Introduction

Before one enters into any discussion around ethical breeding, it is vital that the individual fully understand why they support a certain position, and that their position is based on their own experiences and understanding.  This will result in a discussion which will be more valid than simply saying "he said" / "she said" or  "X" is an expert and believes: " Inbreeding and hybridism detracts from the real aviculturalist's pursuit and threatens our caged bird populations".

You are welcome to formulate and share your opinion on this site, and to question any statements, located on this page, that you believe are troubling or just plain wrong.  What follows is a personal view,  but I would be pleased to consider a different position on inbreeding and hybridism, if an opposing, rational point of view or stance clearly identifies that the thoughts and statements made below are false or cannot be legitimately extrapolated or interpolated from existing information and data.

Some of you may wonder where I stand with regard to inbreeding and hybridizing, given this web site.  The unequivocal response is that I believe that inbreeding and hybridizing are essential elements in well rounded breeding programs, where the objective is more than simply pairing birds for color mutation production or pet production.  I also believe that people should be educated about the practical realities of inbreeding and hybridizing so that they will always attempt to clearly identify their hybrids, and thus do everything in their power to ensure that the birds are not unknowingly introduced into someone's "pure" line or population.

For hybridizers: if the birds you are developing fail to express the qualities you seek, rogue them out and dispose of them.  Those who do not like this approach are welcome to offer alternative suggestions.  However, please remember that if a large number of hybrids suddenly enter the pet market, the possibility of your own stock being negatively impacted, increases exponentially.  The alternative to not disposing of intermediate hybrids is unpalatable.  However, the perceptions that appear to be most prevalent among aviculturalists, are that hybridizers and inbreeders sell their stock into the pet trade without due regard for the impact.  This is one of the reasons hybridizers, ethical and unethical, work in anonymity and shun the derision and sometimes, mis-directed outrage of their contemporaries.

In any event, one rarely sees many hybrids in the pet trade (dependent on where you are and the level of activity), so obviously some individuals are conducting their work properly.  The inadvertent crossing of species by novices, and the consequential sale of young hybrids to the pet market, probably accounts for a large percentage of hybrid identifications (although there is no evidence to substantiate this statement).

However hybrids are disposed of, it is still vital for people to face reality, a reality that not all breeders have the same dedication or approach to preservation of "pure" species and hybridization as others.  Some will want to recover expenses for food and shelter from the pet trade, and will, unfortunately, sell hybrid stock as a new color or new mutation.  In my opinion this is unethical behavior and it should be stopped, as it does increase the danger of "polluting" the larger lovebird population.  Conversely, it may be the only way to achieve a "hybrid" objective, given food requirements and time (is it ethical or unethical if no alternative presents itself.. is selling diseased birds or potentially diseased birds to wholesalers ethical? ).

The ethical questions that apply to hybridism, are not the same as those for inbreeding and the development of varietal strains or color mutants, where birds originate from within the same species.  These returns to the pet trade would only serve to combine the varietal genome with the proverbial, heterozygous, "primordial" species genome: where the varietal genome exists in a less concentrated (random) form.

This page exists to provide the right of "freedom of speech" for those individuals who have dedicated their lives to the creation of new variants or hybrids, that we all enjoy, despite the highly questionable and hypocritical position that some take with respect to hybridization and inbreeding.  The Longfeather is an excellent example of hypocrisy in the bird world, as many believe the bird to be a hybrid (primarily because of its questionable origin and unusual appearance), but they still purchase and breed it

There can be little doubt that inbreeding and hybridization are some of the most controversial topics in the bird world.  The majority of people tend to shrink away from talking about these subjects for fear of being perceived as a "supporter" of a generally despised activity.  Some, at least, are "indifferent" to the practices that others undertake, and are unwilling to pass judgment if these practices lead to a new and desirable phenotype.  Hopefully, we can generate some discussion around these subjects and improve everyone's understanding of hybridism and the application of inbreeding.

On another note, I personally, do not like individuals who profess to love birds, work with volunteer  organizations, and undertake to prevent certain web sites from being represented on "their organization's" web pages.  This could be perceived, by many, as a form of electronic censorship in a medium (Internet) that is used to support free speech.  I also happen to believe that this type of activity is a gross disservice to the lovebird and other avian communities, and to the organizations and members that these people work for.  If you are one of those that refuse to recognize this site or sites like it on your organization's web page, perhaps you should reconsider why you are volunteering to look after link submissions.

For me, it is the lack of education and discussion around inbreeding and hybridization that has generated the secrecy and misinformation which surrounds them.  The fear is so ingrained, that people feel they need to dissemble or lie in order to respond to questions about their successful breeding practices.  Instead of saying success is based on inbreeding (where it may be), they will say that their success is based on line or family breeding.  Perhaps, recognition of the efforts and personal trials that people face, in undertaking avian challenges (creating new phenotypes or colors) should be rewarded and recognized instead of being despised ?

Do avian web sites really want to educate their membership, or do they merely want to serve as a marketing medium for other breeder's birds, and leave the controversial issues to fester in the dark or be smothered by misguided attempts to shelter people from something some view as inappropriate  ?   Shouldn't an ethical or equitable approach to avian education require a balanced presentation of facts (pros and cons), for those opposed to, and those supportive of, certain avian breeding practices ?  Even before we begin an ethical discussion surrounding inbreeding and hybridization, there is a serious question about ethical practices involved in web site hosting (links) for avian clubs, organizations and societies.

Do you have the courage to open up and question the role and value of inbreeding and hybridizing in your avian community or LIST or will you be one of those opposed to education ?  Would you rather support ongoing efforts to hide the perceived "seedier side" of our hobby ?

Hypocrisy In the Avian World

If we look at the historical development and domestication of birds, we can readily perceive of early humans obtaining wild birds in the following manner:

• from a nest,
• as a fallen fledgling,,
• through incubation of eggs,
• recovery of a bird from a wet lime or mud patch,
• healing of an injured bird

• The populating of new countries often resulted in relatively small or isolated clusters of settlers, with small flocks of chickens, ostensibly for egg production and meat.  In these circumstances, settlers would have had little choice in the way their animals bred, and I dare say it was not a huge issue, as long as the animals reproduced.  These birds, over time and in isolated flocks would have been heavily inbred: of that there can be little doubt or dispute.   We also know that there were selective pressures applied to early domesticated flocks, even if it was only through the day to day culling of animals for meat or in order to reduce the number of cocks and consequently fighting, mortality and low fertility.

At the same time, people in towns and cities, with spare time on their hands (usually the higher echelon of society), were actively pursuing hybridization, crossing or inbreeding of stock to generate or engineer a new bird color or type, much as history shows us in canaries, finches, pigeons and chickens.  Tremendous strides were achieved, through practical breeding efforts, and a number of new varieties and hybrids were engineered in various species.  These early days could be defined as the hey-day for new mutations, crosses and hybrids, and where the imagination and creativity of people was left to run unchecked.

Many of the amazing bird varieties that we see today, in the domestic market or pet trade, are the result of hybridization or inbreeding.  Over time, however, some have come to see these varieties as pure, and not the result of what they might now consider questionable crosses or inbreeding.  Instead they see these "pure" birds as something that must be maintained, in all their splendor and specialty characteristics.  This is not to say that varieties or mutations have not been lost, for most assuredly they have.  In most instances it would seem that prettier, brighter or more economically viable avian variety will emerge to replace an existing variety.  The clamor for new birds with higher aesthetic or economic value saw the loss or replacement (not in all instances, but certainly many) of earlier varieties or specifically, the progenitor varieties.

Today we "Oohhh", "Awwww" and "Ahhhhh"  at the variety of chicken, canary, budgie, finch and pigeon color and form, anywhere that an avian specialty or open show is held.  The vast array of color, size, feather, sound and form that momentarily overwhelms the senses of the novice, should be incomprehensible to someone opposed to inbreeding or hybridization (transmutation). Without the role of the practical breeder and the support of their admirers and an awe-struck public, little of the variation could have been achieved.  In many ways, if only "pure" species (and I have yet to see a definition which encompasses, definitively and quantifiably, what a "pure" species is) existed for these shows, we would be looking at only a few colors, instead of the 256, 1,000 or 1,000,000 color palette we have so fortuitously been provided with today.  Is the artist satisfied with a 256 color palette or does the artist always seek another combination or hue to offset or hi-light something and evoke an emotional response ?  The charcoal or black and white photographer does not utilize just black and white, but a myriad of tones, shades and hues between black and white.  People react viscerally and intuitively to color or its lack, and we all wonder aloud at the the presence of sun dogs or a rainbow following a rainfall.  How then, can we truly say that we would be happy with only a few ("pure") wild colors in our birds, when we know so much is possible.  Can you imagine a world with only "pure" or primary colors (white; red; blue; black  etc...) ?  No blending, suffusion, dilution, flush  or glow on any color ?  I cannot.  For this reason alone, I am thankful for those that have pursued the "art" of hybridization and inbreeding.

Inbreeding and its Consequences

"Inbreeding birds is wrong.  I don't care to discuss it!"  This is the typical response from people who have established or formulated their position on inbreeding from a very cursory brush with it.  You may hear people talk about the fact that they let their birds cross (once!).

• It was accidental mating, and they were the only birds in the cage. I would never knowingly inbreed my birds, and would never think of such a thing: perish the thought.  However, the mother and son had 5 chicks, one had no eyes, another was missing a leg, two others died days after hatching and the fifth one was always falling over and looking into the air.

Selling birds that are known to carry fatal or lethal gene combinations is, to me, unethical.  These bird should be put down or kept and stopped from breeding.  Obviously fertility was not the issue with the inbred birds, above, but rather the interaction of genes and their expressivity.  A few nests would have identified the dominant, recessive or polygenic inheritance of the traits and enabled the breeder to potentially break through the barrier created by the particular gene combination or question the practicality of further breeding.  Quitting at the first sign of a problem is not usually the first response of a breeder.  More often than not, people try to find out what has gone wrong, and whether it can be corrected.  The usual response however is: "Don't inbreed the birds anymore, outcross to unrelated or wild type birds".   There is nothing wrong with this advice, unless, the purchaser bought the birds for a specific characteristic or attribute: their stance, presence, color or form.  In this case the buyer will expect to produce birds with a similar phenotype.  Outcrossing will slowly or rapidly (depending on the extent of inbreeding and gene fixing that has occurred) move the buyer away from the phenotype he purchased.  If both birds have a genetic problem, it may be very difficult to overcome, but it is well known that 1 out of 10 or 11 families is all that is left after a selective breeding program is initiated, due to the concentration (homozygosity) of genes (a very small number indeed, when one thinks of the permutations associated with only a few alleles) in the desired bird type.

Unfortunately, it is usually the inexperienced or frightened individual who lacks the tenacity to see something through to the end, that starts the horror stories one has come to associate with any form of inbreeding.  In some instances it may not be the tenacity of the breeder at all, but rather a very strong emotional or nurturing character that cannot stand to see something done to an animal that results in pain, discomfort or long-term. This is exacerbated by their unwillingness to put the bird down (similar to those who don't believe it ethical to stop birds from having a mate and producing offspring.  These individuals are soon overrun by birds and are at a loss as to know what to do). I don't believe, for a minute, that this empathy, fear or concern for animals is the sole realm or province of bird lovers, anti-vivisectionists, animal rights activists or the humane society.  I would suggest that those who practice the art of inbreeding or hybridizing are not at all the unfeeling monsters that some like to portray them as, but instead quite the opposite, and that for the majority the ethical behavior is of a very high standard.

Those opposed to inbreeding and hybridizing will ask: How can these 'people" be what you portray them to be when they knowingly subject chicks to horrible deformities or diseases that would only occur infrequently if at all in the wild.   It is the inbreeding that causes the disease or mutilation of  chicks !   It isn't ethical!!

The previous statement is the essence or foundation of the argument for those opposed to inbreeding, for any reason what-so-ever.  The simple response is that we agree to disagree and move on with our own activities.  Unfortunately, it never stops there, so lets point out some facts that we can hopefully all agree to.

• anyone breeding birds has the potential to experience deformities, irregularities or mortality in their bird's offspring

• the expression or presence of a disease or congenital aberration occurs in nests of unrelated birds (all or one chick, dependent on parental genotypes)

• no breeder knowingly breeds birds with deformities or disease with the intention of producing similarly impaired chicks (the exception may be colors linked to liver disease or STDs: Red / Orange Suffusion, where the clear cause of a color may remain elusive) .

• inbreeding does increase the potential for deleterious gene linkage, but aberrant external manifestations (which assist with identification and tracking, are also useful as a physical measure of success in the efforts to eradicate the "problem" or "defect") and perhaps disease susceptibility may be eliminated within a short time, with proper breeding and the requisite knowledge (these can only be acquired by education and exchange of information - not silence).  The converse (no inbreeding) is a disease or inherited defect that continues in a recessive form and is spread to more carriers every year

• In order to state that inbreeding is "wrong", one must be able to quantify, statistically, the number (percentage) of chicks impacted by a specific defect over a number of years of inbreeding, versus the number that die every year from the same latent gene in a dynamic heterozygous population:  working towards eradication of a gene means that the breeder will have a higher percentage of unsettling or damaged chicks over a short period, and then the gene will hopefully be removed or unable to re-assert itself.  Conversely, that same gene will go on in perpetuity in a heterozygous population, killing indiscriminately whenever certain gene combinations occur.  Which is preferable ?  I hope this clarifies the challenge in conducting an efficacious and systematic comparison of inbreeding effects (congenital defects) in the wild versus a caged system.  It is not practical.  This is a real disadvantage to inbreeder, and they are preyed upon by those who are looking only at short term or short duration impacts.  Ethics may not be the issue, so much as mathematics.

• breeders are able to look into the nest and intervene to assist chicks in a caged, colony or aviary setting.  Consequently, we, as breeders, are inordinately aware of every death that occurs.  However, even we are not that aware of the number of embryonic abortions in the first few days of brooding (unrelated pairs). We candle the egg and if it looks clear after 7 to 8 days, it is infertile.  Something (genes, temp or infertility) could have prevented the development of that embryo in the initial stages, but we have a poor grasp of the actual numbers or probabilities.  This would obviously impact the "measured" fertility of our birds and nestling survival rates.  As far as I am aware, even with relatively unlimited access to our birds, no one has a good handle on embryonic parrot mortality in the egg (and in the nest), after the first few hours or days.  Furthermore, in the wild, we do not have the access required to determine specific, comparable fertility, congenital defect or mortality rates.  Does anyone know of someone who has tested a significantly viable percentage of the wild bird population in order to generate useful information on the fertility; survival; and fledging of birds in the wild ?  We know that our birds bury their dead young under nesting debris or devour them.  As these deaths are often inexplicable, can we rule out congenital defects as a cause?  can we rule it out where young birds (unrelated birds) are handled by the breeder and then go into shock (slow organ development impacted by fright ?), dying hours later.

• Temperature is a well know determinant in sex of some species, but it is also known that temperature fluctuation at certain points in embryonic development; excessive moisture or agitation of the egg and embryo, can slow or retard development or generate physical aberrations akin to congenital defects.  Depending on the severity of the malformation, the fledgling may be bitten, starved, thrown around and / or killed by the flock or tossed from the nest by the hen or cock.  Life in the wild is brutal and predation and the environment ensure that only the hardiest survive.  It is extremely difficult to define some of the more ethereal elements that determine whether a bird is supremely adapted to its environment or not.  We may look at a bird and feel that because it looks very healthy, it will be the survivor: in fact it dies.  The small slow growing "waster" survives.  It is like picking a winner in horse races: size and outward structure counts, but is not everything, although it can contribute a lot.

• An inbreeder or hybridizer knowingly inbreeds birds, and by inference must know or expect that a higher proportion of deformed young will be present in the nest.  This statement is erroneous.  Every breeder hopes that the pair he puts together will not express a lethal or aberrant congenital gene. If inbreeders or hybridizers knew that a pair would generate deformities, they would not, necessarily, inbreed them or retain them for a breeding program.  That is why many families are rogued out or fail.  Sometimes there is no hope for extricating a "bad" gene combination (polygenic), so the hybridizer must turn to, and concentrate on, other families that have the potential to produce live and healthy young.  In some cases hybridizers may indeed come across a congenital problem, however, experience has taught them that the problematic gene (s) can be extracted or eradicated from the chromosomal make-up with the right breeding.  Often these "extractions" can be accomplished in a relatively short time, in which case they can proceed with the goal of developing a healthy "family".  It is the accumulation or aggregation of hybrid and inbreeding knowledge (genetic), and dissemination of it, that will prevent people from repeating the mistakes of the past, as much as that can be done.  Burying, hiding, ignoring or sending out a blanket statement that inbreeding or hybridizing is an unacceptable activity, may well be doing more harm to our bird population "purity", than talking openly about it.  In fact one might want to consider the ethical position of continuing to cover up or ignoring the pros of inbreeding.

• Malformed chicks are easy to identify in the nest.  If the defect is severe enough the chick will not live past a day or two in the nest, depending on the severity of the problem.  Psychological and physiological impacts are more difficult to ascertain.  One would expect all inbreeders and hybridizers to rogue malformed chicks humanely, and within days or hours of their identification, as they hold no value in a breeding plan and therefore every offspring is necessarily valuable.  Removal of the defective bird allows more care, from the hen, for the remaining chicks.  Malformed chicks in inbreeder or hybridizer's establishments are usually (no statement can include everyone, although you do hope) not subject to the same form of ill treatment that they might otherwise receive in the wild (if they attained juvenile size), before an untimely death (starvation; lethal fall, mobbing by other birds etc...)

• Inbreeding leads to sterility. This is patently untrue if the breeder selects for this factor in their breeding program.  It is common knowledge that different factors can be raised or lowered based on selection.  If fertility is sought and selected for, birds will be fertile, regardless of their relatedness.  Less well known is that pursuit of significant physical changes to the structure of the bird may have a related or inverse reaction on something else:  pursuit of larger head shape or body size, brought about by slow selection, may reduce fertility, if fertility has not been selected for.  In another instance, a gene for increase or reduction in size may not have the same impact on fertility.  Why ?  A spontaneous gene expression for size (large or small) would not be unduly influenced by a concentration of suppressor genes, which might be generated in the case of a long selection process for increase or decrease in size and form

I believe that the only answer to this question is a resounding YES !

Discussing ethics requires the ability to conceptualize or understand the difference between right and wrong.  In other words moral and amoral actions.  We use these terms to define what is considered acceptable in a civilized society.  Despite definitions, morals have ebbed and flowed with time and are under greater pressure today than ever before.  People are more free then ever before and often leave the overwhelming scrutiny and sanction of a small town for the anonymity of a large urban center.  We continue to cling doggedly to our own perceptions of right and wrong, but see those tenants twisted and altered with the passing of years and increased access to freedom of information.

What does this have to do with inbreeding and hybridizing?  Mores change with time and needs.  As stated before, farmers, colonists and settlers undoubtedly inbred their stock because there was no alternative.  People in the cities and towns crossed and hybridized their animals because they wanted to have a variety named after them or because they could, depending on the species and the speed of generational turn over.  Tremendous activity (inbreeding and hybridizing) occurred over a specific period of time, and then some organizations began to place a different emphasis and awareness on the processes used to acquire or develop new varieties or hybrids.

Human morals and ethics began to be applied to the birds we breed.  Pets became humanized, and the length of their lives (15 - 20 years or more) added to our beliefs that our birds are special and intelligent (as they are !).  Civilized human beings have taboos and cultural restrictions against incest or inbreeding, so there was absolutely no reason that these same proscriptions or prohibitions should not apply to our birds - or so the reasoning seemed to go.  Anyone performing, promoting or supporting such an activity (inbreeding) must, consequently, be considered highly questionable (breaking with moral law) in the eyes of the general population.  Unfortunately, we do not ascribe this same humanization to our domestic animals, enabling them to be inbred and hybridized in order to provide us with more economically acceptable food basics.  Somehow and somewhere domesticated animals were left to fend for themselves, while we focussed on "protecting" our pets.  Is that ethical ?

We know that birds hybridize and inbreed in the wild and there is far more of it than we can account for or perhaps would want to believe.  The number of species that do this is remarkable.  Most often, it is where species overlap, but that does not mean it cannot happen anywhere.  There is a relatively common understanding that animals (species) that live in groups and are highly social tend to be fairly closely related, the more social and the smaller the group, the closer the relationship.  Do those who believe inbreeding and hybridizing is immoral and unnatural, see these "natural" relationships between "species" or within family groups as unnatural and unethical ?  Are these animals uncivilized and expressing their base instincts ?  Or are they only wild animals performing those acts dictated by the natural instincts ?  If so, when did our domesticated birds transcend these natural proclivities and become so "civilized" that we must force our own "civilized" thoughts, actions and taboos on them ?  Why, at the first opportunity do they revert to their baser instincts ?

Some will respond that the reproductive activity is irrelevant, and that I am poking fun at a "serious" issue.  Fun or not, is it any more unethical to select which bird mates with which, or even to take these animals from their natural surroundings?  Why do people worry so much about hybridism, if the offspring between two different species, if the species are infertile.  Unfortunately, here in lies the problem.  A problem based on: silence; educational gaps and little desire to question; inflexible moral and ethical positions, and a basic misunderstanding of genetics and Nature's ability to overcome tremendous barriers through selection and survival mechanisms.  While the hybrid may or may not be perceived to be fertile, depending on the species, there is always a potential for one of the sexes if not both, to be potentially or fully fertile.  These hybrid offspring may also appear to be infertile when backcrossed with the adult or parental generation, but that does not exclude the ability of hybrids to be fertile inter se (with each other: after all, these hybrids should share relatively similar chromosomal patterns).

In fact, it is quite easy to see how crosses between the hybrid F₁ generation, in a wild or captive species, might lead to a significant change in form or color, that could enable this new and developing hybrid (potential new "speciation" ?) to adapt to changing environments.  This also implies that existing "species" may, over time, be replaced by a developing variety and its much later 'speciation" (if the hybrid mutation is better adapted to the specific changes in a developing niche or niche resulting from a catastrophic event).

If indeed there are a substantive number of avian species that are able to cross and produce viable offspring, the question that must be asked, is not whether hybridization is ethical, but perhaps if an error in classification has been made.  The fertility of hybrids inter se suggests that there are more interesting questions regarding species development and success than a given set of chromosomes at a certain time in history.  There is a question of what possible use a single pair or multiple pairs, of hybrids could have on an existing species.  There are indeed few accounts, if any, of the success of a single pair of animals evolving into a "species".  Certainly none that are fully documented and substantiated. However, one has only to look at the example of the Cheetah to see the possibilities.  Based on some scientific work, there are those who believe, from similarities in the genotype, that the entire population may have evolved from a single surviving pair (was this pair from an existing population or a hybrid with a new and adaptable or survivor characteristic ?).  How did this pair create a population if not from extensive inbreeding and linebreeding?  If this is indeed what happened in the case of the cheetah (and this is mere postulation with absolutely no evidence to support it), are hybrids in fact an integral evolutionary necessity in the development of a species and its ability to adapt to change or are they simply an evolutionary dead end ?   An evolutionary dead end does not seem to fit with the potential, inestimable, value of a single pair of hybrids.  Will genes be lost ? Yes.  Does the gene loss need to be significant in order to enable a substantive change in form, color or behavior, over time?  Not necessarily.

We know that the end goal of inbreeding is to generate birds that are essentially clones of the parental generation and that at some point the birds reach a state where continuous inbreeding (brother /sister) no longer results in common lethal recessives or any form of mutation.  These "lines" will not express, as far as I am aware, another lethal trait unless a random, significant, mutation in the chromosome occurs or there is some other physical mutation to the chromosome, over time, that introduces a new challenge to survival.

If the previous paragraph places hybridization in a different light, how is the potential evolutionary and ethical value of hybridization or inbreeding measured ? As always, there will be those who are fundamentally or "scientifically" opposed to such a gross interpretation of hybridism and inbreeding, based on standard genetic and biological education.  Some interesting points follow (Do you believe they are fact or fallacy... comments??)

•    all hybrids are mules
•    species cannot cross and produce viable, fertile offspring
•    if chromosomal similarities (viability) extend to the family level, and human intervention can produce offspring, one has to consider that only physical characteristics or behaviors separate and distinguish what we define as "species"
•    is hybridization a pollution of a species if offspring from species (1) by species (2) are fully or partially fertile? does this mean it is ethical to cross these species and their young?
•    has any existing species resulted from the hybridization of other parental "species" ... over time ?
•     if a hybrid is clearly a hybrid (identified by cursory visual inspection), is there any ethical problem in raising them ?
•     Is there an ethical problem with transmuting color between species if the goal is to make the offspring more like one parental phenotype than is the color receiver ?
•  could transfer of color occur between species (transmutation) exist if hybrids were not fertile ?
•     A variety, breed or line, whether accomplished through inbreeding or stemming from hybridization cannot continue to exist without human intervention and protection.
•     If certain lines of birds or mice, having passed a critical point, can be inbred for generations without the expression of lethal recessives or congenital defects, is it still unethical to inbreed?
•      Is your ethical stance based on your perception of continuous congenital defects and horrors being conjured by inbreeding or  founded in facts and practical breeding ?
•     Is your ethical position on inbreeding based on human religious beliefs and taboos and not the success of the activity ?  Is this an an acceptable ethical stance ?
•     Today, many of the practical breeders are gone, and large corporations have taken over the production of animals for food etc.... This is touted as a great advancement and as an improvement in economies of scale. Have we experienced an increase in some well known breeding areas (egg laying) over those achieved in the past, with multiple practical breeders ?

Our penchance for placing pairs in cages and selecting mates, enforces the belief that our birds are monogamous.  These breeders, however, often the same ones that appear to oppose inbreeding and hybridization, will unceremoniously destroy the loving pair bond, in order to produce specific color mutants.  Some matings are successful, others are not as successful, but we keep doing it because it is considered acceptable practices.  All right, but is it ethical to attack one form of breeding while placing another faux breeding mechanism as the summit of ethical breeding ?  Does no one question the ethics of breaking up a pair in a species considered monogamous, or crossing multiple color mutants to create a new color blend, to satisfy their curiosity or generate further economic gain ?  Why are these actions considered so acceptable, when other activities are not?

How many people are trying to purchase the Opaline lovebird, Australian Cinnamon, Orangeface or Japanese Yellow.  How does this demand compare to requests for the wild colored lovebird and the American Yellow ?  Not surprisingly, everyone wants the latest and newest color (because it is new and because there can be considerable economic benefit from producing it).  The green (wild color) lovebird, American Yellow and Lutino have all bottomed out (some would say stabilized) in economic value.  Something new is needed.  Is it a new mutation ?  Is it a hybrid ?  Is ethics really the issue ?

"Experts", continually identify the need for a stud of wild colored birds for anyone wanting to hybridize or breed properly.  Where are these clear, single mutation wild colored studs.  If they exist, I am not aware of them.  The desire for new color quickly leads to blending these wild color birds with a new mutation in order to strengthen those "weak or sickly mutations" or add form and size to the new mutation.  Once completed, the wild color is usually sold or disposed of due to room requirements.  This is not often carried out by large scale breeders, but by the pet bird owner, who wants something different or is curious as to the result of a certain cross.  Unfortunately, if some of the mutant colors are diluters, the original color may never be recovered, particularly if the original mutation is rare.

It is wonderful to see that some organizations are seeking to mate and keep lines pure in the rare species, but it is also necessary to retain a quantity of past mutations so that they don't disappear.  Some will say that as long as a color is present in some of the mixed mutations it will always be recoverable.  This may or may not be so, depending on what has happened with other genes in the slow evolution of the domesticated bird.

What  is ethical ?  I suppose it depends on what one is talking about and where one wants to go.  Can inbreeding and hybridizing be ethical.. YES.  Can inbreeding and hybridizing be Unethical ? YES.  Like anything we have, it is how the knowledge is utilized, not the practice.  Please consider this point, and if you feel that it is indeed a question of education and discussion of the pros and cons, please inform others of this site and ask them for input and suggestions for topics.