Wow... in one post, you effectively insulted *at a minimum* 452,115 people...
And I think you're mistaken on the meaning of 'enrich'...
Btw, people who see their birds as pets are much more likely to take them to a vet and spend money they can't afford to save their lives... j/s...
That is not true, you took that out of context. I will reiterate though. The vast majority of people that I have talked to locally are people who consider their chickens to be livestock. Livestock that is purchased for $3 a piece, at a local
Tractor Supply store. As far as pet owners go, from the people I have known, they are only willing to take their $100 dogs to the vet if it is going to die. These are pets that are considered family. Therefore, the love and treatment of chickens by and large in the United States is far lower.
There are exceptions of course. Including people who spend a lot of time on this forum. But if you are going to be realistic, that is not the average chicken owner. The average chicken owner has no idea what the common problems and solution to those medical problems are, let alone has $100 of medical supplies designated for chickens lying around the house. So yeah, I beg to differ that my standard of care will be substantially greater, and that the quality of life will be substantially greater by someone like me, than your average chicken owner.
Customers who are into the novelty chicken market are going to be the ones willing to invest more money in the initial price of the pets. Therefore, on a psychological level, someone is likely going to want to not risk losing out on their investment, so it is more likely that this type of chicken owner will be willing to part with more money to ensure their chicken stays alive, than someone who pays $3 for their egg producing flock of four rhode island reds that may not even have names, and would likely just be replaced if were to become sick.
I do not apologize or attempt to amend anything I have said. My points are just as valid as they were before. I have higher motivation for care, and a higher likelihood to provide care, than someone who cannot justify spending the money.
I have two RIRs, and if they get sick, they will not being going to the doctor. However, my fiance has a silkie, which costed the same price as the RIRs. The silkie is her pet. Therefore the standard of care for her pet will be equal to or perhaps even greater than the standard of care for my livestock. Price and rarity does not always equate to standard of care. I never said that every person's standard of care would be lower than mine, I stated that the average caretakers would, who did not also consider their livestock to be a financial investment. I do not see how you, or anybody can get bent out of shape about this reality. My points are economical and culturally accurate.
Maybe if I give them a chicken swing and tie a bow tie to them they would be better "enriched?" What if I read them bedtime stories at night? They may be your pets, but if you pass out in their enclosure, they will eat you. What makes a chicken happy is not what makes a person happy. What enriches a chickens life is not what enriches a persons life. I understand how you could become mistaken though.