A question of ethics/conscience.

It must be entirely peronal choice. Personally, I don't have anything to do with any breeds which have the possibilty of cerebral hernia, associated with crests, or cannot breed naturally, have lethal genes etc.etc.etc.

 

I'm new to all this, but you bring up an interesting issue.

Mmm... I guess I would have to say if you are a breeder - your actions directly impact the way the breed is developing. Maybe you could choose to develop a new take on an old breed? Innovation has to start somewhere.

Looking forward to comments from others - thanks for the post.

 

I'll be watching this one for input. Im curious about this also....

 

I may be incorrect about this, but I believe most critters find food and water from smell, not sight.

 

Most poultry breeds are great at finding food or water, but some are exceptions to the rules like silkies,polishes, and smaller picky breeds who are physically incapable of venturing around.

The breeds that I have found to be the best at taking care of themselves and their young is by far, American Games. You can allow them to free range on thier own and not have to worry a bit about them, if you have enough property that is.

 

Most birds have either no or very weak sense of smell, relying on sight as the primary sense.. which is different from mammals in general.

IMO the problem is the crest and beard combination. Birds with huge crest but no beard OR a beard/muff that is well separated from the crest don't have as much problem.

Birds with the beard/muff actually meeting the crest often have a severe vision impairment. I think the answer is encouraging better separation of the beard/muff from the crest.

 

I personally avoid breeding anything, flora or fauna, that cant fend for itself, breed naturally, or otherwise function without intervention from humans.That being said, how far does one carry that line of reasoning?
A good example would be peoples aversion to aggressive roosters! We all have a tendency to "cull" aggressive males when in a natural state these males would be the most beneficial to a flock.

Another example of (in my mind) improper culling is the inordinate number of breeds that will not go broody. That certainly is not a natural state, do the math!

 

Quote:I'm with Krys on this one. In fact, I just got out of Silkies this fall because of this issue. The current show room trend is to have birds so heavily crested that they cannot see to get out of their own way. Now, I know you can put hair tape on them to pull the crests up, but I don't really want to spend my time doing that.

I also find that Silkies, with their vaulted skulls, are prone to "crookneck", and after trying to nurse one bird through that decided I wouldn't be doing that again. Don't get me wrong, I think they're lovely birds, and my kids adored them. But they're not the sharpest tools in the shed (they will sleep in the corner where it's leaking!) and I draw the line at AI, just not going to do that.

So what Krys says...

 

It is a matter of personal choice and personal adjustment, I think.

There are folks who cannot kill and eat a chicken that they have raised to be a very healthy chicken, yet they are content to purchase and consume chickens from the Supermarket that have been raised in "less-than-optimum" conditions.

I guess it just depends on "whose ox is being gored.......and who does the goring."

In short, this is purely a matter of personal choice and may have nothing to do with ethics.....but only an individuals philosophy and therefore "conscience" (It is interesting to note that the word is: con-science) Go figure.

Purely a personal matter....in my opinion. I don't believe the question truly has a "universal answer". (just as many other things in LIFE.)



-Junkmanme-