GBB versus Pink zebra tarantula vs GBB

[Nightshady]

...encouraging someone with no experience to take a risky action with their child and future pet as well.

On this point, I totally agree with you. A keeper should consider themselves experienced prior to bringing the added variability of a child into the mix. I would certainly not consider myself experienced enough to do so.

 

[greenbb]

You keep insisting you're being misrepresented, but you haven't explained what benefit is gained by handling a live tarantula that isn't gained by handling a molt or a jumping spider.

You have misrepresented me, more than once. Second, this is the first time anyone has asked me this question. If the point you are making is that there are also other ways to check out spiders, nature etc, I totally agree. I never said anything about this being the only way, you said that. In my case my son is specifically fascinated by tarantulas and that's why this "car has more features". I think other parents have children who have that same interest.

Since you keep demanding we point out where you said what...

You were claiming that handling has "more features" when I compared handling to a car with bad mileage. Now you're saying it's "not the only way." And you're right! It's not the only way! But it is the riskiest way.

Those are two different statements. It does have more features. I did not say it is the only way, you said that.

Stop encouraging newbies to do things the risky way with their pets and children.

No, I won't. You have absolutely no way of quantifying the risk, all you can do is say that "bad things might happen". Your arguments are just as compelling to me as someone telling parents to stop letting their kids ride bicycles or ride in cars because they might die.

You have an opinion, you should acknowledge that and stop trying to sell it as anything else.

 

[greenbb]

On this point, I totally agree with you. A keeper should consider themselves experienced prior to bringing the added variability of a child into the mix. I would certainly not consider myself experienced enough to do so.

You'd probably be just fine if you're comfortable handling it yourself. The problem with threads like these is that people don't provide any useful information on doing it successfully which is what I attempted to do. The handful of times we've handled it is about an inch off a table for around a minute or so. If something ever "changed" we'd just set it down.

 

[Nightshady]

The problem with threads like these is that people don't provide any useful information on doing it successfully which is what I attempted to do.

I totally agree with you on this point. Some people (probably many more than would admit here) are going to handle their T’s despite people telling them to absolutely not do it.

I think it’s totally fine for someone to say they are against it (I myself do not handle), but I likewise think it’s OK for someone to explain the safest technique for handling if it’s going to be done, and I don’t think that the person trying to educate on handling should be bashed.

 

[Swoop]

0.015 (risk of fall) x 0.005 (risk of injury per fall) x 60 (times handled) = 0.45% total risk of a serious injury to the T over ten years of handling.

0.45% > 0.00%

It's a small risk (under ideal conditions with sufficiently small made-up numbers), but there's no reason to take it. A possible risk with a possible reward could be considered a risk or an investment. A risk with no reward is, for lack of a better word, reckless.


@greenbb perhaps you should read your first post before claiming anyone misrepresented you. I'll bold a couple fun parts.

I'd just like to get in people's faces a little bit about the handling of T's: I absolutely agree that the T probably gets nothing out of being handled. It's not a dog. If you're an adult you might want to consider what is in the best interest of your pet. But people need to drop the extreme views here and realize that, especially in the case of children, the T is a tool to foster an interest and connection with the natural world. It is a vehicle to learn and interact with the natural world first and a pet second. Does it put the T at risk of death? Yes, it does. Is that risk worth the benefits? I think it is worth the risk. It's ridiculous to weight the safety of the tarantula above cementing a child's interest in science especially when you can significantly reduce the chances that anything bad will happen to the T by not being careless.

1. You posted with the intention of 'getting in people's faces', did you not expect to be treated in kind?
2. Maybe teach your kids to consider the best interest of their pet too.
3. A tarantula is a living creature, and as such respect for it (i.e. not putting it at unnecessary risk) should be fostered at least as much as 'an interest in science.'
4. ties into this next part...

Second, this is the first time anyone has asked me this question. If the point you are making is that there are also other ways to check out spiders, nature etc, I totally agree. I never said anything about this being the only way, you said that.

It is, and I would hope most reasonable people would have inferred this from my posts by now, the only way with inherent risk. It's what the car analogy was about, it's why I suggested molts, feeding, jumping spiders... You told me your car has more features, so either you really don't understand the concept of an analogy, or you think handling has 'more features' than everything else suggested. But you didn't say what they are. And your explanation now, that your son is 'fascinated with tarantulas,' doesn't explain why you're having your toddler handle a tarantula or why he's not interested in feeding or molts.

Now imagine if we were talking about something more cuddly, would you be making the same argument? Try this. It's ridiculous to weight the safety of the dog above cementing a child's interest in science. You have to put the dog in danger because, come on, your kid loves dogs, right? How else is he going to stay interested in dogs unless he's feeding them chicken bones or opening the gate so they can run out in the street?

No. It's a ridiculous argument with any other animal, and it's a ridiculous argument with tarantulas too.

Stop encouraging newbies to do things the risky way with their pets and children.

No, I won't. You have absolutely no way of quantifying the risk, all you can do is say that "bad things might happen". Your arguments are just as compelling to me as someone telling parents to stop letting their kids ride bicycles or ride in cars because they might die.

First of all, lmao.
Second, why do you feel compelled to quantify unnecessary risk before avoiding it? Do you look up traffic fatality statistics before putting on your seatbelt? Or do you just put it on because there's no significant benefit to not wearing one?
Third, what I'm doing is more like advising people to bring their kids in during a thunderstorm. Odds of being struck by lightning are about 1 in 12,000, since you like quantifiable risks. Much lower than Nightshady's rough estimate of the danger to your tarantulas.

 

[Jayvicularia]

I very much enjoy handling my T's for thier pictures. I Try to do so about a week after they molt to get best colors. Some of them can be real fiesty. I would probably let a child hold my G. Pulchripes under close adult supervision but none of the others.

 

[Jayvicularia]

I very much enjoy handling my T's for thier pictures. I Try to do so about a week after they molt to get best colors. Some of them can be real fiesty. I would probably let a child hold my G. Pulchripes under close adult supervision but none of the others.

 

[miss moxie]

The safety of the T is not the primary consideration for me, as I explained in my original post.

We don't hold the T because it enjoys it. If I was interested in how the T felt I wouldn't handle it.

I'm 99% done with this thread because -one- idiot on a thread is my limit, but since no one is posting the "proof" that you don't care about your tarantulas, here it is. Now, you'll just go ahead and argue this away but it's enough for me to know that you don't care about your tarantula. It's enough for most people around here as well.

If you did care, you wouldn't put your T's life at risk for your own pleasure. You would care about how the T felt. Now bring on the weak explanation of your words, how they're taken out of context, blah de freakin' blah.

 

[greenbb]

I'm 99% done with this thread because -one- idiot on a thread is my limit, but since no one is posting the "proof" that you don't care about your tarantulas, here it is. Now, you'll just go ahead and argue this away but it's enough for me to know that you don't care about your tarantula. It's enough for most people around here as well.

If you did care, you wouldn't put your T's life at risk for your own pleasure. You would care about how the T felt. Now bring on the weak explanation of your words, how they're taken out of context, blah de freakin' blah.

@miss moxie you've demonstrated in other posts that you don't understand basic words in the english language, or the meaning of words when combined in a sentence, and you don't understand concepts of risk, or posses basic reasoning skills.

You've quoted my exact words back at me which do not say the thing you say that they do. It is absolutely 100% correct, the T is not the _primary_ concern, and if the T's interest were the _only_ thing in the equation then handling it wouldn't make sense. I did not ever say that the T's safety and interests were not important, to the contrary I said I try to take every possible precaution to guard against an accident.

I've stated a number of times that I don't hold the T for pleasure, I consider it a tool for teaching and engagement.

You're out of your element.

 

[miss moxie]

@miss moxie you've demonstrated in other posts that you don't understand basic words in the english language, or the meaning of words when combined in a sentence, and you don't understand concepts of risk, or posses basic reasoning skills.

You've quoted my exact words back and me which do not say the thing you say that they do. It is absolutely 100% correct, the T is not the _primary_ concern, and if the T's interest were the _only_ thing in the equation then handling it wouldn't make sense. I did not ever say that the T's safety and interests were not important, to the contrary I said I try to take every possible precaution to guard against an accident.

I've stated a number of times that I don't hold the T for pleasure, I consider it a tool for teaching and engagement.

You're out of your element.

Haha, sure I am. Again, it's a pet-- not a tool. Example number 3 of how little regard you have for these creatures.

Insulting my intelligence, however...ohhh, I must really be getting under your skin now.

 

[greenbb]

0.45% > 0.00%

It's a small risk (under ideal conditions with sufficiently small made-up numbers), but there's no reason to take it. A possible risk with a possible reward could be considered a risk or an investment. A risk with no reward is, for lack of a better word, reckless.

The statement that "there is no reward" is an opinion, not a fact. I very much feel like the experience is rewarding. That the risk is non-zero was never in dispute.

@greenbb perhaps you should read your first post before claiming anyone misrepresented you. I'll bold a couple fun parts.
1. You posted with the intention of 'getting in people's faces', did you not expect to be treated in kind?

I did expect to be treated in kind. You and others like you need to get off your preachy high horses. Have your opinions that's fine. Stop treating anyone who doesn't agree with you like they're stupid, or wrong, or bad. Stop demonizing.

The difference between myself and other on here like you is you have endlessly twisted my words. You've claimed I don't care about my T and "I've said so myself", etc. Ya'll still haven't done anything more than state your opinions forcefully with a large helping of sarcasm and ridicule. At the gensis of this @Lil Paws and @miss moxie labelled me as a "troll" for having this opinion.

2. Maybe teach your kids to consider the best interest of their pet too.
3. A tarantula is a living creature, and as such respect for it (i.e. not putting it at unnecessary risk) should be fostered at least as much as 'an interest in science.'
4. ties into this next part...

You're implying something here that I don't agree with, and that is I'm somehow teaching my kid not to care about the T by handling it. I don't agree with that world view, and I don't ever encourage reckless behavior.

It is, and I would hope most reasonable people would have inferred this from my posts by now, the only way with inherent risk. It's what the car analogy was about, it's why I suggested molts, feeding, jumping spiders... You told me your car has more features, so either you really don't understand the concept of an analogy, or you think handling has 'more features' than everything else suggested. But you didn't say what they are. And your explanation now, that your son is 'fascinated with tarantulas,' doesn't explain why you're having your toddler handle a tarantula or why he's not interested in feeding or molts.

He is interested in all those things. I'm really sorry if you don't understand the difference between tactile contact vs looking through a glass cage, in particular with a child. Again, it's cool if you don't agree. Just stop selling your wares like you've got all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is "wrong".

Now imagine if we were talking about something more cuddly, would you be making the same argument? Try this. It's ridiculous to weight the safety of the dog above cementing a child's interest in science. You have to put the dog in danger because, come on, your kid loves dogs, right? How else is he going to stay interested in dogs unless he's feeding them chicken bones or opening the gate so they can run out in the street?

No. It's a ridiculous argument with any other animal, and it's a ridiculous argument with tarantulas too.

It's a ridiculous argument because you've made it artificially ridiculous and you should stop because it looks like you can't reason.

An accurate analogy would have been would you let your kid pet or hold your dog if it put the dog at risk for injury no matter how remote? However, you don't do that because you'd be forced to show how much more reasonable that actually is, and may not have a universally accepted opinion.

First of all, lmao.
Second, why do you feel compelled to quantify unnecessary risk before avoiding it? Do you look up traffic fatality statistics before putting on your seatbelt? Or do you just put it on because there's no significant benefit to not wearing one?

I wear a seatbelt so I don't die in an accident. It's also the law and there are demonstrable statistical benefits in injury/death risk reduction in doing so. You on other hand have zero information other than something bad might happen.

Third, what I'm doing is more like advising people to bring their kids in during a thunderstorm. Odds of being struck by lightning are about 1 in 12,000, since you like quantifiable risks. Much lower than Nightshady's rough estimate of the danger to your tarantulas.

Dude seriously how do you not how flawed this type of hyperbolic argument is? A child could die if struck by lighting. Riding a bike is a lot more risk than holding a T under close supervision.

You can admit you're wrong now, I'll be here. We all respect that you don't handle, and I think your reasons are perfectly valid. My choice to handle for the reasons I've stated are completely valid. @miss moxie and @Lil Paws and @Nightstalker47 you are toxic.

 

[greenbb]

Haha, sure I am. Again, it's a pet-- not a tool. Example number 3 of how little regard you have for these creatures.

Insulting my intelligence, however...ohhh, I must really be getting under your skin now.

I'll admit it is challenging. There is not a whole lot of intelligence to insult.

 

[Swoop]

Still at it huh?

I offered you two tactile alternatives in my second post. You keep demanding quantifiable risk to the 'tool' but you can't quantify the benefit and any benefits you mention can be provided easily by other means.

You can admit you're an irresponsible pet owner now.

 

[Lil Paws]

Nightshady, you're an awesome guy, but we are in disagreement here.

First, this really isn't so much about demonizing that guy. Please re-read some of his posts (or at least the parts people are quoting). It's fine to have a different opinion. However, he was rude from the start, labeling the people who previously offered the OP as being part of a cult (name-calling). He also has elements of someone who is here to stir things up. This thread was dead for about *two weeks*. I bet the OP already bought her pet (or at least made a decision). So a brand new account owner comes on to call the majority of people previously offering advice names? Then he goes on to say he lets his preschool kids handle? Hmmmm...

On top of that, there are safety issues. I respect you let your teenage son handle his pet and that you taught him how to do it safely, but a 13 year old is not the same as a preschooler.

I am not anti-handling. I don't do it myself, but I don't agree it's always bad if the owner is careful and takes their animal's personality into consideration. If an animal comes out onto one's hand without being heavily poked and prodded and does not show signs of stress then it is not afraid. Many Ts don't want to be handled, but there are always exceptions to rules and these animals (be as simple as they are) appear to have a lot of variations of personalities even within a species. If someone is being respectful to their pet, knows how to read its body language, and taking safety precautions? Good for them.

But it is concerning to involve very small children in that directly and act like it's no a big deal. I find it interesting that for all we've heard of this person talking about how much he and his very small children handle, he barely touches how he does it *safely* for either his children or his pets.

If a T is in a 3 YO's hand I don't buy for a second there is enough distance for the T not to hair that child in the face (unless you have a freakishly big 3 YO or your child has arms of a chimp). I don't buy for a second you can keep a preschooler from putting his or her face close to the T. I can barely keep my calm 8 year old from putting her face close to a T when I have the lid open—and she is a mellow child for her age.

Then having taught some classes with differently aged children and known a number of my kid's friends since they were babies, I've seen that even wonderfully mellow, thoughtful preschoolers have unpredictable impulse control. They all have "crazy little kid moments" where they just can't control their little bodies and do something unpredictable. It's normal for that age. Kids are pretty much like that until they are about 10ish. That—along with the small size of a preschooler and their delicate skin—does not make for safe T handling—even with a parent being close and careful.

And while the risk is low if you have a mellow child and mellow T, if an accident does happen—especially if it involves injury on the small child's part—it could be very serious. While the NW species have low toxin venom, there's still no guarantee that someone won't have an allergic reaction. The ultricating hairs sound even more confusing to deal with—especially if they get into a child's eyes (that boy was in and out of the hospital for over a year!).

Why are some of us so upset about that when it's someone else's choice to risk? Because stupid things like that can impact animal ownership. If enough incidents come out in the media, Ts can and will become banned. That risks folks' ability to add to their collection and it even risks ownership if your pets get confiscated.

Look at pitbulls? While they have a high prey drive if they are not well-socialized as small pups, they were bred to be gentle with humans. Petey from the Little Rascals was a pitbull. They used to be a staple family dog back then the same way Golden Retrievers are this day. That's because they are bred to be human-friendly. You want a dog who fights to be gentle with humans so you can pull it out of the ring without getting your arm chewed off. The thing is pits now have a reputation for being scary, and there are loads of people who misunderstand them—believing they are born wanting to chew off people's faces.

What happens from that? A couple pit owners do not keep/raise their dogs safely, and a couple people (or pets) get hurt. Then the media latches on more and more, and the whole breed gets banned in cities and even countries. People's beloved pets are removed and euthanized because of public ignorance and a few owners who disregard safety.

That could very easily happen with tarantulas. Spiders—especially large hairy ones—are much more terrifying to the majority of the human population than a dog. I think the fear of spiders is even natural unless someone has been desensitized when they were young.

So the question, my friend, is do you want someone's cavalier attitude (or a newbie following someone else's cavalier advice) to put owning our pets at risk?

I have loads of respect for owners who care about their animals—be they handlers or not. I don't for people who are rude to people who think differently than them and choose to treat animals like toys—especially when these animals are already misunderstood to begin with.

To be fair, I don’t think in this instance the risk to child is a credible discussion point, provided you accept that the keeper would not allow the T near the child’s face. Statistically, it is exponentially more dangerous to let your child interact with the family dog than hold a T.

As for risk to the T... can we estimate the actual risk under ideal circumstances? Let’s say a keeper has an extremely docile T that doesn’t bolt or jump, and let’s say they are ONLY handling on the bed with a nice comforter no more than 12” up. First, what is the risk the T would actually fall? I’m totally guessing here, but I would estimate maybe... 1-2%? Now let’s say the T did fall a distance of less than 12” on to a soft comforter. What is the risk of serious injury to the T? I’m also guessing here, but I would have to imagine that it would be almost insignificant. Perhaps 0.1%?

For arguments sake, let’s say it’s a 1.5% risk of fall and a 0.5% risk of injury to T per fall, and that the keeper lets the kids handle 6 times per year for 10 years.

0.015 (risk of fall) x 0.005 (risk of injury per fall) x 60 (times handled) = 0.45% total risk of a serious injury to the T over ten years of handling. Granted, my risk of fall and risk of injury numbers might be off, but if they were in the ballpark, IMO the benefits of interaction for the child and the parent/child bonding would outweigh the risks to the T.

Thoughts?

 

[Arrow01]

I love the Mexican Beauty but read some negative reviews on its temperament. I also am considering the GBB and the pink zebra. Because my son is 4, he would likely get tired of it so I need something that I want but at the same time something docile, not to skittish, and able to be handled so that he can have a good first experience and not get bitten and so that my husband won't leave me! Lol. Also, I am a big animal lover and currently have 2 giant African Millipedes, a ferret, and a leopard tortoise so I have some experience in importance of husbandry.

Brazilian black tarantula is docile

 

[ShyDragoness]

 

[miss moxie]

I just went ahead and ignored him. It's obvious that there is nothing of value to be learned from him. There isn't even anything refreshing to be found in his views, just another arrogant newbie spreading ignorant opinions. For most, it would be enough to see a ton of examples where a tarantula fell and died or lost limbs. But he is not most-- oh no. He is far above us.

You see, I don't talk no goods with words n stuff but he is grandiose in his vocabulary-- he is the golden standard.

The golden standard of mediocrity. No point arguing with stupid. Now, who's going to post the South Park beating a dead horse clip?

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Muahahah user greenbb in only one thread earned a jackpot of 'Dislike/Disagree' ratings, but I think he's funny and I would love to see a Tag Team with SingaporeB

 

[Chris LXXIX]

 

[miss moxie]

Muahahah user greenbb in only one thread earned a jackpot of 'Dislike/Disagree' ratings, but I think he's funny and would love to see a Tag Team with SingaporeB

Don't forget Angel Minkov. They were just on about 'anecdote' this and 'anecdote' that.

But it would be easier if we kept it to a two person team. Because we could refer to them as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.