Article by Dave Poole, All Rights reserved.
A pal of mine with main interests in primates and also a considerable interest in
parrots, was the director of a small wild life sanctuary for some years and has also spent
a fair amount of time studying Greys in the wild, although not as part of any official
research project. His view is that the notion of 'alpha' birds and flock hierarchy is
populist theory with no sound basis whatsoever. He tends to consider the flock as
being a amalgamation of small family units that combine together for mutual protection,
with no particular birds having any 'official' higher status than others. Pecking
order as such, is merely that of younger birds being driven off by their parents when it
is time to mate and raise a new family. A 'survival of the fittest' scenario also
takes place and this is observed where weaker, less experienced birds are pushed aside by
more older, more confident members of the group.
He's also noticed what he calls a 'Fools rush in' scenario where younger birds with little
experience, are often the first to hit a food source or drinking hole. Older, more
wily birds hang back for a brief while to make sure that large hawks or eagles are not
lurking in the vicinity. None of this proves or even indicates a tendency for any
sort of true hierarchy. All it suggests is that as with many animals and birds, more
experienced individuals have learnt how to get what they want in the safest way possible.
As far as the height aspect is concerned, most birds that frequent woodlands and forests
will try to perch as high up as possible in order to be able to see any potential,
approaching danger. It is well established throughout the animal kingdom that large
numbers remaining close together have a better chance of confusing and evading predators
than smaller groups or individuals. Greys tend to do this and the need to remain
close together means that they will all try to perch in the same tree or several trees in
the immediate area. Obviously there is only so much room and some birds will arrive
later and have to accept lower levels. The next time, others will have to accept the
lower levels and so, far from there being any established order within the larger group,
the situation is fluid, constantly changing hour by hour, day by day. It is really
just a case of the first to arrive gets the best seat in the house. If for any
reason, that bird leaves and returns, it does not automatically regain it's position -
that has been taken up and it has to accept whatever spot is available.
Having only watched groups of wild caught, unrelated Greys kept in very large aviaries, I
cannot really assess the validity of the above, but it makes sense to me. I've kept large
parrots for quite a few years and have never been comfortable with the notions of
dominance/alpha bird/ height superiority, because I've never once experienced it with my
birds or those of others that I know personally. Some birds are just poorly trained
and subsequently are very unreliable. Others may be over-protective and far
from trying to subjugate their human keepers, are probably attempting to gain their
attention/warn or guide them away from a situation that appears to be threatening or
unpleasant. Such a bird when carried on the shoulders, may well give a warning nip
which if it is on the face, is likely to do considerably more damage than if a finger was
being bitten - simply because the skin is far softer and more easily broken.
We have to remember that corrective nipping is commonplace amongst many parrot species and
rarely causes injury because as soft as they are, feathers are remarkably good at
preventing damage. It is only when a bird launches a savage and determined assault,
is it likely to do any real harm to another. We do not possess that insulating layer
of feathers and so are more easily damaged. Parrots do not automatically realise
this and so what might be only intended as a corrective and totally harmless nip, is
rather more serious for us.
I don't for one moment believe that a parrot is instinctively more inclined to assume a
'dominant' role solely because it is allowed to ride on it's owner's shoulders. I've
kept Toos, Greys of both sorts, Amazons, Senegals, Pionus, Conures, Tiels, Lovebirds and
Budgies. All have been allowed on my shoulders and with only one exception in over
25 years - a pied Tiel that has a rooted objection to one ear-lobe and not the other, I
have never had a problem and at no time been given cause to worry. Nor have I ever
found any deterioration in everyday behaviour as a result of a bird being allowed to ride
on my shoulders. For me, it is far more convenient to have one or more of my birds riding
on my shoulders than it is to carry them on my forearm. It enables me to go about
doing things and involving the birds at the same time. My birds immediately come to
hand so I never have a problem in removing them. In fact they climb down onto my
forearm of their own accord at the first opportunity - which is almost a bit of a nuisance
if I'm trying to work at the same time.
I'm not suggesting that all parrots should be allowed up with impunity - with some birds,
this could be courting disaster (especially mature, male BFAs during the breeding
season!!!). The owner must be
in control and the bird must be well trained. Under these circumstances and if the
keeper is keenly aware of situations which can lead to apparent and real aggression (in
other words, if he is also well trained!), there little reason for that bird not be
allowed to ride shoulders.
Dave Poole
TORQUAY UK