A Bird in the House: An Anthropological Perspective on Companion Parrots

Patricia K. Anderson

ABSTRACT
Although companion birds are the third most-common animal companion -- after dogs and cats -- in U.S. households, few anthrozoological publications focus on them. This study examines the role of companion parrots in American households. The study combines a literature review with the results of a survey of bird owners and participant observation. The study uses the resulting qualitative and quantitative data in addressing the social dynamics of companion parrot ownership in the household. The data support the impression that companion parrots increasingly are being considered family members, or “Fids” (“Feathered Kids”), thus following current trends in American society that accord companion animals in general a greater investment in time, money, and emotion. However, the general public is not well informed about the complexities of captive parrot care, and psittacine wellness is an important concern.

Parrots amaze and endear us with their “human-like” qualities (Barber, 1993) including the ability, when taught words in context, to use human language meaningfully (Pepperberg, 1999). They entrance us with their beauty, their playful antics, and their desire to interact and bond with their human flock mates. As symbols of status and the exotic, parrots may serve as luxury items and advertising icons. However, to those who love and appreciate parrots for their companionship in their homes, they become children. Despite the fact that birds are the third most common animal companions, scant attention has been paid to birds in the anthrozoological literature. This study examines the role of companion parrots in American households.

Anthropologists, with their holistic perspective on human cultures, have traditionally examined the human-animal relationship, albeit from an anthropocentric perspective (Noske, 1993). Although many of these studies focus on preindustrial societies, anthropologists are increasingly considering the role of animals in industrial Western societies (Mullin, 1999). However, few of these studies concern companion animals, and none consider companion birds, a topic largely ignored by social scientists.

Methods

This study combines a review of the anthrozoological and avicultural literature on human-parrot relations with the results of an electronic survey that was circulated over the Internet and answered by companion parrot owners. I use the household as the unit of analysis, since family structure is both dynamic (Aldous, 1978) and diverse (Albert & Bulcroft, 1987). The survey consists of 25 questions related to quality of life associated with the benefits of avian companionship; routine care (including diet, grooming, quality time interacting with birds, and cage cleaning); level of veterinary care; membership in bird clubs; number of publications owned on parrot care; and an essay on why avian companionship is important. This article concentrates on the qualitative analysis of the essay question, although other data from the survey are included.

The Pet Trade and Current Status of Parrots in the Wild

Parrots are greatly threatened in the wild today, due in large part to habitat destruction and 2poaching for the illicit pet trade (Low, 2002, pp. 12-14). All members of the taxonomic order Psittaciformes (parrots), except for cockatiels and budgerigars (the latter commonly known in the United States as “parakeets”), are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Thus, most parrots cannot be legally imported or exported without proper documentation issued by CITES authorities. In an effort to strengthen CITES legislation, the U.S. Congress passed the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) of 1992. Under the WBCA, none of the exotic birds protected by CITES can be legally imported into the U.S. without a special permit (Phillips, 1998, p. 32).

Parrots currently in the legal U.S. pet trade come from four sources: (a) importation of wild caught parrots prior to 1992; (b) parrots who have been imported by special permits since 1992; (c) descendants of wild caught birds raised in captivity; and (d) wild populations exempt from CITES regulations. Despite the great number of parrots who currently are raised domestically for the legitimate pet trade, poaching and smuggling of parrots continue, often with tragic results. Mortality rates during shipping are very high (Low, 2002, p. 12), and those birds who survive the trip may introduce diseases to established captive populations.

Companion Parrots in Anthrozoological Literature

Compared to the abundance of studies concerned with cats and dogs, there are few studies of birds as companion or therapy animals, despite the fact that birds rank as the third-most important companion animal. One may suspect a general bias against birds, despite their apparent popularity.

Birds are not mammals, nor have they been neotenized through selective breeding like dogs (Lawrence, 1986). Barber (1993, pp. 104-117) suggests that people tend to misunderstand birds because they evaluate them as a group, rather than viewing them as individuals. Although warm-blooded, birds have feathers -- instead of fur -- and wings that allow them to transcend heaven and earth. Consequently, they are foreign and alien beings.

Jeanette Thomas, director of Western Illinois University’s graduate program in zoo and aquaria studies, counseled students in a spring 2003 guest lecture to my Anthrozoology class on how to succeed in finding a job upon graduation. She suggested that they work with birds or other “less-charismatic” animals in order to become established. Mullan and Marvin (1999, p. 73) comment on the cross-cultural “negative exhibition value” of birds at zoos: “If we look at the negative cases first, it seems generally true that birds do not excite much interest or hold visitors’ attention for very long. People just do not seem to be able to relate to birds.” Mammals have far greater exhibition value, particularly if they can be easily anthropomorphized (Mullan and Marvin, 1999, p. 74).
Evidence that some people perceive birds as an undesirable companion comes from discussion with my spring 2003 Anthrozoology class. T. VanMeenen (personal communication April 23, 2003) suggests that because bird care is not well understood by the general population, many people, during their childhoods, experienced the premature deaths of their birds. Further, B. Thompson (personal communication, April 27, 3003), states: “If you pay attention to popular culture there seems to be a tendency to portray rather eccentric people as either having an unusual number of cats or one (or more) talking birds.” In addition, some people have developed phobias toward birds, possibly due to misunderstanding bird behavior or from watching Alfred Hitchcock’s horror film, The Birds (R. Whiteman, personal communication, April 29, 2003).

The misperceptions regarding the companionship quality of birds likely derives from people who have little or no actual experience with birds or people who have had bad relationships with birds as a result of poor socialization, miscommunication, and misunderstanding.

The avian references that I encountered in my literature review number fewer than a dozen. Most of these deal with the benefits of aviaries or aviculture in institutional settings (Holcomb, et al., 1997; Ismail, 1998; Schuler, 2001), or in the homes of the elderly (Mugford & M’Comisky, 1975; Olbrich & Bergler, 1977). Altman (1988), and Beck and Katcher (1989) also have made brief but informative contributions. However, none of these studies are based on participant observation, and the researchers generally reflect a limited knowledge of companion birds and the related avian subculture.

Loughlin and Dowrick (1987) assume, “Given most pet birds are kept in cages, it was not surprising that the bird’s ability to fly and how its feathers feel were considered unimportant to bird owners in our study” (p. 171). Although flight is not the reason most people appear to include parrots in their lives, most people who are knowledgeable about parrot behavior interact with their parrots on a daily basis. I am a member and moderator of the Quaker Parakeet (OP) List and vice-president of the Society, all of whose members allow their parrots supervised time out of their cages. Some also allow their birds free flight in their homes or aviaries. In addition, all have physical contact with their birds. “No matter what kind of emotional bond people have with their pets, touch is an essential part of that relationship” (Beck & Katcher, 1996, p. 84). According to my survey, physical contact rated ninth in frequency in regard to the most important ways that avian companionship enhances their lives (n=11; 10%).

Ismail (1998) and Schuler (2001) report the preliminary success of an avicultural program in Pollsmoor Prison, Cape Town, South Africa. Having the responsibility and care of hand-raising young birds to be sold to the public apparently has positively influenced “rapists, robbers and killers.” In an early study by Mugford and M’Comisky (1975), the apparent power of avian companionship was demonstrated when a group of senior citizens were given either a begonia or a budgerigar (“parakeet” in the United States). Avian companionship positively changed the attitudes of the parrot recipients, while those who received potted plants demonstrated no change. However, although widely cited, this study has been criticized for its small sample size (Rowan & Thayer, 2000, p. xxix). Birds receive only one reference in the index to Fine (2000, pp. 216, 476), where Granger and Kogan (2000, p. 216) devote a single brief paragraph to birds in animal-assisted therapy settings, despite the fact that “a variety of birds have been used in wide-ranging settings to alleviate depression and provide an impetus for social interaction.”

Psychological studies focus on the personality of bird owners or the therapeutic advantages of pet bird ownership. Kidd, et al. (1983) consider the personality of bird owners and conclude, that compared to horse, snake, and turtle owners, bird owners scored higher on the Affiliation, Nurturance, and Nurturant Parent scales. Further, bird owners were “contented, courteous, expressive, nurturant, and unpretentious” and, in general, were “social and altruistic.” In a survey of 80 bird owners in Alaska, Loughlin and Dowrick (1987, p. 169) concluded that the psychological needs most often fulfilled by bird ownership are “social, esteem, and cognitive,” with the social needs dominating and that avian companionship satisfies the same needs filled by the companionship of dogs and cats (p. 171). A study by Kidd and Kidd (1998, 1999) is of particular interest as it is comparable to the current study. The Kidds interviewed 100 bird owners, asking, among other questions, what the participants enjoyed most about bird ownership. The responses to the latter question may be compared and contrasted to the results of my electronic survey in which I posed essentially the same question.

Survey of Parrot Owners

As a companion parrot owner and member of a vast Internet community of parrot enthusiasts, I have access to the emic or “native” perspective of the “subculture” represented by parrot owners. Anthropologists and, more recently, sociologists attempt to achieve the emic perspective through immersion, as participant observers, in the culture being studied. The Internet allows parrot enthusiasts to connect with others to share information and experiences. As a participant observer on one Internet avian interest group dedicated to a single parrot species, I have had many opportunities to observe that people enjoy talking about their birds. Further, an interest in parrots provides membership in a fictive family encouraging dialogue that may lead to a wide variety of nonavian topics: grief at the loss of a human or nonhuman family member, flirting, and fellowship. Some of these cyber relationships lead to the establishment of face-to-face social connections.

To initiate my survey of companion parrot owners, I posted a request to the Internet list, the QP List to which I belong. In addition, my request was cross-posted to other avian interest groups. In my message, I outlined the purpose of my research, my university affiliation, and the promise of anonymity to all participants. Parrot owners responded, asking for copies of the survey (Anderson, 2001), which they completed and sent back to me, either through e-mail or through the postal service. The research discussed here includes analysis of the 114 surveys and focuses on the results of responses to the essay question regarding what people find most rewarding about avian companionship. Although there is the potential for much additional discussion based on the survey results, I focus on the qualitative data recorded in the essay responses.

Demographic Profile of Bird Owners

Although a range of ages is represented, the typical bird owner responding to my survey is female, married, in the 41 to 50 age range, and has owned birds for five years or more. Ninety-three % (106) of the 114 respondents fall in the age range from 21 to 70 years. Eighty-eight % (100) of the respondents are female, while only 11 % (13) are male. The majority, 67 % (76), of all respondents are married. Seventeen % (19) are single; 12 % (14) divorced; 1 % (1) widowed, and 2 % (2) in domestic partnerships. Four % (5) did not respond to the question.

The sex ratio is skewed toward females, compared to the Kidd and Kidd (1998) study, which represents a deliberate attempt to establish gender parity. Because Kidd and Kidd found no statistical difference between the responses of males and females, they combined their data. Because I was able to entice few male parrot owners to respond, my data also are combined.
The bird owners who participated in my survey are a relatively specialized group of individuals who have access to the Internet and generally are well informed and passionately interested in their parrots. Therefore, they hardly can be considered representative of the American population. However, they are part of a larger and dynamic group of people who are concerned about psittacine care. As Blanchard (2003, p. 1) states, “A whole world full of generous, educated parrot caregivers has come into existence.”

Response to Essay Question

The essay area of the survey provided an opportunity for people to tell stories about their birds and describe how avian companionship is rewarding. Only 8 out of 114 (7%) survey respondents failed to answer the essay. Most owners enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to discuss their parrots, much as parents enjoy discussing their human children.
The responses are variable, although certain trends are represented (Table 1). The top 10 responses are, in descending order, “Love/Unconditional love” (41); “Birds as family/children/Fids” (40); “Talking” ability (33); “Companionship” (31); “Intelligence” (29), “Make Owner Laugh” (28); “Provides Joy” (24); “Interactive” (15); “Physical Contact” (11); and “Personality” (11).
------------------------
Table 1 about here
-------------------------
These results contrast with the Kidd and Kidd (1998, p. 134) study, where Companionship (38) was the most common response, followed by “Talking” (28), “Entertainment” (22), “Getting Love from Them,” (7); “Feeling Relaxed with Them” (4); “Cuddling Them” (4); “Their Cheerfulness” (3); “Tricks (3); and “Intelligence” (2).

The two samples are compared in Table 2. I have eliminated the responses that are unique to either sample (Kidd & Kidd, 1998): “Singing” [14]; “Friendliness” [10]; and “Watching Them” [9]. Current study: “Family/Fid” [40]; “Life-Saver” (8); and “Intuitive/Understands Owner” [6]). Generally, the responses are similar to those made by the participants in my study, although priorities are reordered. Kidd and Kidd, however, do not discuss the categorization of birds as fictive family members. In my study, the classification of birds as family members was second by only one response, and is thus very important to the bird owners that participated in my survey. “Love/Unconditional Love” (41) was the most important quality to my bird owners, although it ranked a weak fourth in the Kidd sample. “Talking,” the second-most important characteristic in the Kidd study was the third-most common answer in the current study. Apart from these notable differences, the remaining responses are similar.
------------------------
Table 2 about here
------------------------

People and Their “Fids”: Avian Family Members

Forty respondents to my survey clearly perceive their birds as family members, not a quality mentioned in the Kidd and Kidd (1998) or Loughlin and Dowrick (1987) studies. Do the differences between the studies reflect differences in sample constituency, differences in method, or perhaps temporal differences? Although the Kidd and Kidd data indicate that their bird owners are fond of their birds, there is no mention of birds as family members.

That many pet owners treat their pets as a special class of fictive kin is not unusual (Arluke & Sanders, 1996, p. 68; Beck & Katcher, 1996, pp. 40-62; Serpell, 1996, pp. 78-79). For some individuals, pets are the only family they know and may be powerful allies in battling depression and loneliness (Allen, 2001). Pets have a special designation, not just as family members, but also as eternal children Beck and Katcher (p. 42) and Arluke and Sanders (1996, p. 68) observe that veterinary clients commonly refer to themselves as “Mommy” or “Dad” and speak of their dogs as “children.” My avian veterinarian also indulges this construct in labeling my parrot’s medical file with his “first” name and my surname—as if he were my human child. Further, after one examination, the vet placed the ruffled parrot on the table and told him, “Go to Mom!” Which he promptly did!
Thus, it is not surprising that my survey respondents consider their birds to be family members. In addition, QP List members frequently describe their parrots as Fids or Feathered kids. In addition, avian veterinarian Harris (1989, p. 1517) comments on the deep feelings that his clients have for their birds -- “He’s like a child to me,” or “My wife would die if anything ever happens to him.”

Indeed, some of the respondents to the survey describe their parrots as substitutes for human children, either because they cannot, or have chosen not to, have children or because their children have grown and left the proverbial nest:
We discovered early on that a bird was as devoted and loving a pet as a dog or cat and, actually, now feel birds are even more so. As far as the most important thing, I guess it would be that caring for them fulfills the need to nurture once the kids are grown and gone. They enrich our lives because they are always there ready to be your buddy. They will sit and talk with you anytime, anyplace, not only in real words, but with their own unique sounds and clucks and body language. Of course, having a pet that yells, “Daddy’s home!” when you walk in the door or says “Good morning!” when you open the drapes is quite a significant event too. They are a lifetime commitment much as your children are and they require your devotion as well as give theirs. (Survey Response No. 100)

Human-avian interaction is no less rewarding for humans than interaction with cats and dogs and, for some individuals, may be even more so. The amount of time and money Americans invest in all their pets, pet food, and pet care is currently increasing, despite current doubtful economic conditions: “Pet parents will consistently spend on their pets despite a tougher economic environment.” Why are pets so important, and why do many of us embrace them into our families?

Anthropologists have long recognized that a single definition for the term, “family,” was neither accurate nor useful (Geertz, 1965, p. 40; Stephens, 1963). The American family is both dynamic (cyclical) and diverse, rarely resembling the nuclear family that is purportedly the ideal of Western society. With escalating divorce rates, single parenting, co-habitating, delayed age of marriage, and same sex partnerships, there is a great diversity of family forms. Further, many women either defer or decide to forego motherhood (Hird & Abshoff, 2000). Although other industrial nations have experienced similar changes, nowhere have they been as dramatic as in the United States (Skolnick & Skolnick, 1999, p. 1). Further, the increased life expectancy and changing age structure of the population has produced a greater number of empty nesters and widowed people than before (Albert & Bulcroft, 1987, p. 10). Therefore, the household, instead of the family, is a more accurate unit of study.

Albert and Bulcroft, (1987, p. 13) find that empty nesters are the least likely to acquire pets. In contrast, this was the age group that seemed most likely to have birds and be most fond of them in my study. The typical bird owner responding to my survey is female, married, and in the age range 41 to 50, the time when their children have likely grown and left the proverbial nest. Albert and Bulcroft (p. 13) also find that people without children in their homes feel closer to their pets than do those who have resident human children, a conclusion consistent with my study.

Although I did not use an attachment scale, the survey did include a question asking participants whether avian companionship had increased their quality of life. No one responded negatively, and only 5 % (6) said that bird ownership had only somewhat enhanced their quality of life. More than half, 62 % (71), answered that bird ownership had significantly enhanced their quality of life, while 33 % (37) indicated that it has increased their quality of life quite a bit. Thus, 95 % (108) agree that avian companionship enhances their quality of life. Further, in response to the essay question—What do you find most rewarding about avian companionship?—“Love/unconditional love” (41) was the most common answer, followed closely by “Birds as family members” (40). In addition, a majority of the companion parrot owners have given up products or activities that produce harmful fumes (smoking cigarettes and using nonstick cookware and harsh household cleaners) to guarantee their birds’ safety.

Further, 66 % (75) of respondents take their parrots to a qualified avian veterinarian for annual or semi-annual “well bird checkups,” and about 46 % (52) spend more than 3 hours daily interacting (talking to/playing) with their birds. These bird owners also appear to be rather well informed as 35 % (40) owned four or more publications on parrot care , and approximately half (54; 47.4%) belong to at least one interest (bird club or bird conservation) organization. Further, one companion parrot owner responded, “There is an attachment to the birds that closely resembles a parent/child relationship” (Survey 122). Thus, these bird owners appear to be rather attached to their avian companions.

Why is there a need to categorize our companion animals as family members? According to Mullin (1999, p. 10), many people use animals like consumer goods in constructing personal identities while investing emotionally in their pets as family members. As Arluke and Sanders (1996, p. 9) point out, humans tend to make sense of other species by assigning them a cultural identity. Thus, “Being” an animal in modern societies may be less a matter of biology than it is an issue of human culture and consciousness.

Parrots in Captivity

Most parrots today, sold in the United States in the pet trade, were born in captivity and never have known the wild. However, parrots, apart perhaps from the budgerigar and the cockatiel, retain many of the instinctive fright and flight impulses that are adaptive to survival in their natural habitats. They also retain all their sexual urges and the needs to court, nest build, and forage. Consequently, those who care for parrots need to learn how to provide their avian companions the best possible lives in captivity.
Parrots require companionship (avian or human), a balanced diet, fresh air, sunshine (preferably) or full spectrum lighting, environmental enrichment, and exercise. Parrots also require environmental enrichment in the form of a variety of toys and perches that may be chewed up and destroyed. Toys may serve as surrogate mates or enemies and thus provide interest and exercise.

The cage should be a haven, not a prison, for any caged bird and should be well designed and large enough to facilitate exercise (wing flapping), climbing, play, and easy cleaning. The cage paper should be changed at least daily, and the entire cage should be scrubbed out every 2-4 weeks. Athan and Deter (2002, pp. 29, 30) view an improper cage as the root of many behavioral problems contributing to the reason why many parrots lose their homes. Further, a separate small cage for sleep and or travel is recommended (K. Welle, personal communication, October 21, 1999). It is important to have at least two cages, as parrots need a familiar place to stay during periodic intensive cleaning of their large cage.

A positive trend seen today is that many parrot owners recognize the importance of time spent out of the cage visiting new locations, instead of leaving the birds, like exotic houseplants, bound to one place. For example:
Our birds are not cage creatures, but interact with us on a regular basis. They are where we are in the house. They watch TV with us, eat with us, [and] are at the table for large family gatherings (What would Thanksgiving be without our macaw FREDDI, saying ‘Mumm good cracker!’ as she scarfs down turkey and dressing.) They sleep in our rooms when we are asleep. (Survey 59)
Whether to trim a captive parrot’s wings is a matter of great controversy. Some argue that birds should be left fully flighted because it is unnatural for birds to be deprived of flight. However, birds in captivity are in artificial environments where there are many potential dangers, and the consequences of allowing an untrained bird free flight in the home can be devastating.
Birds have been known to fly into walls, windows, mirrors, ceiling fans, open toilets and other receptacles of water, boiling pots of water or oil, or into the clutches of the family dog or cat. In most cases these accidents are fatal. Birds also have accidentally flown away. Whether the bird is ever recovered depends on the owner and luck. Companion parrots are extremely vulnerable to predators when lost, and domestically reared parrots probably do not have sufficient survival skills to live on their own in an alien climate.

On the other hand, Low (1999, pp. 116-121), British aviculturist and writer, is firmly against wing trimming. She considers wing trimming to: (a) damage parrots physically and psychologically; (b) lead to injury as a result of falling; (c) lead to infection or tumors; and (d) contribute to feather-plucking, especially in sensitive species such as the grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) (Low, p. 117). With proper wing trimming and knowledge of the special needs of each species, however, these problems can be avoided. Wing trimming will no doubt remain a controversial issue, however, and whether to trim a companion parrot’s primary feathers depends on the individual situation (Blanchard, 1999, pp. 50-51). Eighty-five % (97) of my survey respondents trim their birds’ flight feathers.

Another crucial fact that those who care for captive parrots must know is that they are extremely sensitive to environmental pollutants. Birds have more efficient lungs than any other animal; therefore, they are more susceptible to airborne contaminants. Eighty-two % (94) of bird owners surveyed answered that they have made radical lifestyle changes to accommodate the health and safety of their avian companions. These changes include rejection of nonstick cookware (e.g., Teflon), scented candles, air fresheners, cigarettes, household cleaners with strong fumes, and other airborne substances that potentially are fatally toxic to birds. Eight % (9) indicated that they had made substantial changes (given up either nonstick cookware, scented candles, or cigarettes) for their birds. Only seven % (8) of individuals made no lifestyle changes to accommodate their birds’ well being, and 2.63 % (3) did not respond to the question.

Parrots: Subjects or Objects?

Animals in Western society commonly are treated as nonsentient objects to be exploited. This worldview contrasts to that of many small-scale, preindustrial societies, in which animals may be exploited for their meat but are considered to have souls and personalities and to have been past members of human society (Nelson, 1983, p. 20). Further, animals in these cultures are often considered to have played key roles in the creation of the world and its inhabitants, and may also be totemic ancestors. Thus, with their ancient wisdom, animals have important information to share with humans (Lawrence, 1986, p. 47).

In Western capitalist society, however, animals, including parrots, are consumer goods to be bought, sold and disposed of as the owner sees fit. Some people see parrots as merely decorative. Author and pet care columnist Spadafori (Spadafori & Speer, 1999, pp. 241-42).describes her experience interviewing a noted interior designer: “And here,” he said waving his arm at one wall, “I see an aviary. Those blue parrots . . . what do you call them . . . macaws? Perfect colors!”

Even the suggestion that birds are “things” to enhance the décor of a room reveals a great deal of ignorance about the nature of these intelligent pets. Unfortunately, the designer’s views are not uncommon. Too many people see birds as little more than a beautiful, colorful addition to a room, a low-maintenance pet you just set on a perch and be done with.

Do parrot owners attribute agency to their companion parrots? As a participant observer in a parrot Internet group, I have noted a belief common to caring parrot owners regarding the purchase of a new parrot. When one goes to the breeder or pet shop to buy a bird, it is the parrot who selects the owner, rather than the owner selecting the parrot. Further, there are cases where parrots have performed heroic acts instrumental to saving the lives of their humans or others (Rothrock, 1999). Some parrots have also been attributed with being able to communicate with the dead or even help solve crimes (Krywicki, 2000).
Parrots thus are considered individuals with distinct personalities, and most are demanding occupants of the household. Consequently, many parrot owners affectionately refer to themselves as “parrot slaves” or “[Insert your species here] slaves.” Many Q P List members frequently refer to themselves as “being owned” by their parrots rather than being owners of parrots. Biologist and ornithologist, Burger (2001) describes how living with Tiko, a “pre-owned” Amazon parrot, has transformed her life.
Living with a parrot profoundly changes the lives of most people. Many people improve their own diets through the introduction of fresh, organic vegetables and fruits for their parrots. One survey respondent described the power of the human-avian bond: When she and her husband separated in contemplation of divorce, it was their parrots who brought them back together. The same person considers her parrots such important members of the household that one played a key role in mate selection for her daughter:

When our daughter was in college and beginning to date seriously, the young man had to pass the ‘Freddi’ [macaw] test. He didn’t know it of course. If the bird didn’t like him and he didn’t show even a possibility of liking the bird he was a washout. When I came home one day to hear our present son-in-law cooing to Freddi while [my daughter] was purportedly in the bathroom (but listening to the interaction) I knew he was the one. Our daughter never withheld the fact that Freddi would be coming to live with her and her family if something happened to her dad and me. Her children are now taught respect for the birds and they are beginning to interact with them. (Survey 59)

Parrots may be both subjects and objects, depending on the individual perception of the owner. The keeping of animals as pets depends on dominance, and Tuan (1984, p. 5) convincingly argues that affection is possible only in relationships of inequality. Parrots did not choose to give up their freedom to become pets or part of successive generations of domestic breeding programs where they are seldom allowed to choose their mates, particularly if the breeder is selecting for color.

The selective breeding for color mutations, or those colors rarely found in nature, demeans the natural color of the parrot (Anderson, n.d.). When describing her ringneck parakeet to a breeder, a friend of mine was asked the bird’s color. When she responded, “Green,” the breeder, said in a disappointed tone, “Oh, it’s just run of the mill.” Color mutations of quaker and ringneck parrots, for example, are sold for at least two to three times the price of a normal green bird, and birds of very rare color may sell for several thousand dollars each. Thus, the natural color, a key part of the species’ adaptation, is dismissed as ordinary, and the bird is devalued and trivialized. Avian veterinarian, K.Welle (personal communication, March 22, 2003), is concerned about the health consequences of color breeding, as well as its potentially detrimental effect on conservation of parrot species.

Parrots Are not for Everyone

Parrot rescue organizations are becoming more common and more urgently needed because of the tendency of many to purchase parrots impulsively without any prior knowledge of their great intelligence, lifespan, or dietary and psychological needs (http://www.parrotchronicles.com/spring2001). Easily bored, frustrated parrots may begin screaming for attention. Without the proper diet, amount of sleep (10-12 hours daily), and environmental enrichment, parrots eventually may turn to neurotic self-stimulating behaviors such as feather picking and even self-mutilation (Van Hoek & Ten Cate, 1998). The latter is a serious condition that, when left untreated, may result in the eventual death of the parrot from infection or blood loss. Considering some species, given proper care, may live for 50 years or more, parrot ownership should be a lifelong commitment (Sweat, 2001). Unfortunately, most captive parrots will be shuttled through three or more homes in their lifetimes because of a misunderstanding of their complex needs (Sweat, 1999). As Low (1999, p. 6) states, parrots are probably the most misunderstood of companion animals.
Proper care of parrots is expensive, complicated and relatively time-consuming (Anderson, et al., 2003). Thirty-four % (39) of my survey respondents spend more than $1,000 annually on their parrots. However, researchers such as Loughlin and Dowrick (1987), mistakenly suggest that parrots are low maintenance:

Because avian companions appear to fill many of the same human needs as dogs and cats, they may prove to be an excellent choice for those individuals who desire animal companionship but for whom dog or cat ownership is not feasible, for those who have limited living space, mobility, or financial resources. (p. 171)

This statement reflects an uninformed attitude about birds and a lack of concern for their needs. In fact, none of the anthrozoological resources reviewed above considered the welfare of the birds as an important consideration. Providing proper cages, toys, diet, and veterinary care can be costly (Anderson, et al., 2003). In addition, the environment inside the home must be monitored to prevent fatal toxicity from pollutants.

Recent major advancements in avian medicine can significantly improve the quality and length of life for companion parrots, but locating an avian veterinarian can be difficult if one does not live in or near a major city. The general practice veterinarian knows relatively little about avian physiology or exotic birds, which is why it is crucial to find an avian veterinarian (Welle, 2002).
Birds are adept at hiding illness until it is well advanced, since any sign of weakness is invitation to being ostracized from the flock or attacked by predators. Therefore, only veterinary examination and diagnostic tests can detect subclinical illness. Because an annual checkup may cost up to $300, it is recommended that parrot owners budget at least $360 a year for routine vet bills (Sweat, 2003, p. 55). Vet care for a chronically ill or geriatric parrot may range from $225 to $450 annually (Sweat, p. 55), and a catastrophic illness or injury can lead to vet bills totaling thousands of dollars (Thornton, 2003).

Seniors or others with limited incomes may face very difficult decisions regarding the wellness of their avian companions. Further, parrot owners with physical disabilities may have difficulty maintaining the cage and obtaining the proper food or veterinary care. In addition, parrot owners should make formal plans for their parrots in the event that they die, as many species, given proper care, will out live their owners (Sweat, 1999). Anyone considering getting a parrot should first read Low (1999, pp. 7-14), and Thomas (2000, pp. 246-253), “Birds are very difficult pets indeed, and parrots are among the most difficult.” Those planning to include a parrot in their lives should devote as much time as possible to researching their requirements and finding a qualified avian veterinarian before bringing a parrot home.

Conclusion

The study of companion parrots and the human-avian bond is an area that provides a great opportunity for future research because, to date, relatively few studies have been completed. A survey of the literature on avian companionship reveals a limited knowledge of parrots, and it is suggested that future researchers can productively learn about parrots and the avian subculture through participant observation. Avian companionship is similar qualitatively to that provided by cats and dogs and is very important to those who consider parrots family members. However, the proper care of parrots is more complicated and relatively costly because they have special dietary, psychological, and social needs. Further, because of the longevity of many species, companion parrot owners must provide for them in case the parrot outlives the owner.

The bird owners in this study tend to categorize their avian companions as fictive family members or Fids, Feathered Kids, and to consider them as fulfilling important roles in the household. Thus, parrots, like other companion animals, become part of the social selves of their owners and integral members of their households. However, the public knows relatively little about the proper care of birds, and -- to the detriment of the birds -- many popular myths about parrot care persist.

Notes
* Patricia K. Anderson, Western Illinois University


References

Albert, A. & Bulcroft, K. (1987). Pets and urban life. Anthrozoös 1 (1), 9-23.

Aldous, J. (1978). Family careers: Developmental changes in families. New York: Wiley.

Altman, J. (1988). Human/avian bond. Journal of the Association of Avian Veterinarians, 2 (3), 143-145.

Allen, K. (2001). Companion animals as part of a healthy household. The healthy pleasure of their company: Companion animals and human health. http://www.deltasociety.org/dsz005.html/

Arluke, A., & Sanders, C. (1996). Regarding animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Anderson, P. (2000). Questionnaire: Quality of life offered by bird ownership. Internet Survey circulated in December 2000 to February 2001.

Anderson, P.(n.d., Ms. in preparation). Breeding parrots for color: Social implications and environmental consequences.

Anderson, P., Coultis, D., & Welle, K. (2003). Avian wellness: The proper care of birds in institutional settings. Paper presented to
the 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for Anthrozoology, Kent State University, Canton, OH.

Athan, M. (1999). Guide to companion parrot behavior. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.

Athan, M, & Deter, D. (2002). The second-hand parrot. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.

Barber, T. (1993). The human nature of birds: A scientific study with startling implications. NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Beck, A., & Katcher, A. (1989). Bird-human interaction. Journal of the Association of Avian Veterinarians, 3 (3), 152-53.

Beck, A., & Katcher, A. (1996). Between Pets and people: The importance of animal companionship (rev. ed.). IN: Purdue University Press.

Blanchard, S. (1999). Sally Blanchard’s companion parrot handbook. Alameda, CA: Pet Bird Information Council.

Blanchard, S. (2003) The bird business. Companion Parrot Quarterly, 61, 1.

Burger, J. (2001). The parrot who owns me: The story of a relationship. NY: Villard.

Cartmill, M. (1993). A view to a death in the morning: Hunting and nature through history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cassidy, R. (2002). The sport of kings: Kinship, class, and thoroughbred breeding in newmarket. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, A. (Ed.) (2000). Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice. San Diego:
Academic Press.

Gallerstein, G. (1994). The complete bird owner’s handbook. NY: Howell Bookhouse.

Geertz, C. (1965) The impact of the concept of culture on the concept of man. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Granger, B., & Kogan, L. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy in specialized settings. In A. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 213-236). San Diego: Academic Press.

Harris, J. (1989). Avian companions and the human-animal bond. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 195, 1517, 1518.

Hird, M., & Abshoff, K. (2000). Women without children: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31, 347-366.

Holcomb, R., Jendro, C., Weber, B., & Nahan, U. (1997). Use of an aviary to relieve depression in elderly males. Anthrozoös, 10 (1), 32-36.

Ismail, A. (1998, July 5). Little jailbirds of pollsmoor give wing to reform. [News]. Sunday Times.
http://suntimes.co.za/1998/07/05/news/cape/news6.htm

Kidd, A., Kelley, H., & Kidd, R. (1983). Personality Characteristics of horse, turtle, snake and bird owners. Psychological Reports, 52, 719-729.

Kidd, A, & Kidd, R. (1998). Problems and benefits of bird ownership. Psychological Reports, 83, 131-138.

Kidd, A, & Kidd, R. (1999). Addendum to problems and benefits of bird ownership. Psychological Reports, 84, 368-370.

Krywicki, J. (2000, February). 10 Stories of the strange and sentimental. Bird Talk, 90-98.

Laughlin, C., & Dowrick, P. (1987). Psychological needs filled by avian companions. Anthrozoös, 6 (3), 166-172.

Lawrence, E. (1982). Rodeo: An anthropologist looks at the wild and the tame. IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lawrence, E. (1985). Hoofbeats and society: Studies of human-horse interactions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lawrence, E. (1986). Neoteny in American perceptions of animals. Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology, 9 (1), 41-54.

Lawrence, E. (1989). His very silence speaks: Comanche—the horse who survived Custer’s last stand. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Lawrence, E. (1990). Symbol of a nation: The bald eagle in American culture. Journal of American Culture, 13 (1), 63-69.

Lawrence, E. (1995). Differences Between people and animals: A key to understanding human-animal relationships. Journal of
American Culture, 18 (3), 75-82.

Lawrence, E. (1997). Hunting the wren: Transformations of bird to symbol: A study in human-animal relationships. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Low, R. (1999). The loving care of parrots. Canada: Hancock House Publishers, Ltd.

Low, R. (2002). The wild parrot trade: Stop it! PsittaScene, 53, 12-14.

Mugford, R., & M’Comiskey, J. (1975). Some recent work on the psychotherapeutic value of caged birds with old people. In

Anderson (Ed.), Pets, Animals and Society. London: Brailliere Tindall.

Mullan, B., & Marvin, G. (1999). Zoo culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Mullin, M. (1999). Mirrors and windows: Sociocultural studies of human-animal relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 201-224.

Mullin, M. (2002). Animals and anthropology. Society & Animals, 10 (4), pp. 387-393.

Nelson, R. (1983). Make prayers to the raven: A Koyukon view of the northern forest.

Nelson, R (1997). Heart and blood: Living with deer in America. NY: Vintage Books.

Noske, B. (1993). The animal question in anthropology: A commentary. Society & Animals, 1 (2), 185-190.

Olbrich, E., & Bergler, R. (1977). Budgerigars in old people’s homes: Influence on behaviour and quality of life. Erlangen-Nurnberg: University of Erlangen.

Parrot Chronicles: The Online Magazine for Parrot Lovers (2001). Plight of the unwanted bird. http://parrotchronicles.com/spring/2001/

Pepperberg, I. (1999). The Alex studies: Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrots. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Phillips, M. (1998). The wild bird conservation act. Endangered Species Bulletin, 23 (4), 32.

Pet supply stores lap up growth. (2003, January 27). Chicago Tribune, S4, p. 6.

Ritchie, B. (2002, April 5-7). Management of common avian infectious diseases. Presentation at 2002 Gateway Parrot Seminar, St. Louis, MO.

Rothrock, E. (1999, February). Flying, feathered hero birds. Bird Talk, 38-43.

Rowan, A., & Thayer, L. (2000). Foreword. In A. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. xxvii-xliv). San Diego: Academic Press.

Sabloff, A. (2001). Reordering the natural world: Humans and Animals in the City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Serpell, J. (1996). In the company of animals: A study of human-animal relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schuler, C. (2001, February 10). No one teases the birdmen. National Post Online. http://www.nationalpost.com

Skolnick, A., & Skolnick, J. (1999). Family in transition (10th ed.). NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Spadafori, G., & Speer, B. (1999). Birds for dummies. Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide.

Sweat, R. (1999, March). Adopting a second-hand bird. Bird Talk, 60-67.

Sweat, R. (2001, September). Providing for your bird: Wills and trusts. Bird Talk, 12-14.

Sweat, R. (2003, September). The cost of avian medicine: Prepare yourself and your wallet for the health care that your pet bird needs. Bird Talk, 54-61.

Stephens, W. (1963). The family in cross-cultural perspective. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Thomas, E. (2000). The social lives of dogs: The grace of canine company. NY: Simon and Schuster.

Thornton, C. (2003) The vetbil lhttp://www.parrotchronicles.com/marchapril2003/insurance.htm.

Thu, K., & Durrenberger, P. (Eds). (1998). Pigs, profits and rural communities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tuan, Yi-Fu (1984). Dominance and affection: The making of pets. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Van Hoek, C., & Ten Cate, C. (1998) Abnormal behavior in caged birds kept as pets. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1 (1), pp. 51-64.

Welle, K. (2002, November-December). What to expect at the vet’s. Parrot Chronicles: The Online Magazine for Parrot Lovers. Issue 7. http://www.parrotchronicles.com/novdec2002/vet.htm.

 

For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click Article Abstracts

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: