Every so often the topic of cage and aviary size is brought up and it has been suggested that we incorporate this into some sort of Code of Ethics for Bird Keeping. This all sounds very much like a good idea at first though, but give it further consideration and it become obvious that the whole concept of regulating of cage and aviary size is simply not practicable. Of course the nut-case do-gooders of the gormless fringe of certain groups, and the like would think it marvellous to have such regulations imposed by various authorities as a step towards outlawing of bird keeping altogether. Let us consider it further…

1 There are hundreds of thousands of people who keep birds as pets in cages. The great majority of these birds are mostly healthy and live a great deal longer than do these species in the wild. They bring untold comfort and pleasure to these people Are we to have a special squad of inspectors armed with tape measures, demanding to enter every house which their listening devices have indicated contain a potential bird abuse? Will we have a campaign to ' dob a neighbour' to facilitate such operations?  

2 All of us keep birds in cages at various times, no matter what size our aviaries. We have HOLDING cages, QUARANTINE cages, HOSPITAL cages, CARRYING cages, SHOW cages, and so on. These are very often small and need to be small, in fact quite often these cages are much better small. Are we being cruel when we keep a bird in a hospital cage or small quarantine cage for 6 weeks or more? Of course not. How often has a sick bird recovered fully simply by placing it in a small box cage in a quiet place for a month or so? Are the young of some highly territorial species better off in a small holding cage than with their spiteful parents? We don't need some mis-informed officer, just doing his job, invading our privacy, telling us about compliance with some regulations instigated and framed by a committee with nothing better to do; and no practical knowledge or experience to do it

3 With some nervous and flighty species or individuals, a bigger aviary could very well be a death trap. Smaller aviaries, it has been found, by at least one study, are conducive to healthier and longer lived birds.

4 Flight length is much more important than width, yet uninformed people ,dabbling and intruding g into matters about which they know nothing, make suggestions such as aviaries having to be built to say 8ft x 8 ft. For a great number of bird species, and even quite large parrots, this would make 4 suitable aviaries each 2ft x 8 ft long.

5 There are dozens of considerations much more important than size to take into account when deciding what is suitable to properly house birds. Such things as aspect, temperature variation, shade and prevailing winds, drainage, perch materials and placement of perches, feeding and watering facilities, exclusion of parasites and predators and so on.

Husbandry would be much more important than aviary size - the supply of suitable foods; the actual manner of dealing with and handling the birds on a daily basis; the worming programme; the provision of sand, mineral supplies, nesting materials, water, litter, brush, branches and so on; hygiene; and choice of species and their numbers in the one aviary

6 Suspended cages (or aviaries) are often quite small compared to the normal type aviaries used to breed the same bird species, yet these are possible the most successful breeding enclosures there are, when used in conjunction with modern diets and other management techniques.

These are just some of the many factors which would have to be taken into account if we ere to draft a reasonable policy on "correct" and "ethical" procedures. There would have to be so many exceptions, provisos and qualifying clauses that it would rival some reports in its sheer bulk.

Mutations seem to be the main interest of a greater number of aviculturists than ever before. Firstly it was budgies, then zebra finches, then lovebirds, but now we have innumerable mutant colour variations in Gouldian finches, Turquoise parrots, Scarlet-chested, etc, even Hoodeds.

New mutant forms of species are all interesting, some quite beautiful, and require considerable avicultural skill and patience in their establishment. One thing that they indicate is that the particular species can be bred in large numbers in captivity and this contradicts assertions by some authorities and anti-bird breeders, who make statements about birds produced by aviculturists all being derived from illegal trapping. For example, this has been said of hoodeds quite often in the past.

But why the increasing interest in mutations? Are they more desirable as aviary birds than the wild forms? Not in my opinion. I've yet to see a mutation more beautiful or exquisitely marked than the original types. Imagine for example, that the wild form of the zebra finch was either white, pied or something else, and someone produced, as a mutation, the wild form - now that would be a wonder - seeing the beautiful colour of the wild male bird for the very first time.

The reason why so many people desire to make these mutations is of course the possibility of making money by breeding expensive birds and/or the prestige gained by possession rare and expensive birds. That this is true is born out by the fact that as these colour forms become common and much less expensive, the initial desirability is somehow less.

I do not have any great objection to the breeding of mutations, except that as a result people tend to neglect the original forms to such an extent that the normal form no longer exists in captivity and what a tragedy that would be. It has happened with some lovebird species in Europe. Let us now allow this to occur with any species in Australia; if you wish to keep mutations then keep also their natural forms.

Hybridisation between different species or between different races of the one species should be strongly discouraged by all responsible aviculturists and avicultural groups. We cannot afford to waste good breeding birds by producing dead-end, infertile crosses or fertile hybrids which are neither one thing or another. All show societies should ensure that no hybrid is allowed to be shown.