and I am pleased that you enjoyed the recent convention in San Diego. Rest assured I am neither '' misinformed nor misguided'' on the hunter's issue. If you will read the enclosed transcript of the banquet speech, you will see that not only am I not '' taking a stand against the hunter" but state that "as long as birds have value, whether it's a hunter's dollar, derived from ecotourism, or harvesting for the pet trade, they will share our planet'.'
The point I was making is that you and your avicultural activities are being condemned by major animal welfare groups such as the Humane Society of America stating that keeping birds in captivity is cruel and inhumane. My only point is, if they are going to take us on, why do they not also take on the hunters, as surely they would view shooting birds just as cruel as keeping them in captivity? My thoughts were that the hunters compose a large, organized group not easily overcome, but we aviculturists are easy targets.
In summary, I am not against hunting but simply wondering why we are under attack for the inhumane acts of aviculture when hunters are allowed to shoot their birds in order to raise funds to assure their future survival.
I hope this answers your questions and addresses your concerns. If I can provide any additional information, feel free to write me directly in Texas.
Sincerely,
Jack Clinton-Eitniear, AFA president 999 E. Basse Road, Suite 180-164 San Antonio, TX 78209
Dear Editors:
Readers of Watchbird and other avicultural publications must by now be familiar with the major arguments for and against hybridizing. I support
the AFA's position against hybridization but, until recently, have felt some sympathy with some of the points made by those who accept the practice. This sympathy lately has been fully overshadowed by my conviction that a hybridized animal is a cheated animal. I've been convinced by three bits of information.
1. The director of the Wildlife Way-station (Martine Colette, I think?) has said that many wolf/ dog hybrids end up in her facility because they have not adapted to life as pets. From observing these animals, she has come to believe that the problem is not simply that a wolf-like animal is unsuited to be a pet, but that the hybrid is a victim of the conflicting instincts it has inherited.
2. If I show my bare-eyed cockatoo a magazine spread of photos of cockatoos, including some closely related to her such as long-billed Corellas and Goffin's, she will ignore all except the bare-eyed. She will '' kiss" the bare-eyed every time. Clearly she "knows" what species she is, despite having been hand-fed (from day one, I believe).
3. In Joanne Abramson's recent article (Aug/ Sept 1991) about the wonderful, large, flight cage for weaning macaws, she points out how strongly the youngsters identify with their own species. Given the opportunity, they will always roost with their own species and, when alarmed, will fly to others of their species, even if they must fly over macaws of other species.
Of course, I do not belive that every hybrid is doomed to a life of unrelieved confusion and depression. I do believe, however, that there is a high probability that a hybrid's life will at some point be diminished by the absence of a species identity. For me, nothing else need be said. The desire to avoid this risk is, by itself, reason enough to oppose hybridizing.
I know you have touched on this point in your past explanations of the harms of hybridizing. I suggest in the future you may want to spell out the problem in more detail. Different points carry varying weights with different people. Some who may not be interested in genetics or who may doubt release back to the wild will ever happen might be impressed by an argument based on the happiness of individual birds.
L.P.
Thousand Oaks, CA •