re: IT IS imperative we feed wild animals

To: James Colton <>
Subject: re: IT IS imperative we feed wild animals
From: Penn Gwynne <>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
My dear young fellow you have jumped to the wrong conclusion now go back like a good young lad and re-read my words.
By the way do you live in Australia as an Australian?

James Colton <> wrote:
I am new to this discussion board and have followed the discussion on
feeding wild birds, my first gut reaction was to STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE!

But after Penn Gwynne's last post I can't bottle it in any longer:

I'm sorry Penn but I disagree that the issue is "NOT whether we should or should not feed them". Imperative, really?

You know of 85 yr old WILD Galahs that live that long on cuttlefish dietary supplement?. How so? Did you band the bird or mark it in some other way to know it is the same individual?. Are you really older than 85 to have followed the fate of those birds?

Less than 4% of species become dependent you say. Nice statistic but where did you get it? How do you know it is 4%? Not one of them become fully dependent? - how do you know this?, where is your evidence?

While the diet of lorikeets may not be restricted to nectar entirely, they
DO NOT eat seeds, and therefore feeding them SEEDS is a highly artificial diet.
You ASSUME their tongue bristles will grow back and if they need to
can happily switch back to a diet of nectar.
I Assume nothing but trust my own eyes.
Tongues are nothing like feathers, furs or scales when they are worn down it represents a degradation of the tissue, I strongly doubt that the original structure will 'grow back' to a point where it is fully functional again, depending on the amount of damage the tongue is likely to remain in the same condition or deteriorate further. The 'bristles' are nothing like the bristles found on other parts of the body of animals (e.g. rictal bristles, bristles around the muzzles of mammals) they are a TOTALLY DIFFERENT structure, for starters they are not shed and replaced like the other type of bristles, they are named so because they LOOK LIKE bristles, BUT THEY AREN'T. Yes, like any other tissue of the body they can cope with a mild amount of abrasion (like our skin heals after
minor cuts) and repair themselves, but it is a different story when the
tissue has experienced substantial abrasion (as lorikeets do when eating seeds). There is no place for assumptions when you have the life of an
animal at stake! It is liking saying 'she-ll be right mate' or 'no probs'.
So, with lorikeets with worn down tongues - they do become entirely
dependent on humans - so now we have at least one species of your 4% that DO ACTUALLY become entirely dependent!.

And sunflower seeds have a VERY HIGH lipid content (hence why we use them to obtain sunflower oil) - the wild diet of many of the birds sunflower is fed to do not have a diet high in lipids. Many captive parrots love sunflower seed (it is often a motivational tool to train captive parrots), however, many humans love potato chips and hamburgers, but those foods aren't very good for us.

If you HAVE to feed wild birds (and I don't agree that you HAVE to) then
feed them food that is similar to their wild diet for god's sake (or more
correctly, for their sake!).
EXACTLY MY WORDS YOU HAVE STOLEN ..... please re-read my words again

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU