Probably, but it's not important to me to prolong the lives of animals as much as possible. It's much more important to me to provide them with quality of life that lets them express their natural instincts and behaviors as much as possible, and not subject them to suffering.
People have to eat something, so I have no problem with quickly and painlessly dispatching the birds that are too loud, too aggressive, not laying many eggs, etc. One bird eaten from a backyard flock is one less from a factory farm, and that is a good thing. And if one chooses to bury rather than eat the bird, due to feelings of attachment, then soil decomposing organisms get to eat it, so it stays in the food web and doesn't go to waste.
I prefer that scenario over surgically molding animals to look and sound like what we want. The latter makes it too easy for people to focus on whatever they want, rather than the animal's quality of life. I think animals would benefit more from people making an effort to understand and empathize with them.
The argument that they don't notice, they don't care, they don't suffer, etc, etc., when we dig abscesses out of their feet without an anesthetic, when we confine them 4 to a small cage, when we forget to feed or water them, or when we modify the voice box, etc., is just plain weak. The fact is, we don't really know how they experience these things. I, for one, would rather err on the side of caution and assume that they do suffer, and make decisions accordingly.
I disagree with your earlier statement that there is no right or wrong, just different options. In my world, there are rights and wrongs, but sometimes there are gray areas, and we have to do our best to arrive at what is most right. That is why this discussion is good. I hope you don't see comments from me or anyone else who does not like this procedure as judging you. You asked for opinions, and you've received many. Not everyone agrees with you.