how about selling araucanas as EEs?

[wilds of pa]

Quote:
vfem, they are lots of fun, don't let all the bad stuff scare you. if you like breeding birds and like opening gifts, araucana are for you.

Hatching there eggs is like X-MAS or a birthday party, you just cant wait to open the gifts/incubate the eggs.. Cause you never know whats in the package/egg (trait wise)

We have our araucana for over 6 years. Id never give them up for any other chicken in the world..Had many breeds in the past and the araucana are the most fun to breed and hatch for me anyways..

They really are that much fun...Don't get me wrong, other chickens are great, but a much simpler path to follow than this breed, the fun part is the challenge in working with araucana.

I also like when folks stop by and ask if i have any chicks for sale and of course i go down the list and tell them what we have,
and some say I have araucana to or already,

then i take them up to my coops and show them what they really didn't have. Most are amazed by just seeing them, simply
to say"then what are mine"..Seems most have EE's sold by the big hatchery's/feed stores etc, I say to them don't feel bad as i went down that road to at one time. Now ee's are a great back yard chicken for egg production, but they are not araucana, wish the hatcherys would call them what they truely are..EE'S. also ee's look very simalar to ameraucana then araucana(beards and muff wise)

Needless to say, i wanted the real araucana and ultimately got them. So anybody that wants them, do give them a try and you will find you will like them..

Charlie

 

[amazondoc]

Quote:
Well.....if you seriously oppose "breeding weakness into any species", then you should probably oppose ANY domestication of wild species. Domestication in and of itself hinders the survivability of domesticated animals in the wild, as compared to the untouched form of that species.

 

[catlikethief]

I have three araucanas that a breeder had to cull. Beware though, I was really excited that they would only lay blue eggs (my daughters love blue eggs) because they all have slate black legs. I figured no green legs, no green eggs. Only one lays blue eggs and they are super small eggs the other two lay huge green eggs!

I don't think you should sell them as EE's you should just be up front about it.

 

[dancingbear]

Quote:
Well.....if you seriously oppose "breeding weakness into any species", then you should probably oppose ANY domestication of wild species. Domestication in and of itself hinders the survivability of domesticated animals in the wild, as compared to the untouched form of that species.

I wouldn't want to see additional wild species domesticated. Foxes, raccoons, bears, or whatever. But that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is breeding non-survival traits into a species, such as hip dysplasia in dogs, the pug noses so extreme that the dogs have trouble breathing, and yes, such extreme crests that a chicken can't see to find food to eat, or see a predator.

We already have domestic animals, that genie's already out of the bottle, and I'm not saying that's bad, either. I think domestic animals are good. I don't think deliberate perpetuation of disabling traits in those domestic animals is a good idea. When we domesticated animals we took responsibility for them. That includes breeding for healthy animals. I wouldn't feel right doing anything other than that.

Most people wouldn't deliberately try to have children with things like scoliosis, color blindness, albinism, extreme hirsutism, gigantism, dwarfism, or any number of other unusual traits a person might be born with. Some would say interesting traits. Such traits usually cause problems for the people who have them. So it isn't done on purpose. But with animals, for some reason, we have felt free to breed for any oddball characteristic that might occur, even at the expense of the health of the breed.

I don't see Araucanas as being that extreme at all, but I don't think I'd want to breed them. If the tuft trait limits their ability to reproduce, it's a counter-survival trait. But it doesn't interfere with the ability to live in the ones that hatch. So fewer birds, but the ones that hatch are healthy enough that they don't have any problem surviving. I know the few I had years ago were fine, but I never could get any of the eggs to hatch. Now I know why. They were all tufted birds, 1 roo, 2 hens.

 

[amazondoc]

Quote:
Heck, the color white is a "non-survival trait". In the wild, white mutants are eliminated by predators plenty quickly. Would you discourage people from breeding anything white?

To some extent I'm playing devil's advocate here. I think you are being too extreme in hanging onto the concept of "weakening the species", but I sympathize with many of your feelings.

Personally, I oppose purposefully breeding animals with traits which cause them to suffer pain, discomfort, or significant disability which decreases that animal's quality of life. Therefore, I have nothing against breeding the white animal -- that animal doesn't care what color it is -- but I don't really think it's a good idea to breed something as extreme as English bulldogs, which not only can't breathe properly but are also very prone to heat stroke and skin infections, and which often can't even give birth without C-sections.

In essence, I think it's more important to look at the experience of the *individual* -- a concrete, living, feeling individual -- rather than at the abstract concept of the species as a whole. But that may be a discussion for an entirely different venue!

 

[dancingbear]

Quote:
Heck, the color white is a "non-survival trait". In the wild, white mutants are eliminated by predators plenty quickly. Would you discourage people from breeding anything white?

To some extent I'm playing devil's advocate here. I think you are being too extreme in hanging onto the concept of "weakening the species", but I sympathize with many of your feelings.

Personally, I oppose purposefully breeding animals with traits which cause them to suffer pain, discomfort, or significant disability which decreases that animal's quality of life. Therefore, I have nothing against breeding the white animal -- that animal doesn't care what color it is -- but I don't really think it's a good idea to breed something as extreme as English bulldogs, which not only can't breathe properly but are also very prone to heat stroke and skin infections, and which often can't even give birth without C-sections.

In essence, I think it's more important to look at the experience of the *individual* -- a concrete, living, feeling individual -- rather than at the abstract concept of the species as a whole. But that may be a discussion for an entirely different venue!

I think we're actually very similar in our views here. I free range my birds, and so avoid white ones, as they certainly do stand out like a beacon to the predators. So I'd discourage people who free range from breeding for the color white, for sure. But for birds in a protected environment? Sure, white's fine. Not what I prefer, but I realize I'm often the oddball in the crowd. (Some say weird, I say delightfully eccentric) I'm looking at breeding a healthier, more sustainable meat bird, and often have people think I'm nuts.

I absolutely agree that what's been done with the bull dogs is bad, and many other breeds. I'd hate to see similar things done to chickens and other species.