# Hamster to eat?



## guilherme (Feb 16, 2008)

Hi, I was wondering if there is any problem if I feed my tarantula - Vitalius Longisternalis - wich size is 10 cm, the same as the hamster, with a Sirius Hamster.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 16, 2008)

I think you put your tarantula in danger if you do that. A hamster is going to put up a fight. So unless you are going to thump the hamster hard, there is no point. 
I personally don't think there is a point anyway. Regular feeders for your Ts is plenty enough to keep them happy.


----------



## seanbond (Feb 16, 2008)

guilherme said:


> Hi, I was wondering if there is any problem if I feed my tarantula - Vitalius Longisternalis - wich size is 10 cm, the same as the hamster, with a Sirius Hamster.


a mouse at best...try anoles but they fight back, a steady diet of crix, roaches whatever is plenty for them..


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Feb 16, 2008)

Hamsters are vicious fighters, and trying to feed ANYTHING a prey item the same size as itself - especially with the massive teeth rodents have - is a good way to risk losing your pet. Why would you even _consider_ doing this? 

If it's because you think it would be cool/awesome/make girls like you, so help me I'm going to come through the internet and feed YOU to the spider. :wall:

Crickets. Roaches. Mealworms. Superworms. Not hamsters.


----------



## David Burns (Feb 16, 2008)

A rodents teeth can be easily clipped with finger nail clippers.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Feb 16, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A rodents teeth can be easily clipped with finger nail clippers.


You have got to be kidding me.


----------



## Steven Valys (Feb 16, 2008)

to each, his own.


----------



## guilherme (Feb 16, 2008)

Well, before I knew that hamsters were terible foods, i had already bought it...

So now, i want to know if there is anything i can do to the hamster so he could not hurt the tarantula, or if i wait my tarantula to grow up and then, maybe feed it.


----------



## seanbond (Feb 16, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A rodents teeth can be easily clipped with finger nail clippers.


who would seriously go through the hassle of doing such a thing!?


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Feb 16, 2008)

guilherme said:


> Well, before I knew that hamsters were terible foods, i had already bought it...
> 
> So now, i want to know if there is anything i can do to the hamster so he could not hurt the tarantula, or if i wait my tarantula to grow up and then, maybe feed it.


Or you could just return the freaking hamster instead of maiming or killing it.

The fact that I'm actually having to say this depresses me.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 16, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A rodents teeth can be easily clipped with finger nail clippers.


Yes, they can. Whether or not this is humane is another question. Let me answer that question. NO, IT'S NOT HUMANE!!!!!!

OK, if you wanna feed verts to your tarantula, fine. Its your pet and your risk. Why feed it something that can kill it when alternate 100% safe and guaranteed food sources are available? But hey, its your call. But now you are advocating causing deliberate trauma and pain to the feeder in addition to the nice agonizing death it will soon endure. Jesus god I hope you were kidding even just an iota when you belched that lovely glimpse into one persons mental disorder onto the screen.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 16, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Or you could just return the freaking hamster instead of maiming or killing it.
> 
> The fact that I'm actually having to say this depresses me.


You and me both brother :wall: .


----------



## WARPIG (Feb 16, 2008)

Trade the hamster back for a bunch of crix.

PIG-


----------



## GailC (Feb 16, 2008)

I've head about people feeding mice to T's so why not a hamster? Just make sure to prekill it first. problem solved.


----------



## Rochelle (Feb 16, 2008)

Guilherme....give the hamster to some nice kid who wants a pet and go buy your T. a proper food item. As stated above; unless you're prepared to knock the poor thing senseless before you attempt to feed it to your T.; you are needlessly exposing your T. to serious harm/death. Not to mention the added trauma to the intended food item.
Nothing about this seems like good Tarantula husbandry. 
All you need is a colony of roaches and you'll never have to go looking for feeders again.


----------



## robc (Feb 16, 2008)

I can not say I havn't fed sub adult mice to my T'S but only the very largest (8-9"  L.Parahybana...T.Blondi).....but they where *almost* instantly killed.....If the food Item is as big as your T....it is not going to be killed fast.....it will be more than likely be eaten alive....and who ever stated chipping the rodents teeth is just cruel.....thats not natural....it doesn't happen in the wild.......rob


Just for the record a adult hamster is easily 3x more agressive than a sub adult mouse and will more than likely desroy your T and at the very least take a chunk out of it.


----------



## Rochelle (Feb 16, 2008)

I'm not against feeding the occasional pinky or fuzzy mouse off to a tarantula. I think they would occasionally encounter mice in the wild and so would benefit from including them in their diet. 
I do not, however; recommend setting up a "fight" situation. Pre - killed is most humane and makes the most sense, in that it meets all needs with the least amount of suffering.


----------



## NevularScorpion (Feb 16, 2008)

do not feed the hamster to your T because its too big and it might harm your t. you should just buy a pinkie if you want to feed them some inverts. go to the pet store where you got the hamster and ask the person who sold you to trade it with a bunch of pinkie. also if you feed the hamster to your t chances are 55% tarantula will win 45% hamster will win. its not worth doing this, feed your t a mouse when its 7-9" big that way it will not be to risky.


----------



## TmanPhil (Feb 16, 2008)

I would actually put that at 55 percent hampster 45% T... hampsters are viceous.....buy a roach man....


----------



## robc (Feb 16, 2008)

TmanPhil said:


> I would actually put that at 55 percent hampster 45% T... hampsters are viceous.....buy a roach man....


I say 90/10....I have seen a hamster kill a 2ft python no joke mean sobs


----------



## thedude (Feb 16, 2008)

dude that hole thing about clipping the teeth is just sick and wrong....


yeh dude hamsters are mean like stated above.

i feed my blondi mice every so often, no problem except she can handle them w/o a prob... is 10cm the leg or body length?


----------



## DeTwan (Feb 16, 2008)

Dude are you crazy?!?! I would keep that HAMster for myself.
You ever go to chinese restuarants and they got that super good meat that is splayed out on a shi-kah-bob.
That meat is supposedly the"HAM"ster, dog!
I would pan fry him if I were you dude!


----------



## Eclipse (Feb 16, 2008)

Hamsters are omnivores and will cannibilise live pinkies when given the chance. There's a darkside to every hamster.


----------



## UrbanJungles (Feb 16, 2008)

There would be an even darker side to me if I ever saw someone clip a live hamster's teeth with a nail clipper.


----------



## DeTwan (Feb 16, 2008)

What is your thoughts on pan fryin a hamster?


----------



## thedude (Feb 16, 2008)

UrbanJungles said:


> There would be an even darker side to me if I ever saw someone clip a live hamster's teeth with a nail clipper.


that is pretty sick


----------



## UrbanJungles (Feb 16, 2008)

DeTwan said:


> What is your thoughts on pan fryin a hamster?


As long as you use the right wine...it's not a problem.
;P


----------



## dragonblade71 (Feb 16, 2008)

This thread is so weird.....!


----------



## DeTwan (Feb 16, 2008)

Lol. Someone with a sense of humor! That is right danny, there is nothing like a nice fried hamster with a glass of Don Prion!
Luckily chinese restaurants always have that wine on tap... at least the restaurants that i go to, I don't know what 3rd world restaurant y'all eat at!  'Did he just say that!'


----------



## Moltar (Feb 16, 2008)

I'd just like to add that it's probably a bad idea to use a hamster as a feeder. 

What worked out really well for me though was when i fed my "salmon birdeater" a parrot.


----------



## Sabatta (Feb 16, 2008)

I can't understand how such cold-hearted people who would consider maiming an animal could have a membership on a board that celebrates our love for animals.  It's hypocritical in a sense, unless I misunderstand the meaning of this board.  

Guilherme, if you want to see a "cool fight", search videos on youtube.  There are tons.

If you want to feed your T a variety, and meat is on a large T's natural diet, then feed it pre-killed pinkie mice...  or live food small enough to be killed almost instantly.

I certainly hope you take into consideration all the points of view in this thread and make a wise, humane decision.  There have been people here that ask a question, only to have their answer in mind right from the beginning.  I hope you are asking for advice to aid in your decision, and not just to see who agrees with you.


----------



## thedude (Feb 16, 2008)

you know it's bin discussed alot of times on the boards... to each his own... close the thread


----------



## TmanPhil (Feb 16, 2008)

It worries me that he say "should I wait till the T matures" or something to that affect. if the hamster is the same size as the T, be prepared to have a very sick hamster to take care of in the cage it just took over......  Dude. so wrong... what would compel you to do this


----------



## sonny_soniel (Feb 16, 2008)

*To the OP*

yes. there are a lot of things wrong with you feeding your T a hamster.


----------



## Pink-Poodle88 (Feb 16, 2008)

There's absolutely nothing "wrong" with feeding virtually any other animal that you please to your tarantula... crickets, roaches, goldfish, mice, lizards, you name it. As long as it's small enough to be overpowered, it will usually be eaten.  It happens in the wild all the time. There is simply no possible valid argument that can be voiced against it. 

However, the tarantula you have is probably too small to eat a hamster that size and could end up being injured or killed. I'd advise not doing it, or if you have a much larger spider, feed the hamster to that larger spider instead. Or, return the hamster and get some crickets or something, or a pinkie mouse if you really want to feed a rodent that bad.

It must also be pointed out that a tarantula being killed by its intended prey probably happens at times in the wild often as well. However, this is your pet, and if you really care for it and don't just own it for novelty value like lots of people do seem to own tarantulas unfortunately... then you wouldn't feel compelled to risk it. In the end it's your choice though i suppose.


----------



## thedude (Feb 16, 2008)

hey lets just quit talking about it??? forget about the thread you all are wasting your breath, it's bin gone over MANY times before


----------



## David Burns (Feb 17, 2008)

UrbanJungles said:


> There would be an even darker side to me if I ever saw someone clip a live hamster's teeth with a nail clipper.


A vet told me that rodents teeth is made of the same stuff as our fingernails, she told me that she had to clip the teeth of a rat who's teeth had grown so long that it couldn' eat hard food. As long as you don't clip them to close there is no pain and the teeth will grow back. At no point did I mention the hamster or its fate.

We all draw our lines in different places. Lines that on one side we say these plants, bugs and animals are OK to eat/keep/use, and on the other side of the line we say these plants/inverts/animals shall not be killed/kept/used.  Where I draw the line is no more moral/valid then any other.


----------



## Sabatta (Feb 17, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A vet told me that rodents teeth is made of the same stuff as our fingernails, she told me that she had to clip the teeth of a rat who's teeth had grown so long that it couldn' eat hard food. As long as you don't clip them to close there is no pain and the teeth will grow back. At no point did I mention the hamster or its fate.


In your initial post your suggestion seemed rather morbid, comparable to how some people crush the heads of their roaches so their T's can catch them more easily.  I thought it was a rather callassed suggestion until you finally explained it.  And after looking it up, it seems it is common practise as a treatment.  And I must say it is a relief.

But, I think that if you need to disarm it, then it is too big to be suitable prey.


----------



## UrbanJungles (Feb 17, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A vet told me that rodents teeth is made of the same stuff as our fingernails, she told me that she had to clip the teeth of a rat who's teeth had grown so long that it couldn' eat hard food. As long as you don't clip them to close there is no pain and the teeth will grow back. At no point did I mention the hamster or its fate.
> 
> We all draw our lines in different places. Lines that on one side we say these plants, bugs and animals are OK to eat/keep/use, and on the other side of the line we say these plants/inverts/animals shall not be killed/kept/used.  Where I draw the line is no more moral/valid then any other.


If you recommend using a nail clipper to disarm a rodent that's alot different than "trimming" overgrown rodent teeth.  Your vet is seriously wrong to say that rodent teeth are made out of keratin. They aren't.  You're also seriously wrong by assuming there's no pain.  There are alot of nerve ending connected to rodent incisors which is why so many rodents will often "test nibble" things, anyone who kept any sort of rodent as a pet knows what I mean.  Also, clipping rodents teeth, unless all the way to the gums would only give the rodent a sharper arsenal so it wouldn't be the most intelligent thing to do for several reasons...

I have no issue with people feeding anything they want to their spiders but I do draw the line when it comes to torturing even food items as I believe they have a right to a quick death.  As a professional, I am bound by certain ethics revolving around living animals and I am quick to give a swift a$$-kicking to anyone I see torturing animals...


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 17, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A vet told me that rodents teeth is made of the same stuff as our fingernails, she told me that she had to clip the teeth of a rat who's teeth had grown so long that it couldn' eat hard food. As long as you don't clip them to close there is no pain and the teeth will grow back. At no point did I mention the hamster or its fate.
> 
> We all draw our lines in different places. Lines that on one side we say these plants, bugs and animals are OK to eat/keep/use, and on the other side of the line we say these plants/inverts/animals shall not be killed/kept/used.  Where I draw the line is no more moral/valid then any other.


Teeth are not made of keratin. If by same stuff as your fingernails he meant carbon based molecules, then he was correct. Some rodents have a keratin sheeth, that red color, but the teeth are still enamel, blood, and a lot of nerves. And there is a BIG difference between trimming a rodents teeth for medical purposes and ripping its incisors out to make a death match between it and you pet more fair. Once again, feed your pet what you will but please don't advocate torturing them further for a sick thrill.


----------



## David Burns (Feb 17, 2008)

I made a simple statement that was not malicious. When some of you read it you saw evil.  That evil is yours not mine.  Please don't add words, implication or innuendo to what I said. Thank you.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 17, 2008)

In the wild, Ts will catch anything!

But this is not the wild and we have to be more humane and careful.

1- The bigger the prey item is compared to the T, the more likely the fangs will miss the vital organs and the prey will remain conscious longer...more suffering then.

2- I use warm blooded preys only when I have to leave for a long period of time. Ts are visibly bloated for weeks and you cannot feed them anyway. They indeed can catch and eat them, but it's an occasional treat in the wild and should remain so. I know they are some exceptions, like this guy's blondis thriving on a mice only diet, but I would personnaly be more careful.

The vert preys Ts eat in the wild are mostly cold blooded : small lizards, frogs, sometimes fish. When I feed those to my Ts, they are visibly digested easier. Some arboreal sp catch birds but those have less fat and bone mass than rodents.

I'd feed hamsters to an enormous T, but it has more to do with my hatred of them and my global sadistic nature than the well being of my spider. 


(joke, I am not that cruel folks!!!)


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 17, 2008)

David Burns said:


> I made a simple statement that was not malicious. When some of you read it you saw evil.  That evil is yours not mine.  Please don't add words, implication or innuendo to what I said. Thank you.


When someone is asking how to feed a hamster to a tarantula and you casually ad, "You can clip their teeth with nail clippers.", you are giving it all the connotation it needs to be seen as malicious.


----------



## Aarantula (Feb 17, 2008)

David Burns said:


> A rodents teeth can be easily clipped with finger nail clippers.


----------



## RottweilExpress (Feb 18, 2008)

etown_411 said:


> when i fed my "salmon birdeater" a parrot.



Ah, of course! Don't we all? :?


----------



## Kevmaster06 (Feb 19, 2008)

i no this is a little off topic but  how big was the parrot Etown? And how fast did your T catch it?


----------



## Moltar (Feb 19, 2008)

Nah, I was just joking Kev. I'd never do that. I'm firmly in the camp of "assorted bugs are all your t will ever need". I think feeding vertebrate prey is dangerous, the humanitarian aspect is not as offensive to me personally as endangering the life of the T.

I don't doubt that a large (10"ish) L parahybana or T blondi could eat a small parrot or certainly a parakeet. That doesn't mean i'm going to try it at home, parrots are expensive!


----------



## Kevmaster06 (Feb 19, 2008)

OK, i never feed verts to my Ts either. Yeah , at my local pet store their parrots are going for 4500$ 




etown_411 said:


> Nah, I was just joking Kev. I'd never do that. I'm firmly in the camp of "assorted bugs are all your t will ever need". I think feeding vertebrate prey is dangerous, the humanitarian aspect is not as offensive to me personally as endangering the life of the T.
> 
> I don't doubt that a large (10"ish) L parahybana or T blondi could eat a small parrot or certainly a parakeet. That doesn't mean i'm going to try it at home, parrots are expensive!


----------



## Steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

I don't understand this, forget the morals for a second, in a practical sense it's much easier to feed your tarantulas crickets because they contain the necessary vitamins and are much less dangerous. I've heard many stories of people giving too many mice/other small mamals to their tarantulas and ending up with molt problems. 

What exactly is the point???????? This feeding of hamsters and mice has nothing to do with the tarantula and has more to do with entertainment of the keeper.


----------



## RottweilExpress (Feb 19, 2008)

Steveyruss said:


> I've heard many stories of people giving too many mice/other small mamals to their tarantulas and ending up with molt problems.


Yeah and a load of crap it is. There are no proof. There are no testgroups. There is no nothing on the matter. Also, "I've heard stories" of better and faster growth with T's on a meat diet. Reaching larger sizes etc. Hearsay is useless and contradicting.


----------



## DrAce (Feb 19, 2008)

RottweilExpress said:


> Yeah and a load of crap it is. There are no proof. There are no testgroups. There is no nothing on the matter. Also, "I've heard stories" of better and faster growth with T's on a meat diet. Reaching larger sizes etc. Hearsay is useless and contradicting.


You are part right, hearsay is generally useless.  Unless it's all one-way, then it tends (not always) to be saying something.

Look, if I was on an ethics board, dealing with animal care facilities or the like, I wouldn't be giving you ethical permission to be feeding vertibrates to your tarantulas.  Not only is it dangerous to the tarantula, but the vertibrates are generally capable of understanding fear and you have placed them in a very un-natural environment.

Still, this is nothing that anyone else hasn't said, and we have no control over your actions.  We can just advise.


----------



## arachnophoria (Feb 19, 2008)

I think that the argument that this or that happens in nature is only applicable when you are considering the health and well being of a captive.For example, in nature, some species experience a cool,dry period, so I will cool this species down and not mist the enclosure.This is in contrast to the logic that justifies feeding live vertebrates to our invertebrates, b/c IMO, that is more like saying: In nature, some apes fall from the trees and experience broken limbs,critical injury,or death, so at the zoo, we will replicate nature,by ocassionally dropping an ape from a great height.Obviously there is no benifit to replicating nature in that way and causes unnecsessary suffering....the same is true for feeding live vertebrates to Ts.It may happen in nature,but is not necessary,is not conducive humane treatment of the feeder,and if the T is injured,nor the T.I am not sitting in judgment of those who choose to feed anoles,pinkies,and such, but repeatedly posting questions regarding the topic of feeding pets to pets is just serving to stir the pot IME.
I will even go as far as to say,I like seeing my Ts catch and kill a roach or cricket, it interest me.I do not however,like to see anything suffer.Feeding mice to snakes...A OK with me...it's required and they are designed to dispatch them quickly,if they don't take prekilled,but I still dislike hearing a pinky squeak in fear/pain, when a young rat snake grabs it for dinner.We are less responsible for seeing that our T gets the vertebrate it may have encountered once in its natural life or never at all in our care,than being responsible for providing a safe and healthy source of housing,temperature gradients,and food.In short, do as you wish,but there is not justification for it and the majority of folks dislike hearing about it,so keep the event to yourself.


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

DrAce said:


> Look, if I was on an ethics board, dealing with animal care facilities or the like, I wouldn't be giving you ethical permission to be feeding vertibrates to your tarantulas.  Not only is it dangerous to the tarantula, but the vertibrates are generally capable of understanding fear and you have placed them in a very un-natural environment.


I really don't see anything unethical with feeding vertebrates to invertebrates. Hamsters, before we adopted them as pet animals, DID have wild predators, just to remind you. They are therefore not foreign to fear, predation, and the natural "I eat you, you eat me" cycle. Any animal that is predacious will eat ANY animal that it can. Whether T's "naturally" eat hamsters, or lizards or white mice in the wild is irrelevant--they can and DO eat vertebrates. Animal emotions mean squat. They are creatures--they do not have minds. They are not sentient. Cruelty I do not condone--it is Biblically prohibited--but in the end, animals are here for us to use them. We eat cows, we hunt deer, we angle for fish, we chop chickens' heads off. Hamsters should not be abused, but they do not have ethical or sentient rights. In the end, if people want to risk their pets ( which they OWN and can do with as they PLEASE ) by feeding them vertebrates, that is their decision, and there is nothing morally wrong about it, except perhaps being wasteful of their pet if it gets killed.

For myself, I wouldn't risk a hamster, simply because they have teeth. It might bite my T's leg off, or puncture its abdomen. However, I HAVE fed a couple baby birds to my Nhandu. They were kicked out of nests, or had their trees cut down, and so were going to die anyway. I let them die productively by nourishing my tarantula. Plus, I enjoy watching my T capture prey. 

One animal ate another animal in a natural phenomenon for my pleasure and the tarantula's benefit. Nothing at all is wrong with that.


----------



## Tescos (Feb 19, 2008)

Hi
Here is a top tip from me you lucky people:-

Tie some string to one of the hamsters back legs,
Now swing that hamster around you head for about 5 minutes,
As soon as you have swung it enough quickly feed it to your spider/snake or mother in law if she will accept it.

This way of feeding is totally safe for you spider etc, because after the swinging treatment the hamster will either be too dizzy or too buzy being sick into a bag, to be able to put up much of a fight. 

As you can see there is no reason to fear the rodant wrath when feeding to your inverts etc.

(This also works for babys also) 
Cheers
Chris


----------



## arachnophoria (Feb 19, 2008)

"Animal emotions mean squat. They are creatures--they do not have minds. They are not sentient. Cruelty I do not condone--it is Biblically prohibited--but in the end, animals are here for us to use them. We eat cows, we hunt deer, we angle for fish, we chop chickens' heads off. Hamsters should not be abused, but they do not have ethical or sentient rights. In the end, if people want to risk their pets ( which they OWN and can do with as they PLEASE ) by feeding them vertebrates, that is their decision, and there is nothing morally wrong about it, except perhaps being wasteful of their pet if it gets killed."

Then I should think you would have no problem being tossed back in forth, like a seal by a pod of predatory orcas, since they eat warm blooded mammals and sometimes play with their food.Why would you be an exception to your theory that prey animals deserve no consideration and are here to serve us...why not you serve them as well?That's a load of crap,I'm sorry.Oh,and the all mighty Bible inevitably comes into play.Well how many more hateful and outdated things can we justify with that human-written interpertation of the God's word?I wonder......


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

Tescos said:


> Hi
> Here is a top tip from me you lucky people:-
> 
> Tie some string to one of the hamsters back legs,
> ...




ROFL!!!!:clap: :clap: 

That's hilarious!


----------



## Steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

RottweilExpress said:


> Yeah and a load of crap it is. There are no proof. There are no testgroups. There is no nothing on the matter. Also, "I've heard stories" of better and faster growth with T's on a meat diet. Reaching larger sizes etc. Hearsay is useless and contradicting.


Tarantulas are infinitely more like to feed on bugs than mamals, it makes perfect logical sense because it's their staple diet. Why not keep it safe and stick to the tarantulas NEEDS.  All we have is 'hersay' unless you want to move into a 'moral' argument, which is useless. The more people who do this kind of stuff the harder and harder it will be to purchase exotic animals in the future. You sound like one of those geeks on Youtube justifying their 'tarantula vs rat' videos.


----------



## Crazy0monkey (Feb 19, 2008)

im not gonna be mean liek alot of replys here. I think u should not feed the hamster. The hamster is  2 big for the t. If u do feed teh hamster make sure the hamster is pre killed. Id also wait for ur  t to get a bit bigger. If u like a  little  struggle which im guessing you do. Just buy a pinky mouse or a small furry mouse. But please dont throw a  hamster or something that could easily hurt ur  t. Best of wishes  to you


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

arachnophoria said:


> "Animal emotions mean squat. They are creatures--they do not have minds. They are not sentient. Cruelty I do not condone--it is Biblically prohibited--but in the end, animals are here for us to use them. We eat cows, we hunt deer, we angle for fish, we chop chickens' heads off. Hamsters should not be abused, but they do not have ethical or sentient rights. In the end, if people want to risk their pets ( which they OWN and can do with as they PLEASE ) by feeding them vertebrates, that is their decision, and there is nothing morally wrong about it, except perhaps being wasteful of their pet if it gets killed."
> 
> Then I should theing you would have no problem being tossed back in forth, like a seal by a pod of predatory orcas, since they eat warm blooded mamals and sometimes play with their food.Why would you be an exception to your theory that prey animals deserve no consideration an are here to serve us...why not you serve them as well?That's a load of crap,I'm sorry.Oh and the all mighty Bible inevitably comes into play.Well how many more hateful and outdated things can we justify with that human-written interpertation of the God's word?I wonder......


It's simple: humans are not animals. We are above the animals by special distinction of sentient life conveyed upon us by God, who _does _require justice for any animal that kills a human. 

Genesis 9:5  "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

If a man commits murder, he must die. If an animal does likewise, it must die.

God gives man stewardship over the animals, and the right to use them:

 Genesis 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

However, the Bible does NOT condone cruelty of man toward animals, but condemns it:

"A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs." --Proverbs 12:10


Here is a link to a good site about the Bible's treatment of animals:

http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/animal_meat.php


----------



## arachnophoria (Feb 19, 2008)

And without attacking your beliefs, I would like to mention that whatever the Bible states about cruelty and animals being here for our use is up to interpertation.Farming animals and killing them for food is normal and a function of daily life,but the cramped,diseased,and disgusting ways that some people keep food animals is still cruelty,as is how thay kill them.To place a living animal in with another that will injure it,cause it pain,and cause severe stress, is also cruel.By those sentiments you agree with dog and cock fights,b/c the animals are here for our pleasure and entertainment,but the outcome is still cruel for the animal and that is why the Bible cannot be taken literally,b/c it leaves gray areas.


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

arachnophoria said:


> And without attacking your beliefs, I would like to mention that whatever the Bible states about cruelty and animals being here for our use is up to interpertation.Farming animals and killing them for food is normal and a function of daily life,but the cramped,diseased,and disgusting ways that some people keep food animals is still cruelty,as is how thay kill them.To place a living animal in with another that will injure it,cause it pain,and cause severe stress, is also cruel.


So, let me get your views correct here: you believe that the Bible is not literally true. In your view ( as stated by your first post ) humans are animals, the product of evolution. You state that it would be natural for an orca to feed on a human, because we are mammals and are similar to their normal prey. You accept that animals must eat animals. But you simultaneously say that it is wrong for animals to put other animals into cages to be eaten by still other animals. If humans are animals, and animals eating each other is natural, what is unnatural about feeding one creature to another, especially if the pleasure you say we derive is beneficial to our well-being, since pleasure is a positive stimulus on our biology? With evolution, if it benefits an organism, it is acceptable, no matter what it does to other organisms.




> By those sentiments you agree with dog and cock fights,b/c the animals are here for our pleasure and entertainment,but the outcome is still cruel for the animal and that is why the Bible cannot be taken literally,b/c it leaves gray areas


Actually, the reverse is true. It is YOUR belief ( that we humans are animals ) that makes cock and dog fighting "normal" and acceptable, because animals naturally hurt other animals. MY view, however, states moral limitations on the basis of our NOT being animals. It is the Biblical view that prohibits cruelty, not the "anything goes" evolutionist view. If you are being a consistent evolutionist, you must hold the view that "natural selection" validates and approves of anything necessary to rise to the top of the food chain. Morality, in your view, is obsolete and ridiculous, whereas in mine it is absolutely essential to human existence. The Bible gives me authorization for rational usage of animals, even for my pleasure ( I keep pets ), but it prohibits me purposeless and malicious torturing of animals. 

Edit: example: If I enjoy seeing a hamster die to feed my tarantula, that is not purposeless: I am nourishing my pet. I enjoy watching it, but it isn't malicious. If I make my living by horse racing, then whipping my horse to make it run faster is not malicious, because I need to do this to make my living and provide for my family--the horse is providing a necessary and rational, justifiable function: my livelihood. This is the difference between use and abuse. Otherwise, we'd have to wind up saying that hooking horses to carriages, making pidgeons carry messages, training dogs to find bombs, etc. are all wrong, because it can/ may cause discomfort / damage to the animal; or, on the other extreme, we'd have to say that ANYTHING you do to an animal is acceptable, because we're all animals so what does it matter? As always, only a PROPER handling of Scripture provides the proper and correct answer to humanity's problems. Sorry, but that really is ok. It is not wrong to make sensible, responsible use of an animal, even if it must die in that process. ( we eat them, remember? ). It IS wrong to be wasteful of animals, to harm them without purpose--because that is an attitude not compatible with the character God wants us to have in imitation of Him, and because it is bad stewardship of the resources He has given to us.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 19, 2008)

I totally agree with you. Hunted animals have a better free life and I think that a well placed bullet is far less painful than getting mauled by a pack of wolves.

But I realy do feel concerned by the fate of farm animals, most of which live a restrained life, get separated harshly from their mothers, are injected weird stuff and everything you might think about (forcefeeding, amputated body parts, the list is endless)

Very few predators allow their preys to suffer for long, and that should be the norm for humans as well.  The suffering from our predation includes the time spent in the ways I described above.

Coming back to T's, that's why I never feed adult rodents. They take longer to die so they suffer.


----------



## Steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:


> It's simple: humans are not animals. We are above the animals by special distinction of sentient life conveyed upon us by God, who _does _require justice for any animal that kills a human.
> 
> Genesis 9:5  "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."
> 
> ...


I didn't think it would be long before the preaching started. :clap:

Really is there any need for this? Not everyone takes the bible seriously, I think you have the wrong board. Religion like farts are best kept to yourself.


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

What can I say? Truth has a source, and I've found it.  Yes, I do approach morality issues with the Bible. It works. 

Here's another one-liner for ya  

Evolutionists are like children: best kept out of the laboratory.

How did we go from hamsters to evolutionists? I sense some "devolution....";P


----------



## arachnophoria (Feb 19, 2008)

According to your own religous inferences,we are supposedly higher than animals.In that ''highness'', we have a choice between what is necassary and what is not.We can chose not whip the horse and not to feed the hamster to the T.Well if all things that create pleasure and are considered positive stimulis,than why are people who have sex outside of marriage wrong,or drug users,or gays(according to christians),or whatever,I think the Bible is just a book of human ideals and therefore, human contradictions.Again,it is all about interpertation and since I am not a sheep, I do interpert for myself.


----------



## Kevmaster06 (Feb 19, 2008)

Guys/girls, this is really stupid. We should just delete this thread because it is causing problems. And now we are starting the God vs Evolution thing. If you want to do that go to church but this is *Arachnoboards* not *God's Boards*. Talk about the bible somewhere else.


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

arachnophoria said:


> According to your own religous inferences,we are supposedly higher than animals.In that ''highness'', we have a choice between what is necassary and what is not.We can chose not whip the horse and not to feed the hamster to the T.Well if all things that create pleasure and are considered positive stimulis,than why are people who have sex outside of marriage wrong,or drug users,or gays(according to christians),or whatever,I think the Bible is just a book of human ideals and therefore, human contradictions.Again,it is all about interpertation and


Well, I suppose I could put a rocket on the horse, but that would be cheating, and that's bad.. 

Not all sources of pleasure of justifiable. I might enjoy strangling you, but it would be wrong. Humans very often derive pleasure from perversions, which are wrong for reasons not related to animal usage. 



> since I am not a sheep, I do interpert for myself.


So do I. "Baaaah" really is an empirically-provable good sound to make.

( God wants people to deliberately choose Him, not say "yes master" like a robot. Therefore, making an intelligent decision after review the facts is an INTEGRAL part of the gospel. The Bible is not about chucking your brain, but USING it ).


I guess the OP didn't realize what a debate this would become! Animal rights is a hot topic. I don't see varying views of morality being off-topic, but the God vs evolution thing probably would be.


----------



## Stylopidae (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:


> What can I say? Truth has a source, and I've found it.  Yes, I do approach morality issues with the Bible. It works.
> 
> Here's another one-liner for ya
> 
> ...



So is that why I have about 100 pages worth of material you have yet to reply to in TWH?

Seriously...you've never won an evolution 'debate' in TWH and you're in conflict with the vast majority of the scientific community.

I can give you a damn good court case which dissects the _thousands_ of errors and inaccuracies in the creation textbook _Of Pandas and People_.

It's not 'creation science' that's prominant in laboratories around here. Evolution is alive and well...and whether you like to admit it or not, it's the backbone of modern biology.



Venom said:


> So, let me get your views correct here: you believe that the Bible is not literally true. In your view ( as stated by your first post ) humans are animals, the product of evolution. You state that it would be natural for an orca to feed on a human, because we are mammals and are similar to their normal prey.





arachnophoria said:


> Then I should think you would have no problem being tossed back in forth, like a seal by a pod of predatory orcas, since they eat warm blooded mammals and sometimes play with their food.Why would you be an exception to your theory that prey animals deserve no consideration and are here to serve us...why not you serve them as well?





Venom said:


> You state that it would be natural for an orca to feed on a human, because we are mammals and are similar to their normal prey.


That doesn't seem to be what he's saying at all as I understand it...rather he's comparing feeding a mouse to a T to feeding a human to an Orca...and pointing out that it's unjustified. Which is still a rediculous statement by any standard...pretty much a straw man on _his_ part.

However:



> You accept that animals must eat animals. But you simultaneously say that it is wrong for animals to put other animals into cages to be eaten by still other animals. If humans are animals, and animals eating each other is natural, what is unnatural about feeding one creature to another, especially if the pleasure you say we derive is beneficial to our well-being, since pleasure is a positive stimulus on our biology?


It is not wrong for animals to assist animals in gathering food...this in the animal kingdom is known as commensalism and there are hundreds of examples I could show you, although none of them compare to the pet-owner interaction Ts and humans have and because of that I'm not sure observations from the animal kingdom are neccessarily valid in this case.



> With evolution, if it benefits an organism, it is acceptable, no matter what it does to other organisms.


However, this doesn't apply to ethics in human society. The way things are in the animal kingdom don't dictate how sentient beings should act towards one another or even their animal counterparts.

Again...ingestive heterotrophs with tissue organization and connective tissue. We _are_ animals. We are animals who know right from wrong.

The bible doesn't have much to do with this and neither does the feild of evolutionary biology...there are safer ways of nourishing this pet than live feeding of animals which can harm it. End of story, less than a paragraph and no religion involved.


----------



## Moltar (Feb 19, 2008)

I once fed my python a baby hippopotamus. It's ok because Jesus says hippo's have no soul.


----------



## arachnophoria (Feb 19, 2008)

I just want to state that I am not athiest,I just get a little carried away when people utilize religion to justify what they think is ok.It is still just a difference in opinion and religion is a secondary and needless element that I will remove from my end of the discussion.


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> So is that why I have about 100 pages worth of material you have yet to reply to in TWH?


I could compile a similar amount of questions you have yet to satisfactorily answer. 



> Seriously...you've never won an evolution 'debate' in TWH and you're in conflict with the vast majority of the scientific community.


Not that it matters, but I have actually. Once upon a time I proved that acceptance of evolution resulted in a degrading of traditional morality. And, disagreeing with me doesn't mean I haven't proved my point--just that someone didn't realize or accept it.



> I can give you a damn good court case which dissects the _thousands_ of errors and inaccuracies in the creation textbook _Of Pandas and People_.


What do I care about that? I have never defended that book ( never read it ). But I'll follow you to court any day if you think you have case against the Bible. That book I will defend.



> It's not 'creation science' that's prominant in laboratories around here. Evolution is alive and well...and whether you like to admit it or not, it's the backbone of modern biology.


600 years ago, Aristotelean cosmology was prevalent in all universities. Popularity does not determine reliability ( quite the opposite in most cases ). 




> Again...ingestive heterotrophs with tissue organization and connective tissue. We _are_ animals. We are animals who know right from wrong.


I never contested that we have a mammalian body. Just because an iphone is shaped like a phone, doesn't mean it isn't MORE than a phone. We are MORE than biological, even though are bodies are mammalian.



> The bible doesn't have much to do with this and neither does the feild of evolutionary biology...there are safer ways of nourishing this pet than live feeding of animals which can harm it. End of story, less than a paragraph and no religion involved.


I never said feeding the hamster was a good idea either. In fact, I think its dangerous and irresponsible....just not "morally unacceptable." I wouldn't recommend it, but I don't condemn it either.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:


> ( God wants people to deliberately choose Him, not say "yes master" like a robot. Therefore, making an intelligent decision after review the facts is an INTEGRAL part of the gospel. The Bible is not about chucking your brain, but USING it ).



If all religious people though like this, we'd have far less problems with religion per see. Sadly, too many authorities have made religion an obligation with no regard of the individual's feelings. Hence this defensive attitude from some folks.


----------



## UrbanJungles (Feb 19, 2008)

All hamsters go to hell anyway....says so in the Bible.  Thanks to Richard Gere Gerbils have a place in hell too.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:


> As always, only a PROPER handling of Scripture provides the proper and correct answer to humanity's problems.


Don't even go there, buddy.

Come on, guys. This thread was weird enough already, we don't need a bible-thumpers vs. seculars "mine's bigger!" showdown in a _tarantula forum,_ do we?


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

I'm beginning to wonder if this should be moved to the Watering Hole. :? 




> Sadly, too many authorities have made religion an obligation with no regard of the individual's feelings.


Merfolk: You can thank Roman Catholicism for that.


----------



## DrAce (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:
			
		

> "Animal emotions mean squat. They are creatures--they do not have minds. They are not sentient. ... In the end, if people want to risk their pets ( which they OWN and can do with as they PLEASE ) by feeding them vertebrates, that is their decision, and there is nothing morally wrong about it, except perhaps being wasteful of their pet if it gets killed."
> 
> ...


You are blatantly wrong here.  'Sentience' is not something binary which is turned on and off.  
Sentience is defined by 'having the capacity for consciousness and feelings.
While some organisms are most certainly not sentient, hamsters, and many mammals are most certainly sentient.
Consciousness isn't even something you can define.  You cannot therefore exclude the possibility that another organism posesses it without invoking personal beliefs.  Rodents are capable of elementary 'conscious' behaviors.  It's reasonable to assume they are therefore 'conscious' to some degree.
That being said, this is not the same as 'feeling pain'.  That topic has been thrashed.



Venom said:


> I really don't see anything unethical with feeding vertebrates to invertebrates. Hamsters, before we adopted them as pet animals, DID have wild predators, just to remind you. They are therefore not foreign to fear, predation, and the natural "I eat you, you eat me" cycle. Any animal that is predacious will eat ANY animal that it can. Whether T's "naturally" eat hamsters, or lizards or white mice in the wild is irrelevant--they can and DO eat vertebrates. Animal emotions mean squat. They are creatures--they do not have minds. They are not sentient. Cruelty I do not condone--it is Biblically prohibited--but in the end, animals are here for us to use them. We eat cows, we hunt deer, we angle for fish, we chop chickens' heads off. Hamsters should not be abused, but they do not have ethical or sentient rights. In the end, if people want to risk their pets ( which they OWN and can do with as they PLEASE ) by feeding them vertebrates, that is their decision, and there is nothing morally wrong about it, except perhaps being wasteful of their pet if it gets killed.
> ...


Your original assumptions are wrong, Venom.  Hamsters most certainly have natural predators.  I don't personally think that tarantulas are among them, naturally, but that's not actually the reason for the ethical dilemma.  From wikipedia I found:
"Hamsters' northern range extends from central Europe through Siberia, Mongolia, and northern China to Korea. The southern portion of their range stretches from Syria to India. Throughout dry, open country they inhabit desert borders, vegetated sand dunes, shrubby and rocky foothills and plateaus, river valleys, and mountain steppes; some live among cultivated crops. Geographic distribution varies greatly between species. The common hamster, for example, is found from central Europe to western Siberia and northwestern China, but the golden hamster has been found only near a small town in northwestern Syria."  It's unlikely that tarantulas are a major predator for the hamster.

The situation you have placed BOTH organisms in is far from natural, and invoking natural arguements to defend that position is clearly wrong.  If you allowed the hamster an escape route, then there is a possibility of that argument being somewhat more acceptable.

On the other hand, part of animal handling ethics is to minimise stress to the organisms in question.  Clearly, there are non-sentient food items available.  They would not suffer as a consequence of being a food item, as they lack the capacity for it.  It is therefore unethical to chose the food item which MAY experience suffering as a consequence.


----------



## Stylopidae (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:


> I could compile a similar amount of questions you have yet to satisfactorily answer.


Link me. I'm calling your bluff...do it.

The last time we went through this was with an addition of information, where you finally defined it in a way I could use and then I tore your argument limb from limb in a very precise 3 post paper which cited sources from peer-reviewed journals.

You never replied. 



> Not that it matters, but I have actually. Once upon a time I proved that acceptance of evolution resulted in a degrading of traditional morality. And, disagreeing with me doesn't mean I haven't proved my point--just that someone didn't realize or accept it.


When?

All your 'arguments' against evolution and morality I've read assume that people would integrate social darwinism into the legal structure...in essence saying that the observations of how competition, natural selection and mutation effect genetic structure are the way they 'ought' to be...which simply isn't the case.

A similar argument would be to cite this article from CNN and claim it was racist...by pointing out that CNN is saying that 'people are racist' therefore they endorse racism.

Furthermore, most of the arguments I've read (admittedly, none of them yours) from AiG are just arguments from incredulity...that they don't think morality could have sprung from evolution, and therefore it didn't. None ever mention kin selection and also don't factor the development of empathy.

Either way, you've employed a slippery slope with regards to evolution and implications. In the past, you have claimed that accepting evolution will lead to a certian chain of events that will lead to racism and genocide. You do this so you can avoid addressing the validity of the argument in front of you and instead focus on an imagined outcome.



> What do I care about that? I have never defended that book ( never read it ). But I'll follow you to court any day if you think you have case against the Bible. That book I will defend.


I've made my case against using an unverifiable authority to uphold a moral foundation many times in TWH.

However, _Of Pandas and People_ was a Young Earth Creationist pseudoscience textbook pre-1987 and post 1987 used a global word editor to replace 'God' with 'Creator' and removed all refrences to the age of the Earth.

With very few differences, the assertions you've made here on AB are repeated there verbatim.



> 600 years ago, Aristotelean cosmology was prevalent in all universities. Popularity does not determine reliability ( quite the opposite in most cases ).


Consensus isn't a fact based exersize...however your original comment implied that the majority of the scientific community shares your beliefs and this certianly isn't the case.

I wasn't making an argument from authoritarian popularity...I was responding to yours (unless I misinterpreted your original comment...which I do from time to time).

Either way, this does nothing to prove your point. Remember Copernicus and Galileo and the fact the Church took nearly 200 years to accept the world was roughly spherical?

We could go back and forth all day.



> I never contested that we have a mammalian body. Just because an iphone is shaped like a phone, doesn't mean it isn't MORE than a phone. We are MORE than biological, even though are bodies are mammalian.


Which is equivocation at best.

I could say that humans are 'hampsters' and define 'hampster' as 'hairy' and I'd just be just as correct. You can't define 'animal' as 'non sentient being' just to make the two terms mutually exclusive.

In a philosophical sense, this is debatable. However if you're talking in a biological sense, you're dead wrong.

The iphone is a crappy example, because I can find half a dozen phones (namely my current one, which isn't an iphone) which perform the same or similar functions. So...let's ignore those just so your argument works.

An iphone is a phone. It sends and recieves voice information...which is all that is required by the definition to be a phone.

However by screwing with definitions and semantics I could turn it into a computer, a midget or a wholphin if I so wished.

When I use the term 'animal' I always refer to the biological definition and none other.

Semantic difference, but it's important if you're going to be assigning value judgments to the term.



> I never said feeding the hamster was a good idea either. In fact, I think its dangerous and irresponsible....just not "morally unacceptable." I wouldn't recommend it, but I don't condemn it either.


I'd say that by buying an animal you've essentially made the committment to give it the utmost care, which includes ensuring it's saftey.

By making that obligation and then feeding it an animal which you know could cause harm to that spider, you'd be reneging on your obligation as a pet owner and I would say that's morally unacceptable.

But...hey, not my spider. Do what you wish, OP


----------



## Stylopidae (Feb 19, 2008)

DrAce said:


> You are blatantly wrong here.  'Sentience' is not something binary which is turned on and off.
> Sentience is defined by 'having the capacity for consciousness and feelings.
> While some organisms are most certainly not sentient, hamsters, and many mammals are most certainly sentient.


I'd argue that sentience is a continuum...and mice are placed somewhere near the middle, but nowhere near humans.

Rodents, do, however feel pain. The mice you buy in petstores as feeders aren't all that different from lab mice. Biologically speaking, anyways.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010129063808.htm

Not totally relevant, but I happened to stumble upon something a biochemist such as yourself might be interested in, Dr.Ace. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129125533.htm


----------



## DrAce (Feb 19, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> I'd argue that sentience is a continuum...and mice are placed somewhere near the middle, but nowhere near humans.
> 
> Rodents, do, however feel pain. The mice you buy in petstores as feeders aren't all that different from lab mice. Biologically speaking, anyways.
> ...


Agreed, although I actually don't think humans are as far along the 'sentience' scale as you consider them... or at least most mammals are pretty close to us (IMO).

Feeding a feeder mouse to a python and a tarantula are two very different things.  There is a clearly defined requirement for a python to eat rodents.  There is no such thing with tarantulas.

Would you believe I'd read all about the naked mole rat the other day.  Someone tested me by showing me a photo of one (having seen that very article) and asking me if I knew what it was.  

I did.


----------



## ctsoth (Feb 19, 2008)

Steveyruss said:


> I didn't think it would be long before the preaching started. :clap:
> 
> Really is there any need for this? Not everyone takes the bible seriously, I think you have the wrong board. Religion like farts are best kept to yourself.


The "preaching" was a correction of another's view, a reply to hateful ignorance.  The guy was defending himself, and now you attack him.  Discrimination in any form is wrong.


----------



## RottweilExpress (Feb 19, 2008)

Steveyruss said:


> Tarantulas are infinitely more like to feed on bugs than mamals, it makes perfect logical sense because it's their staple diet. Why not keep it safe and stick to the tarantulas NEEDS.  All we have is 'hersay' unless you want to move into a 'moral' argument, which is useless. The more people who do this kind of stuff the harder and harder it will be to purchase exotic animals in the future. You sound like one of those geeks on Youtube justifying their 'tarantula vs rat' videos.


What? You don't know anything about their needs, you're guessing and making logical assumptions. You don't know anything about their metabolism or how they brake down macronutrients. It hasn't been researched througly. Besides, evolution making asian burrowers venom more potent towards rodents says alot. Not to mention the big terrestials of southern america who are obligate burrowers, taking over old hides, roaming freely quite oftenly. They don't turn down rodents passing by, that's for sure. They even scavenge to a certain point.

And don't insult me, it's not at place on arachnoboards.

And no, I haven't ever served a live mammal to any pet of mine.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 19, 2008)

Wow, this got derailed. I dunno whether I should start researching dietary requirements and nutritional values of hamsters, or consulting baptists, priests, and rabbis as to whether god would want you to use nail clippers to hack away at somethings teeth before you feed it to your pet and how Jesus would weigh in on such an issue.


----------



## aracnochicken (Feb 19, 2008)

This has to be the ABSOLUTE stupidest thread I have ever seen. It's amazing how one dumb question can get everyone at each others throats .Not to mention it somehow turned into a religious battle .What is wrong with you people ???? Ya know I joined because I thought there were some pretty smart people here......I guess I was wrong , It just looks like a bunch of bullies looking for a fight .Is this what happens when you all can't agree on something ...bash each other ?

  Mods if you read this do me a favore , delete my screen name , I'm done with this board .


----------



## lychas (Feb 19, 2008)

I really cant be bothered reading through all 6 pages of this. Anyone who feeds live verts to ther t's, scorps, pedes or reptiles should grow up. There is no need at all to feed live(some exceptions with reptile). We have the responsibilty as keepers to make sure our animals get the best of care and also we have the responsibilty of makeing sure out prey animals dont suffer. If you MUST feed verts they should be pre-killed. I dont think its very plesant for the feeder, i actually think it would be very painful. Also as for the excuse "it happens in the wild"...THIS ISNT THE WILD!!! This is captivity and we need to make a few modifications to make our pets lives better and as i already said, make sure the prey items do not suffer. People who knowingly make vert feed items suffer are not the sort we want representing our hobby.


----------



## Moltar (Feb 19, 2008)

Uhhmmm... God hates this thread.

So do I but it's like this morbid fascination. I have to keep coming back to see how much worse it's gotten!

If this argument was a sport i'd have my evolutionist jersey on...


----------



## Venom (Feb 19, 2008)

etown_411 said:


> Uhhmmm... God hates this thread.


That's a separate thread, and it DEFINITELY belongs in TWH., lol!! If you don't know what I mean, you are fortunate. :wall:


----------



## arachnophoria (Feb 19, 2008)

I have to apologize, as I feel I instigated the religous end of things, by commenting on another poster's use of Bible text to back up his opinion.I since chose to leave the religous end of the conversation out of this, b/c it is not relevant,just presents another set of differing opinions.
My apologies also to VENOM,for suggesting that he was a ''sheep''.It was wrong to stoop to insults,simply b/c I disagree with him.I was bothered by the assumptions that I was an evolutionist,b/c I disagreed with his opinion of what God expects from us,regarding animals treatment.In any case, I think the majority have indicated, be it for moral,ethical,intellectual,spiritual,emotional,or for safety of the T,the hamster,or the sanctity of the holy order of cheese eaters,feeding the hamster to the T is not advised.And,since the OP has long since abandoned the post,I bow out gracefully.Peace


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 19, 2008)

Venom said:


> That's a separate thread, and it DEFINITELY belongs in TWH., lol!! If you don't know what I mean, you are fortunate. :wall:


Oh yea, and your way off topic rantings belong in the Tarantula Question forum.


----------



## G. pulchra (Feb 19, 2008)

Whatever happened to the hampster


----------



## s1akr (Feb 19, 2008)

Since just about every member of AB contributed, I guess I'll throw in my $0.02 into the jar.

No, I wouldn't feed any of my Ts a hamster merely because it might hurt my T.  Even though most of the people I know consider them as creepy, gross and disgusting, I love them and would feel bad if they get hurt, especially if they get hurt because of my bad decisions.  But, if you think the chance of injuring or even killing your T is worth the risk to take for the excitement of watching a predator killing a prey, then there's nothing anyone could say to make you change your mind; by all means, do it.

But, if you do why would you use nail clippers to clip off their front teeth?  Isn't your point of feeding your T a hamster is to see what would happen when a T goes up against a hamster?  If you do clip them off, then the point of the feeding would just be a food source then right?  Then why not just feed your T a fuzzy?  It's much safer.


----------



## von_z (Feb 19, 2008)

All I can say is WOW.......lets move on people.


----------



## ctsoth (Feb 20, 2008)

Ooo, and on topic. 


Umm, the thing is, I typically don't tell people what to think in regards to morality, as I think doing so is a tad pretentious.  I do however think it is risky, and you will most likely have a dead critter or two.  What I do think is hilarious though, is people saying it is animal cruelty and berating the original poster.  Do you not think that you may be causing him(her) mental trauma by continued assaults?  Cruelty does not occur through physical contact alone.  

Now, I do think that you should reflect on whether or not you personally think it is morally acceptable to feed that little squeaky thing to your eight lagged bitemotron.  Decide for yourself if you think it is right or wrong.  

Regardless of the moral aspect, I think you will most likely have a dead spider.  Do you want a dead spider?  If you answered no, then don't throw a hamster in the cage.

Easy right?


----------



## thedude (Feb 20, 2008)

nice.. now how many more people are gonna beat this dead horse??? close the thread lol


----------



## Stylopidae (Feb 20, 2008)

Hedorah99 said:


> Oh yea, and your way off topic rantings belong in the Tarantula Question forum.


Exactly. I'm not the one who started down that road...I just happen to know what lies there.

Of course, I hardly ever expect an honest reply...and whenever I actually get one, it generally turns into an argument from assertion.


----------



## Moltar (Feb 20, 2008)

G. pulchra said:


> Whatever happened to the hampster


It trimmed it's own teeth then ate itself out of shame for being the cause of this awful thread.


----------



## Tescos (Feb 20, 2008)

etown_411 said:


> It trimmed it's own teeth then ate itself out of shame for being the cause of this awful thread.


Nah its still being swung around with the string as as the person can't seem to get it dizzy enough.


----------



## Sevenrats (Feb 20, 2008)

This is truly spectacular in the magnitude of ridiculousness we've  arrived at. 

I thought the "my rosea farted" threads were stupid. 

Hamsters, gerbils and Jesus, all in the same thread! If we could squeeze in a little GWB, and Obama it would be awesome!


----------



## FryLock (Feb 20, 2008)

Shame shame on you all i say.. what would the FSM say about all this, think about it as hamsters are very small indeed and did he not create the midget as he did the mountains and the trees    .


----------



## 7mary3 (Feb 20, 2008)

Can we please, PLEASE close this thread??


----------



## ctsoth (Feb 20, 2008)

UsambaraIndian said:


> Can we please, PLEASE close this thread??


You do realize statements such as this do nothing more than bump the thread right?  If people stop saying "please close this" it will die on its own.  Anyways, good riddance to you my hamster gerbil spinning rodent thread.


----------



## guilherme (Feb 24, 2008)

thankssssssssssss


----------

