There is no real discrepancy. The bird is living and this was done as a strategy to help her break her dependence on the bird, for that is truly what was taking place. It was an unnatural and excessive preoccupation with that relationship and was not serving her in the best way. The idea of having her precious bird on the loose and suffering would have been highly traumatic and damaging to her, and you can see this in the fact she has still not let go and continues to search for the bird, and find about its status, and to attempt to reunite with the animal. This is not best for either party and we reflected that in our prior discussion, that what is needed here is for both to move on with their respective roles in life and further, and for there not to be a dependency, either of the bird on her to provide food and shelter, or for her to depend on the bird as a companion and reason for living.
There are many ways to express and share love, and when love is a constraint, when it can be stifling another, it is a distortion and a disservice even though meant well. We certainly appreciate the ability of this fine person to care so deeply about her animal friends and want the best for them, but you can see where this has led. She cannot let go of her beloved parrot, and by making herself the sole guardian responsible for its welfare, she at once is creating a prison for the both of them to live within. In the present circumstance this is impossible because the bird will not return to her, and her yearnings will not stop unless she decides that the greater wisdom here is to fully let go, and to not be in a prison of her own making where her happiness depends on the flight of an animal. This is most unfortunate but is hers to decide and to control, as it must come from her actions and hers alone to chart her own course and determine her own happiness.
The bird can take care of itself and that is quite evident in the way things have unfolded here. The prospects for survival at the time her bird left home were very dismal, but the ingenuity of the bird and help of elementals wanting to give assistance have enabled the bird to persist despite being in an unnatural habitat. That does not mean it will lead to a renewal of the former relationship, nor that it should. The bird is not living for her. The bird is living for itself, and she needs to simply accept the reality of this. It is true for all wild creatures.
Even though some can be held in captivity without fear of reprisal, because the animal may be placid and even cooperative up to a point, and especially if well cared for and fed there will be gratitude and acceptance of the human companion. But that does not mean it represents an adequate substitute for a natural existence, for that is all it represents, a substitute, and not a truly full life. Animals are meant to be in nature by design and whatever interferes with that is a lessening. This can have karmic consequences as well and needs to be respected. So we were wanting the best outcome for her, which was a separation from this animal to allow it to have its own destiny and for her to move on and find a new focus for her big heart and generous nature. That is still the case.