A case study evaluates human aversion training's impact on confscated parrots, suggesting reconsideration of training methods.
Illegal wildlife trade exerts severe pressure on wild parrot populations, and confiscated parrots often end up in rescue centers where they are rehabilitated for release. However, parrots kept in captivity often develop potentially maladaptive behaviors, including attraction to humans. This behavior can increase the risk of recapture. We modified and tested a previously published human aversion training (HAT) protocol designed to reduce human attraction in confiscated Amazona parrots. The HAT consisted of observers either on the ground or on a ladder, offering food to a single individual and then feigning capture of birds that approached or failed to move away from the observer. Twelve Yellow-naped Amazons (Amazona auropalliata) underwent 36 sessions of HAT over a 14-week period. Ten additional birds were held without training as a control. All birds were evaluated through food offer tests (FOTs) before, during, and after the experiment (FOT scores ranged from 1 when the bird approached the observer to 6 when the bird flew away). Over the training period, both groups showed increased aversion to people. However, contrary to our predictions, aversion scores were not higher for the group given aversion training. Aversion training also did not have a strong impact on fate post-release: within a month of release, 40% of the 22 birds were recaptured in a nearby village, including 4 treatment and 5 control birds. Overall, these results suggest that holding these birds in monospecific groups increased aversion to humans. However, the intense training aversion protocol did not further increase the fear of humans in these Amazona parrots, many of which may have been pets for years before entering the program. This study suggests that rehabilitation and release projects should regularly evaluate the impacts of their training programs and improve or eliminate costly protocols that do not achieve stated objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tailor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: