# Thoughts or interests on the ethics of interventions



## pdpbison (Mar 15, 2005)

Dear all...



How do we evaluate the ethical considerations of interveneing into the Life of a Feral Bird?


How do we understand these Birds, or ourselves, to evaluate what our relations with them, may mean in various terms?


Do we distinguish between what our knowlegde or intelligence may suggest, are the needs or benifits accrueing for, or to the Bird, and, the interests we may have to use them for something or get something from them, whether or not it reasonably is of benifit or respect to them, themselves, as the Bird they are?

Can we see our transactions or relations with Birds, in which the respects for, and deferences to the Bird are foremost, while, the satisfactions we may find, and the delicacy and learning for us, about inter-species gestures or affections, may also occur for us as something 'in' and 'of' the quality and actualities of how we respect them?



Can we distinguish this from unilateral impositions on Birds, under whatever pretext, where, the variety of engenuous needs and self posession of a Bird are violated sometimes, in being ignored, while food and water and a cage are provided perfunctorily as justifcation for making, in essense, a captive of someone against their will with no benifit to them but for taking them from the natural or feral world, were they in some cases, were happy enough in their own terms with finding Seed and Water and in not being a captive-in-a-cage?


Or, in a summary question - 


What ethics, if any, do we find worth discussing, and, how do we espye and identify them, when they are the ethos or operative values, of someone's actual deeds?


Yours, 

Phil
Las Vegas


----------



## auntisocial (Apr 25, 2005)

Webster’s Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: fe·ral 
Pronunciation: 'fir-&l, 'fer-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild -- more at FIERCE
1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast
*2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : WILD b : having escaped from domestication and become wild*
synonym see BRUTAL

I have some questions? Aren’t all birds “feral” by nature? If man had not interfered at some point in their lives wouldn’t they be feral? What about the capture, domestication and breeding of exotic birds and, yes, pigeons for pets? Hasn’t mankind already decided that it is fine to interfere? Hasn’t mankind already been selfish in our domestication of them… in using them as companions, as a hobby or for sport? 

If nature decides a bird should die without some type of intervention by man is it honorable to interfere… or a justification of our actions in any case?

Any answer is purely subjective.


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

Ah, well. I have no problems intervening when I find a pigeon that would die without that intervention, or keeping an unreleasable pigeon in captivity but admit to having problems releasing the disabled, attached or inexperienced pigeons once I have done all that can be done for them even though there is a chance that they will survive - for a time at least - after being released. 


Cynthia


----------



## Skyeking (Jan 17, 2003)

Me too! I feel it is my duty to respond and help any bird or animal that is suffering, because of disease or injury. God gave us dominion over the wild, and that means to take care of, not destroy. 

If this was a perfect world, we could let nature take its course, but because our ferals live in deplorable existance created by humans, in our steets and towns, it is up to us who know better to step in and help.

Treesa


----------



## feralpigeon (Feb 14, 2005)

Seems to me the Webster's def is describing two different scenario's--
both of which live in the "wild". Then there are the one's that for one reason
or other are in a domesticated situation from birth to death.

I have no problems acknowledging that humanity is not overall altruistic in it's 
behaviour. Although I think that the movement is toward a more ethical
posture, this evidenced by the laws that become enacted.

IMO, as a group, humanity seems to accept the usage of animals for our own
needs, be they emotional, recreational, dietary or other. That would be right or wrong, depending on your perspective. Interestingly, I've known "vegans"
who wouldn't dream of purchasing anything but leather shoes!!!

And does nature decide that an animal should die? Or instead, does nature 
simply provide enough forms of life, some of which are harmful to others, that
a challenge to life is created? Since we choose to intervene on behalf of humans when there is a challenge to their life, I would think it peculiar if that
behavior was not extended to life in general which is why there are animal
rights activists, environmentalists, etc.

The effort to help relieve suffering is a more natural impulse in some than others, and the guidelines of how that impulse is acted on has, imo, a range
of acceptable "ethics" culturally speaking. On a personal level, that range is
modified and honed over time and with experience and an increase of awareness. I have no problem with intervening where I believe there is a threat to life be it injury or disease or an inability to defend oneself. From that point on, I am continually making choices regarding life that are based
on my interpretation of what is correct, my interpretation of the birds wants,
needs and health predicament. While those decisions are intended to be
sensitive to the birds needs, there is no guaranteed way of knowing 100%
that I've put into play a set of circumstances that the bird would have "chosen" for itself, including setting it "free".


----------



## pdpbison (Mar 15, 2005)

Thanks pals for your mentions so far...!


Just a few meandering thoughts...

Certainly too, there are degrees or mutabilities of approximate domesticity, into which previously feral or Wild Birds may find comforts or pleasures, or elect of their own even, to embrace.

Bird 'Ambassadors' from one 'side' or the other, may play important roles in introduceiong their fellows by example or other communications, also.

I had a period of time here, in my workshop, where, some of the feral Pigeons I had found or been given, who were Car-Hit or ill, or Dog-Mauled ( likely from already being ill) and who recovered excellently, and who had been given the free access to the shop area as a stage of their recovery's wing excercise time...

Some of these Birds, after, when having joined the feral flock outside, or for having disappeared for some time presumably for having returned to their previous comrades somewhere, elected to come back inside with mates or with new mates to build nests high on the shelves. Other ferals, who had never been inside here before, seeing this, elected to do likewise, so, many of my otherwise feral flock, then, were soon spending their nights, and building their Nests, and raising wild Babys, here in my Work Shop.

(This soon became too much for me to deal with and was too disruptive to my Work, so, I gradually eased them all out again and did not let them return to that experiment of social contiguity...)

Being used to me, these Birds remained never the less, quite wild, but for having accepted me in the same way as an benign occupant of the same larger space in which they roosted, more or less in what I imagine would be the same way they would have accepted some other creature such as a Horse or whatever, who would fill the role of benign co-inhabitant or neighbor.

Now, were these Birds 'domesticated' then? for having come to live indoors and for having accepted my presence as a somewhat intimate or at least constant and familiar neighbor?

Or, were they Wild?

I say, they were Wild, and had more nearly included me as an incidental neighbor in the same space they lived in, than that they had become domesticated.

I did not interact with these Birds particularly, and their Babys would click their Beaks at me if I climbed up to see them.

An earlier phase of my Pigeon involvements, similarly, was when I had a small flock who lived in some of my little house at the time. These Birds I did interact with every day, and would give them respites from their nest sittings and so on, I would handle them somewhat at times, and overall they were comfortable with me.

We in effect, shared the same space, and were to some extent, part of the same community or overlapping community or flock. They all ate indoors every day, and had baths every few days, and we interacted a fair amount. They had Nests in various places and raised Babys, and these Babys as all the adults to one degree or another, were comfortable with being interacted with. They had their personal boundaries, and I respected that in these interactions according to their sensibilities. Sometimes I wished to rid them of a Hippoboscidae, and so would hold them to disturb and catch the little flying Louse. Of course, they found this annoying, but, held no grudges.

And also, I would say, that aside from their familiarity with me, they were and remained, essentially a feral flock, who happenned to have for themselves a roost and an indoor habitat, from which to depart or return as they liked, every day, which indoor human occupied place, qualified in some ways, as a domestic context.

These Birds would abide people in a comfortable way when in their/my home, but once 'out', they did not tend to let anyone but me or my girlfriend at the time, get near them, or, unless I was standing there with whomever it was. So it was not like they accepted people per-se, but they accepted them if I were implicitly endorseing the person.

So, sometimes the distinction of whether a Bird is Wild, or domesticated, will seem to be mutable.

Entirely domesticated orphan or ill Babys whom I have raised from initially feral contexts, once into their adolesence and having enjoyed the stages of introduction and assimilation or socialization into the Wild flock here, even for but fome several days of uninterrupted feral life, become as entirely wild as their fellows, and are no more likely than their fellows to let me get near them.

I myself am pretty certain, that any physically healthy Pigeon, raised howsoever so, would very likely do perfectly well in becomeing an entirely wild or feral Bird, if they were allowed to enjoy a succession of graduated steps or introductions into the feral Pigeon society, for them to learn and find their confidence and place.

Or, I have seen it so enought times of my own, to feel sure of it as a general probability.

While not the central question of this thread, an embueing side light of some of the question's dimensions...


Phil
Las Vegas


----------



## Lin Hansen (Jan 9, 2004)

Phil,

I think the questions you are asking are interesting to discuss on an academic level, but I don't think there are any definitive or absolutely "right" answers to them.

Laura gave us the dictionary's definition of "feral," to help us understand her question.

I will give the dictionary definition of "ethic," as I see that it relates to this discussion:

Ethic: 1. A principle of right or good conduct or a body of such principles. 2. A system of moral principles or values.

I think even though there are general standards that most civilized people follow in regard to "right or good conduct," a person's idea of what is ethical can be subjective.

If it is unethical for humans to interfere with feral birds or pigeons, Pigeon Talk would not even exist! Is it unethical for us to interfere with the natural occurances of illness, injury, etc. that happens to these birds? Shouldn't we just let "nature" follow it's course?

And, boy, should we even talk about all our racers and loftkeepers? Are they unethical because they own and keep birds for their pleasure and for the sport of it? 

And what about those of us who keep dogs, cats, etc. as house pets? And what about zoos and aquariums? And what about the animals that are used for medical research? The list could go on and on......

People have their own personal opinions regarding what they consider to be ethical conduct. It may be interfering with nature to help a sick or injured bird, but I personally feel it would be unethical to just walk away, if I am able to help. If the bird I helped turned out to be non-realeaseabe, I feel it would be unethical to set it free to a difficult life and probably death, just because it started it's life wild and free.

I don't agree that a healthy feral bird should be captured and kept as a pet just for the pleasure of it. But, there are many people out there who would think doing something like that would be a kind and generous thing to do because of the usual hard life that ferals lead....some people would think they are doing the bird a favor, offering it safety, security, and love.....and even though I don't agree with doing it, I can see where a person would mean well by doing it.

So, you see, I think there will be many different opinions on what would be considered ethical, because different people have different feelings about it and there really are no hard and fast rules to follow.

Linda


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Whatever dictionary definitions of 'feral' may be, in bird terms it just refers to those which have, one way or another, escaped from captivity or have wandered away from domestication and successfully bred and formed colonies, flocks or whatever 'in the wild' without direct human 'sponsorship'.

In the UK there are small groups of Black Swans, escaped from wildfowl collections, which have done so. There are even feral chickens living by their own devices - and whatever folk may throw down for them - near a village in E England!

I always think pigeons are a special case, though. They are, in a sense, a human creation. They are only here because of mankind's interference with nature many centuries past, being descended from those kept in the dovecotes and pigeon-houses of long ago, with a good sprinkling of racing, performance and fancy pigeons thrown in for variety. Of course, once pigeons as sources of food, eggs and fertiliser became, in general, 'obsolete' then mankind turned its back on them, so to speak.

They have a built-in affinity with humans, so I cannot think of them as 'wild' birds. In fact, I feel that - disowned by the majority or not - they are still our responsibility. Without us they wouldn't be here, and they have nowhere to go. So, with pigeons, intervention for good cause can never be 'interference with nature' since they would not occur 'naturally' in our human environments.

In contrast, the 'genuine' wild Rock Doves are as skittish about humans as any bird which has always been in the true wild. When I was attempting to study them, it took about three days before they stopped taking off in alarm at my presence, even though several hundred feet below the rocks on which they lounge during the day. Seemed strange, when I was so used to pigeons clamouring around my feet for treats of peanuts 

John


----------

