The Parrot on a Stick Exhibit (and why it should end)

Yeah, many of the zoos I've been to have mentioned that many of their parrots were former pets.

But in cases where the parrots can fly, I do agree that free-flight exhibits should be standard. Especially since a lot of zoos make it a point to tell visitors not to get pet parrots because they require so much work and stimulation.

 

I wonder what the ratio of pinioned vs wing clipped is within the AZA. Thinking not just large parrots but also particularly cranes, storks, flamingos, vultures, and swans. Either way I think parrots get the short end of the stick (pun not intended) due to the fact they are smaller and not ground-dwelling in nature. Most birds given flight inhibitions are usually ground dwelling and typically have a lot more space than allotted to the average parrot.
Indeed parrots are the only non-terrestrial group I can think of that tend to get flight-restricted. In free-flight aviaries they are typically the only species that gets wing clipped; though probably the potentially injurious nature of a large parrot's bill is much of the reason.

The occasional parrot has other reasons not to fly: a blind lorikeet I worked with never flew, for obvious reason, although to look at him it was not obvious he had a disability; an Umbrella Cockatoo I know never flies unless something absolutely terrifies her, in six years I only saw or was told she flew 3 or 4 times; also the poor individuals that feather pluck or have psittacine beak and feather disease syndrome.

 

The only parrot I have personally worked with was similar to this. The zoo never implemented any flight restrictions. He just didn’t want to fly and felt more comfortable climbing wherever he wanted.

I agree that fully restricting a bird’s capability to fly should only be done in rare circumstances. But there are so many reasons why some of these birds are in these exhibits and unfortunately, the zoos don’t do a great job at explaining those stories. I know one of the examples at Zoo Tampa, they have an extensive free flight macaw program that they demonstrate multiple times a day and I saw it in action last year. Nothing restricting those birds. So I would find it weird for the zoo to have a couple dozen flighted birds and the randomly choose two or three to be clipped and thrown on the stick. There is probably more here than what meets the eye and I don’t think we should pass too much judgement just based on pictures. Have we asked the zoos in question the story behind these birds?

 

Same with this cockatoo, she prefers to climb about or be carried. She just has no interest in flying.

I agree, it seems many of the larger parrots in zoos are previous pets from the ones I've heard backgrounds on. Macaws, cockatoos, amazons, and African Grays seem to be the usual suspects as previous pets. Given many such birds are often kept in too small cages, how many of them are actually able and interested in flying? I've known birds that do fly but are not interested in doing so on a somewhat regular basis. (That statement applies to more than just parrots) I think there is a lot of individual discretion that should be done by those familiar with the individual parrot to determine what the bird needs and is comfortable with.

 

Due to being flightless I'd say. Pinioning causes the 'cartwheel' effect when they try to fly of course, but its the inability to take off I think that affects them most. I would often see them slim themselves ready to take off and of course they are constantly frustrated because they can't. Only because I kept them myself (with a decent pond of course) did I really notice how often this would happen.

 

I think parrots that 'prefer' not to fly are almost always ones that have been kept in small cages or close confinement for many years and have lost, either temporarirly, or permanently, use of flight. I don't think any parrot hatched and raised under free-flying conditions e.g. a free-flight aviary, would ever behave like that.

 

I have seen parrots on sticks at 3 different zoos, I agree it is an odd and probably bad practice. I can confirm that Saint Louis no longer exhibits them.

 

Even if a parrot is a flightless pet, it should still be rehabilitated to try to make it fly, and if it is completely impossible, kept with same-species company in a varied environment, not singly on a bare perch.

Then, there is too many such exhibits compared to a possible number of rescued pets. Not least because pet keeping changes, too.

In Europe, Eindhoven in the Netherlands used to be officially a sanctuary for former pet parrots, and kept over 100 former pet parrots (alongside an incredible collection of other birds). None of these parrots was on an empty stick alone. They were all in pairs or groups in apprioprate aviaries, even if a proportion of birds never recovered and could not fly, socialized very poorly etc.

 

I recall that in April last year, I saw a couple macaws at Zie-Zoo, and also some cockatoos and macaws 'on a stick' at Veldhoven Zoo in July - although in both cases I suspect the animals were former pets. These two zoos are the only places where I'd ever seen flightless parrots, and I'm quite shocked to see how common this practice still is, especially since it's present in some major players in the American zoo world!

 

I never see this with established, well settled pinioned waterfowl. Under netting, I have mainly full winged ducks, with a few pinioned ones because that was what was available. Two pinioned birds are actually paired to flying mates, and just go off and for other stuff when their partners are perched up high.
Birds that constantly sleek themselves up in pre-flight mode, or keep attempting to fly, are IMHO feeling insecure, which properly kept birds should not.

 

I have never observed this in well settled birds. I wonder how long you had those ducks, and what the stress factors were. Pinioned waterfowl should never be put in situations where they are pushed into attempting flight.

 

This is totally false. There have been maybe a dozen examples posted and even if there are a hundred examples in the USA, there are probably thousands of birds that are in need of rescuing currently. Every bird's situation is different.

I also think that we are missing out on the fact that these exhibits are probably not the animal's entire lives. They are not in these exhibits all the time and in many cases are only there relatively short periods for enrichment or for viewing. Most of them have things to do on the branches (the Wildlife World one is horrid I do agree though) and I have seen examples such as at Omaha at their outdoor ones near the gardens where keepers and interpreters are training the birds and switching them out every so often. It's disingenuous to put it all under one blanket and say its all a bad practice and the birds have poor welfare.

 

I agree that most, if not all, in zoos are rescues/former pets who can't, or won't, fly anyway. Like almost all bald eagles, and most other native birds of prey, in US zoos are injured wild animals that cannot be released and usually have a wing injury, an eye injury, etc that keeps them from flying much, resulting in exhibits without much flying room.

Also, I can't speak for all zoos of course, but ones I've been to that have sticks don't keep them out in winter and only put them out for certain hours during the day, etc.

I don't think it's acceptable to keep a free-flying bird that wants to fly in this situation, just like I wouldn't be okay with a bald eagle kept in a low-roofed exhibit if it could fly like normal. But I think we're being a bit quick to put down the majority of zoos in this country without knowing the birds' health.

I don't think I've ever seen a lone bird by itself on a perch in a zoo, even awful zoos usually have at least a pair.

Pet keeping does change, but these birds live for decades. Birds purchased as pets in the 90s are still alive and in need of homes. Add in that they're more popular with retired folk, who then pass away and don't have family that want the responsibility of a bird. Regular shelters don't want to take hem in, with how much work and expertise they need.

 

Salisbury Zoo


Lehigh Valley Zoo


Metro Richmond Zoo

 

Another aspect of the parrot on a stick phenomenon is that it deprives visitors of seeing the coordinated, bullet-straight flight of pairs or groups of parrots. It's understandable that big species like macaws or cockatoos might be too destructive and pose a bite risk in the typical mixed free-flight aviary, but there are dozens of smaller parrot species with the intelligence and beauty of those bigger species. I'd much rather see a group of conures buzzing between trees than a cockatoo pulling on a rope at its perch.

 

Smaller parrots seem to usually be placed in such situations where they do have such opportunity. It seems very rare to see anything smaller than an amazon or African Gray flight restricted. The difference possibly being they are less destructive and a somewhat painful bite? (Not to say small parrot bites aren't painful, because they are)

Examples of smaller parrots in free-flighted situations that I've seen

Lesser Vasa in SF's African aviary

Sun Conure in Fresno Chaffee's South American aviary, also Sulpher-crested Cockatoo, Galah, Princess Parrot, and some others in their Australian aviary

SDZ: African Greys in Scripps, Eclectus and a couple species of lory in Owens, Fischer's Lovebird in Africa Rocks aviary

Also plenty of Lorikeet feeding aviaries and Budgie/Cockatiel feeding aviaries around. One Budgie/Cockatiel aviary also had Eastern Rosella.

But where does the cutoff line of safety actually fall? I've seen plenty of pictures from bird parks where people are walking around and even feeding macaws and cockatoos. I've seen plenty of storks and cranes in walk-through aviaries, which can be capable of inflicting some unpleasant injuries as well. There's walkthroughs with hawks and owls as well. So why are so many large parrots still restricted?
(One reason I wonder about is keeping large parrots out of the public's reach keeps the showoffs and the ignorant from trying to force a large parrot onto their hand or shoulder, resulting in a nasty bite then a lawsuit. Could be as much for the bird's safety as well as the visitors.)

 

Fort Worth has a couple of rosella species, plus canaries.

National Aquarium has Australian king parrot, red-winged parrot, galah, sulfur-crested cockatoo, cockatiel, eastern and northern rosellas, and budgies (plus a few finches, kookaburra, and rainbow lorikeet) in free flight in their australian area. The rainforest has yellow-crested amazon parrot, sun conure, and blue-headed parrot in a very large free-flight area (plus lots of tanagers, scarlet ibis, etc.)

 

Budgies and finches with Kookaburra? Sounds rather like predation waiting to happen...

The variety of parrots in the aviary is interesting though.

 

I had them for three or four years. They were very settled and undisturbed. They bred too. They didn't do it all the time obviously but there were occassions when I would see them trying to fly. Possibly the water area was not large enough to make them feel fully at home so they wanted to move elsewhere.?

 

We'll agree to differ on this one. However, I'll just throw this in:
Was their occasional frustration at not being able to fly, any worse than the occasional frustration of a full winged duck in smaller quarters wanting to explore beyond the confines of the aviary?