Hybrid Macaws & conservation topics

[Alyce Johnson]

I hadnt heard that breeding hybrids was a problem - I'm new to the bird world and the pet store I mainly use seems to have a fair number of them. (They have a pair of calicos for sale and also another ruby, like Berta for sale.) Berta was a rescue, so they werent selling her, though. I know they had another one (perhaps a calico) a couple of years ago, too, and he was just a weanling - though already huge. And that's just the macaws. I have no idea with the other birds what they have for sale.

For myself, I own 3 green cheek conures (not endangered that I know of) of which 2 were bought as babies, while one was a re-homed (unrepentant biter) birdie. We love her, beak & all - but boy does she chomp! (This is of course not the reason we were given for why she was up for adoption.) The other 2 are Berta the blind ruby macaw who was a rescue and Pico the at-least-22-yrs-old lilac crown amazon who was also a 2nd hand bird - neither of whom had such great homes, in the past.

So, I personally have no stance on hybrids one way or the other, never having bought or bred one. Nor have I ever bought anything that is endangered in the wild, for that matter (anyway I dont know that green cheek conures are endangered?). I have some reservations about the ethics of breeding any type of bird beyond maybe budgies or cockatiels, just given the issues around larger or more challenging birds being frequently discarded by their original owners. I dont disagree with it totally, but it makes me worried too, at some level.

Re Hybrids, specifically: I had heard that hybrids dont live as long as the parent species, but the person who passed that along wasnt sure if it was true. Anybody know for sure? A physical anthropologist I know says it should in theory work the other way - mutts are usually stronger than their purebred parents. A genetic mix should work out stronger, on average, than purer genetic lines. So he says, anyway.

As far as many of our birds being on the endangered list: This is true, and that certainly doesnt apply just to macaws. But if you're breeding anything for sale that is endangered, that's an issue in itself IMO. Even if every owner was delighted and kept their birds for life, it would still be an issue, probably, unless the pet breeding was very tightly controlled (or the pet populace was bred totally separately from the gene conservation pool of specimens).

One viewpoint on breeding & selling these endangered birds says that the pet population is specifically being bred as pets, to take the pressure off of the natural populations (to prevent collecting, in other words). To follow this logic, if you are breeding them strictly as pets, and not to replenish the population or to preserve the gene pool then I dont really see why it matters that you breed "true" genetic lines.

In fact, If the object is pets (and specifically, if you want to see that fewer pet birds are abandoned & neglected) then it seems like it would actually make the most sense to breed specifically for "pet potential" the way they have with dogs.

In that case, color and especially temperment would be things you'd try to breed for, in order to enhance desirability & compatibility as human companions, not to try to preserve the "wild genotype". IF they are being bred specifically to be human companions, that is.

If, on the other hand, you're breeding with the purpose of preserving a sufficiently diverse captive genetic pool (as has been the aim of some of the captive breeding programs for tigers, for ex) then yes, it matters. But if that's the kind of breeding you're doing, you have to track who is related to whom, and you probably shouldnt just be putting them out there for the general population to buy as pets, either, if the intent is to keep the breed lines strong and genetically diverse, to preserve the longterm viability of the species. (Since we cant neuter/spay the pet birds, by selling them as pets you're letting complete novices breed them without having any idea what's going on genetically, or which birds are potentially related.)

Personally, I think either set of goals is admirable. But from a purely genetic point of view, I'm not so sure these two "paths" are necessarily entirely compatible.

I do believe it's important to provide at least some of these beautiful creatures for pets, so that they do not continue to be (legally or illegally) wild caught and imported. The conservation effort depends on the collecting being put to a stop, and people being what they are, you probably cant effectively do that without providing a legal means of obtaining them for those who are really determined to own them.

At the same time, it may well be impossible to preserve an adequate amount of habitat and a viable gene pool in the wild population - again, just based on humans being the generally avaricious group we are. The situation is already dire, and it's an open bet as to how many more species (of birds and of everything else) will become extinct in our lifetimes, despite all the conservation efforts underway worldwide. Thus the creation of programs to get enough of the wild gene pool into captive breeding programs, for things like tigers, for ex and for some other creatures. Some conservationists deplore that approach, but others believe it is the only way.

Personally, I'm a cynic (and I've traveled in the "3rd world" which probably contributes heavily to my viewpoint) so I'm in the camp that thinks if we want tigers for our grandchildren or greatgrandchildren, then we better get enough of the gene pool into captivity while we still can. And hopefully one day, the economics in their native countries and also the economics of ecotourism will allow us to have large numbers of them again living wild, in nature preserves, in the future. One day, I'd hope that most if not virtually all of the tigers in the world would be protected in that way, rather than living in artificial habitats in captivity. But until the world is safe enough for them, I think we need the captive breeding programs.

Whether we need that approach with birds I dont know enough to say. Large amd even medium sized predators require huge ranges and are therefore very difficult to protect from poaching and also, it's hard to set aside enough totally wild turf for them, in parts of the world where human populations are growing rapidly. So for them, I think it's virtually essential that we pull as much of the genetic diversity into captive breeding programs as we possibly can.

But since I dont know that much about the needs of birds, I'm not sure if captive breeding programs (with the specific, scientifically based preservation of genetic diversity as their goal) are actually needed or not. I'd think they well might be, just given that birds dont seem like they'd do too well with suburbia & air polution, and the endangered ones tend to live in parts of the world that are being intruded on by humans at an alarming rate. But again, I just dont know.

If the genetic situation of these birds is really that dire, maybe we should all be looking to alter the pet trade as well? How much genetic diversity came in, before the wild imports were stopped? Do we need to be worried about eventual inbreeding now?

To me, it is the answers to these kinds of questions that would answer whether or not it would be ethical to breed any kind of hybrids (assuming hybrids are reasonably healthy, that is). If the gene pool is secure in the captive populace, and if hybrids are healthy, then maybe hybrids are really a non-issue. One good thing about hybrids - you know for sure they werent wild caught!

But if the gene pool is shakey, then I question if we should be promoting them as pets at all. Maybe those of us who are potentially competent to learn should be looking to breed for conservation purposes, instead? Maybe there should even be restrictions, not allowing folks to just breed them willy nilly to be sold for profit? Or maybe there could be licensed breed lines that require trained breeders and cannot be sold for profit, versus pet lines that are open for general ownership & unregulated breeding?

I'm not seriously suggesting any of these options, because I dont even know if the viability of the gene pool is actually a problem, for any pet species birds. But if it is, then maybe we should be looking to set up some carefully controlled breeding programs for those species where it's needed - not for pet production, but for serious conservation purposes - while we still can? Comments & Opinions???

[The Outlaw]

Alyce:

The ONLY problem I have with purposely setting up hybrid pairs is that their offspring often don't look like hybrids at all. You could, in theory have up to 4 viable babies in any hybrid clutch (sometimes even more in scarlet crosses) and in that clutch, you could have 2 that look just like mom or dad and 2 that are obvious hybrids.

Since deplorable records are kept on birds once they leave the breeder (and even then at times) its very easy to ACCIDENTALLY set up what you believed to be normal pairs only to find out later that one of the parents was a cross. Then you have created all kinds of problems down the road. Most parrot species pair for life. Its not like you can just change partners. With each successive generation, the resessive traits come forward and usually that's not a good thing. Nature tends to rid itself of the problems as evolution takes over. By creating crosses, we "unerase" what Nature has tried to "fix".

Its the unpredictability of the outcome that is the biggest problem. Often the hybrids are more difficult to handle. Any large macaw even the least tempermental can give you a run for your money on a bad day and to "supersize" one only compounds that problem.

Having said that, I also find the Ruby macaw to be exceptional WHEN the temperament of the GW is dominant. I have NO desire to wrestle a super sized scarlet, however.

Its really about how you feel in the gut. Dogs and cats ARE species. There really aren't subspecies of dogs and cats. There are lots of color, coat and size differences and they are created by making breeds. You do that by breeding pairs of animals whose traits you want to promote. However, they are still the same species.

Parrots, on the other hand, are DIFFERENT species. They may have some similar traits, but on a genetic level they are different. People often confuse the term "breed" and "species". They are NOT the same thing. You can create a Liger by hybridizing two seperate species. One being a lion and another being a tiger. Even a layman would not confuse a lion for a tiger. However, when you create artificially the hybrid Liger, you have created an animal that is 1/3 larger than either parent and with all kinds of unknowns. Many hybrids are sterile. Mules are the perfect example. You can't breed a mule to another mule. If you could, you probably could create over time a new species. And, once again, the mule is larger and much stronger than either of the donkey or horse parents. That's good if you are pulling a plow, it sucks if you want to create more mules.

Does that make any sense? Its because its easy to accidentally incorporate a hybrid into the gene pool that its essentially a bad idea. Once the pure species are "dirtied" genetically, you cannot recreate them. When its over, its over for good. You are very correct when you point out the fact that many endangered species have probably one more decade and then they'll be gone. Its therefore MORE important than ever that the pure bloodlines remain unsullied in captivity. If we could somehow mark all hybrid babies in a way that would remain with them forever, then we might be able to have some of both. However, we simply don't have the technology now.

[yehudasf]

Originally Posted by THE OUTLAW

I also find the Ruby macaw to be exceptional WHEN the temperament of the GW is dominant. I have NO desire to wrestle a super sized scarlet, however.

Nancy, are you saying that you don't want to become acquainted with the sweet, loving, Hindenbird, known as O'Hara? So the USPS is thinking of granting him his own zip code, does that mean that you should be hesitant to give him a snuggle? Why with that famously loving, placid Ara Macao temperament, it is certain that even a brief interlude in his company would be long remembered (how long does it take for a scar to fade?) Seriously, O'Hara is quite the exception to the general personality & behavioural type associated with his species. A good thing that, at his size & strength, a nasty snit could be quite painful.

Originally Posted by ALYCE JOHNSON

I had heard that hybrids dont live as long as the parent species, but the person who passed that along wasnt sure if it was true. Anybody know for sure? A physical anthropologist I know says it should in theory work the other way - mutts are usually stronger than their purebred parents. A genetic mix should work out stronger, on average, than purer genetic lines.

When most people speak of hybrid vigour what they are really referring to, whether they are aware of it or not, is the general truism that was asserted by Luther Burbank. When dealing with food crop plants, many of the strains in common use over the last 800 years have been honed, by mankind, to a genetic time-bomb. Such species as the dominant crop potato in 1800's Ireland had been so genetically isolated, that when a new variant of rust came on the scene the plants could not cope or resist. This had disastrous consequences. Resulting in multi-year famine, and the greatest mass migration of humans in the last 500 years. Burbank's assertion was that these grotesquely inbred crop lines benefit greatly from exogamous pollination. Results of *plant* hybridisation are usually assumed to be positive, in the creation of species that bear larger, better fruit/seeds, mature faster, endure drought,cold,heat, etc. better than either parent species, as well as bringing in greater genetic diversity to allow for greater disease resistance. What most persons never see are the thousands of crosses that are destroyed after a few generations because of negative allele linked traits coming to the fore. With plants it is an easy & rapid process to evaluate *most* implications of a hybrid line. If the results are not to the liking of the researcher, the line can be destroyed with no greater moral, ethical or environmental implications. This paradigm does not hold, nor can it apply to the crossing of already well bred species of hookbills from their wild environment. Unlike plants, the length of time necessary to evaluate multi-generational changes in hybrids of the genus Ara, is so great that one could easily have a genetic disaster happening before one had the empirical evidence to realise it. Unlike an undesired plant species, one cannot casually destroy large numbers of emotive, social, loving creatures without contravening most mores, & better societal standards of treatment.

If a hybrid companion psittazen exists, it must be treated with all of the love, care, compassion & devotion that any other psittazen deserves. However I can find no currently compelling reason to so comoditise our beloved psittazen companions, that we would approve of breeding them for "style" characteristics. So to do would, once & ever assure our species' place as most unfit for stewardship of any living creature.

[Alika]

My stand on hybrids:

1. (my biggest problem) While it's true that perhaps in the bigger picture of things we shouldn't even be breeding naturally occurring (non-hybrid) endangered species as pets, it is better than breeding hybrids. Parrots are endangered for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is deforestation. Because of that, breeding and releasing parrots into the wild isn't going to do any good if there isn't a place for them to live. Very conceivably, and regrettably, there may come a day in the future where there are no more wild parrots. If we continue to produce hybrid and birds with impure bloodlines, we will completely lose the species altogether and our children's children's children may never have the chance to know a blue and gold macaw... to them, perhaps, all they know of macaws is the pricey hybrids they see for sale at the petstore.

On a tangent, I did a program today for which one of the birds I took was a BFA. I asked those kids if they knew where parrots come from, on a very basic level, and they told me that parrots come from the zoo. That is SAD, and it may one day be the reality.

And what happens if we finally get our act together and one day have rainforests all ready to go for these birds, but no gene pool deep enough to pick members from for a breeding program?

2. As has already been mentioned, hybrids have a lot of health issues. 'Nuff said, I think.

3. Parrots come in so many different colors in the wild, that there isn't much left to be desired. I think that the natural bird is perfect as is, and even more wonderful because it is natural. But the fact of the matter is, hybrids are popular because people want something that nobody else has. That's not a far cry from wanting a parrot as a status symbol, which is something that everyone in the bird community should be fighting against.

Having said all that, I once wanted a Catalina macaw myself. I was taken with the striking orange that many first generations show, and wanted one for myself. I have since learned more about hybrids, and my opinions have radically changed.

[The Outlaw]

Yehuda:

Thanks for explaining it the way I wish I could. It makes a great deal of sense when you equate both animal and vegetable hybridizations.

As for the much maligned O'Hara, I'd give it a go. I figure pound for pound, I've still got a huge weight advantage. However, he can probably outrun me

[Monica]

I'd also like to mention that ALL dogs are said to have a common ancestor.. The timber wolf. I don't really believe this is true, but in theory all dogs are descendants of wolves (so in theory you can't breed them with coyotes or foxes...). Add to that, dogs have been domesticated.

Birds have yet to become domesticated, though there are several species out there getting pretty close. Many of the finches actually are 'breeds' created by hybridizing different species. I've heard this to hold true for canaries as well, but I'm not in either species of birds to know that much about them... As for parrots, yes there are many hybrids out there, even in smaller species, but as Owtlaw mentioned, there's a possibility that a hybrid could look exactly like a parent, and once it becomes a hybrid, there is no way to breed the hybrid genes out... supposedly, many of the lovebirds are hybrids because some of the colors could have not come about without hybridizing them... but to say just how much of a hybrid they are, IF indeed they are, would be hard to say since the characteristics of the other species of lovebird was bred out (minus of course maybe that mutation that holds in some species).

And generally speaking, the rarer the species, the more expensive it is. Whether it be rarer in captivity in a specific country, or in the wild, it will normally be more expensive... an example would be Galahs... We can get a handraised Galah too for around $1,300. In Australia, they can get a handraised galah for $50, which is about $38 USD. We can buy B&G's for around $1,200 or less (even as low as $800 for a handraised). The same bird in Australia would cost a MINIMUM of $7,000, which would be about $5,300 USD. Some macaws in Australia go for as high as $12,000 AUD which is about $9,000 USD.

[Dustin]

Pretty much anything i would have to say has already been said(and a lot better than i could have said it anyway).

But, as my Signature states, i do own a hybrid, a extra unique one at that, but i do not agree with the breeding of different species of Macaws to get a color, size, temperment, ect.
But as Yahuda said,
"If a hybrid companion psittazen exists, it must be treated with all of the love, care, compassion & devotion that any other psittazen deserves."

and that is exactly what i wanted to do, provide a life-long home that is safe, happy, and healthy.


Dusty

[The Outlaw]

And that is what everyone should do. We create them, its our obligation to take the best possible care we can. I also owned a hybrid, an Eclectus that was a Grand/Redsided cross. I loved her for who she was, not her bloodlines. If she could have happily resided here amongst the noise and craziness of the macaws (I have 6) she'd still be here. However, her more quiet and gentle nature was too fragile, so I recently rehomed her. That's the ONLY reason. For HER own good. I just think that before we start setting up mismatched pairs, we HAVE to consider the long term problems as well. Frankly, the long term problems we create won't even necessarily be known in our lifetimes.

[felisdomesticus]

Wouldn't a better version of hybrid vigor in this case be breeding birds of the same species who have very different genetics? Of course this is hard to do these days--trying to keep track of which bird came from which breeder and such. But wouldn't more "random" crosses improve the genetic diversity of the species and thus help to provide a phenotype that could potentially survive some type of catastrophic event?

(Yes I know that you can't just put 2 birds together and get them to produce babies. Let's ignore that fact for now.)

[Alyce Johnson]

This has been a very educational discussion!
I didnt know very much at all about hybrids, except that they're pretty, that is.
I did suspect they might not be as healthy, though.

The one I have is a little thing - way smaller than any other macaw at the shop where I got her. But there is another ruby there who is "supersized" for sure - he's huge, and quite aggressive! So much so that he's already looking for his 2nd home, sadly.

I like him - but like The Outlaw, I'm not sure I'm up for the wrestling match. Not to mention that they're selling him, and I cant afford him right now anyway. And in his case, I'm also not sure I want to financially reward that kind of breeding, because it doesnt seem to have worked out in this particular bird's best interests. (He may well be the "supersized scarlet" type of case, I dont know.)

I also didnt know the hybrid traits could "hide" across generations. That is definitely a concern, even (or maybe especially) if they were all healthy. They do need to be known for what they are, before you breed them. (True of anything.)

I do very strongly agree with the need to conserve the wild phenotype!

It would be a terrible, terrible shame to lose these natural types.
But I hold that view mainly because I think it's shameful to lose anything that Nature has worked so hard to produce. To me, it's more of a spiritual issue.

That said, however:
I'm not entirely sure I buy into the merit of the "species" versus "breed"argument in this particular instance.

Scientific classifications are created to allow us humans to distinguish between animals, so we can be sure we're talking about the same thing. In other words, taxonomy is purely a bunch of man made categories, which hopefully are fairly well matched to what Nature has actually produced.

But it's not like the periodic table, where the distinctions have rigid and inherent meaning, and I think it's really important to remember that. Hydrogen & oxygen are very very different things. (Try to breathe hydrogen and you'll soon see.)

But if you laid out the DNA on BGs verus GWs - I think you'd find an absolutely miniscule difference.

Consider for a moment that between humans & chimpanzees, there is only 2% of genetic difference! And obviously these different macaw species are a lot closer to each other than humans & chimps! So you're talking about a very, very small difference in the genes of different types of macaws.

From an evolutionary perspective, I would be very surprised indeed if all macaws didnt descend from the same common ancestor - and not that far back in time, either. (That time frame would be an interesting thing to check, which can now be done via mitochondrial DNA.)

I'm betting their common ancestor is closer in time than the timber wolf from whom all dogs are descended, because I bet they diverged due to climactic factors, habitat changes, and simple dispersion across physical space - and all of that stuff has changed a lot in the last 12K years. (Canines began to be human companions at least that long ago.)

I would assume macaw coloration differences derived from genetic separation into different geographical ranges. Other than that, I'm not so sure there's that much meaningful difference between them, genetically speaking.

And in that respect, they'd be pretty much just like humans - we too are different colors depending on where we are from. (Race is a scientifically non existent concept - it is purely cultural.) Genetics and phenotype (what we culturally call race) in humans is strictly related to geography. There is now a gene test (avail thru Natl Geographic) that will let you trace the path of your own genes across the world. And you will find you have some african ancestors, no matter what you look like now.

However, Once Upon a (not so long ago) Time, Caucasians regarded themselves as a species apart from the Indian (or Negro) peoples. They were quite certain that they had never shared a common ancestor.

But science has said the opposite. And there are now plenty of us hybrids running around. And successfully interbreeding too, although still with mixed cultural approval - on all sides, not just the Caucasian side. (I'm mixed blood Cherokee & Caucasian, myself.)

If creatures willingly pair bond, chose life partners & successfully breed when you introduce them to each other, and if the offspring are viable & not sterile, then I think the idea of species versus breed gets a little muddled, at a practical level.

To me, these hybrids are a bit like me - their ancestors would never have met, in a purely natural world. But due to mankind's greed, and a certain amount of technology (travel by sailing ship) my ancestors did meet (to the extreme detriment of the Indian side of the family, I might add).

I'm not sure how different it really is with my ruby macaw, other than the fact that it is no longer politically acceptable to classify humans into different species, that is. Whereas we have no problem classifying her ancestors as somehow fundamentally different beings, on the basis of the color of their feathers and a few other traits which are also almost certainly environmentally determined (like size & probably even temperment as well).

To me, she's more like a mixed race macaw, than anything else.
(We use the idea of "race" when we talk about people, but we dont use that concept with animals at all, really, which is interesting in itself.)

But again, I do recognize the value in keeping pure examples of the various naturally occuring types of macaws, however you want to categorize them.

Just a few thoughts - remember that science is only mankind's highly imperfect attempt to describe and explain the natural world. But "the map is not the territory" as the saying goes.

Personally, I think it would be an interesting experiment to put a mixed group of macaws together, of various types, in a huge naturalistic aviary and then get out of their way, and see what happens.

Do they interbreed freely, when introduced geographically to one another?
If so, are they truly different creatures (as the designation "species" suggests)?
Or are they really just different races of macaw, brought together by modern technology & travel?