Animal Rights (AR) groups like the RSPCA never let go of a good idea that works to condemn animal owners.

Back in 2006 the RSPCA brought a prosecution for neglect against a couple who they accused of failing to seek veterinary attention to alleviate the sexual frustrations of their parrots who exhibited this frustration by feather plucking, according to avian expert Neil Forbes.

The couple were cleared because they had sought veterinary help some 10 years previously and had been told there was no cure for the condition. The court said that it was unreasonable to expect them to seek further advice.

It was claimed that the RSPCA had brought a test case which would have had implications for thousands of bird fanciers whose birds exhibited the same problem.

You would have thought that would be the end of such a bizarre accusation with the RSPCA stating that they were going to discuss the case with their prosecution solicitor to see what could be learnt from the outcome.

Fast forward to 2022 and the issue of sexually frustrated birds feather plucking raises its head again. This time it is claimed that in a small study hormone implants altered the birds’ behaviour. Other experts disagree and point out that diet is usually at the root of such behaviour.

You can guarantee that the sexual frustration of parrots (and maybe other birds too) is going to be revisited time and again and used to claim that birds should not be kept in captivity along with the development of hormone implants and other drugs such as Deslorelin that parrot owners will be ordered to inflict on their birds.

Bear in mind that AR groups demand the spaying and neutering of all animals, even inflicting it on very elderly animals whose behaviour patterns have been learned and who will undoubtedly suffer frustration as a result. Some would consider this to be a far worse crime against those animals than failing to alleviate feather plucking.