QUOTE (myiopsitta_monachus @ Jun 29 2007, 01:21 AM)

Both of my Quakers are natural coloured and I never love them any less for it. That natural colour has proven itself best for survival and should be revered as the true winning colour of a strong survival oriented species. However, colour mutations happen in the wild naturally too. The genes responsible for those mutations are extremely recessive and therefore you almost never see it. In many cases those colour mutations actually prove to be dangerous for the bird with the new colour and the survival rate for these special oddities is low. However, in the safety of our loving homes these birds can live healthy and happy lives. I feel that as long as breeding selectively for colour mutations is controlled, and the health, safety, and general well-being of the animals is the first priority then it's ok. I would not love a colour mutation bird any less than a natural colour either.
I haven't heard this story. It strikes me as odd though because the San Diego Zoo is so concerned with the conservation of species. Do you have a reference to site on this statement?
Hi, yes, I am aware of the fact that color mutations happen in nature too, but what concerns me is when too many birds get bought because of their cute colors and because they "go well with the furniture or wall paper". Breeding for color or whatever property can introduce health problems; there tends to be a reason why some combinations are common in nature and others are not. (Oh, that is what you are saying too.

Guess we agree! Except, that I do not see the reason for breeding weak/vulnerable birds just for the sake of their color.)
Another thing is, there are plenty of abandoned and abused pet birds out there, plenty, sadly. (Not just birds of course.)
Yes, I can give you more info about the zoo story, but it's in Dutch.
http://www.netwerk.tv/archief/4868891/830/...ntuinen_VS.htmlA group of journalists went to Africa and investigated, partly with a hidden camera. Some zoos apparently are so concerned with the conservation of species that they apparently/allegedly prefer "not to know" that animals get killed so that the zoos can add a few youngsters to their own local gene pool. If this is true, and I have no reason to think otherwise at this point, it is food for thought. Another party that was criticized in this story because of the role it played, is KLM.
It is possible that these US zoos were fooled, just as the Cites officials apparently were fooled... but... if a zoo "orders" so many of this species, so many of that species and so many of that one (and no species for which their current gene pool is already too small, apparently)... Makes ya wonder.
Ange