# A debate with a friend who doesnt believe in keeping animals in tanks



## Kaimetsu (Nov 28, 2010)

I'm having a bit of a talk with a close friend of mine who doesnt believe in keeping animals in tanks or cages, I know there are people on this forum including pitbulllady who have experience countering their arguments and i was wondering if anyone can help me strengthen my arguments.  Heres the convo so far on facebook.

Friend:  you know what is better? stop thinking it's okay to horde animals in tanks.

Me:  i'm sure they appreciate not starving or being eaten by other animals as both are natural conditions for most animals in the wild. They'll also appreciate it after their natural habitats have been completely plowed over and replaced with oil drills and parking lots and the natural populations are completely extinct, at which point captive bread populations will be the only things remaining. Certainly captive arachnids and snakes in the pet trade tend to have as much or more space then they prefer considering they like enclosed spaces. I'm sure dogs appreciate being horded in houses.

Friend:  Dogs get to go outside, take walks, go to the parks, lizards are stuck in a small glass tank. You're making excuses. It's just like saying "I bought a dog from a puppymill because I didn't want to watch it suffer... " it's only replaced by another puppy, or more.

Me:  Wolves travel miles and miles in an average day, far more exercise than a captive dog can ever get unless it's owner is an olympic runner or long distance professional hiker or something. On the other hand tarantulas live their entire lives in burrows or tube webs that arnt much bigger than they are, and snakes will stay perfectly still in the same place for days or even weeks at a time while they wait for prey to walk past. These arnt animals that benefit in anyway from large amounts of space or exercise.


----------



## P. Novak (Nov 28, 2010)

Well I can't really tell you that it is better for the animals to be kept in tanks, but let me point out a couple of things. A majority of these reptiles and arachnids are captive bred, instinctinly all they know is to survive. They don't know the difference between a lucious forest and a large enclosure. As long as food, water, housing, and proper hygiene are met I don't see it any different then what they would experience out in the wild. If anything, it is much easier and healthier for them. Almost all animals kept in captivity outlive their wild counterparts. There are exceptions, and that's just because we haven't figured out their optimal conditions yet. And like you said, their natural enviornment is depleteing. We are ensuring the survival of some species by keeping and breeding. Enviornmental problems are not the only problem though; for example over-fishing and wild caught animals being taken out of their homes and brought to the pet trade. Someone will always be doing it, and to breed them in sufficient amounts they need to be kept in the minimal sized tanks to allow for more individuals to aid in the demand for any pet. I'd rather have the animal kept in a minimally sized tank, than taken out of the wild.

Basically, if all care requirements are met, I feel wild caught animals are the only ones that truely suffer in this debate simply because they have experienced what free space is. 

IMO, Tarantulas and other arachnids are on the bottom of the list for caring about being kept in a tank. They just do not understand, nor do they require much space at all. Most find a burrow and live in it their whole lives.


----------



## Bugs In Cyberspace (Nov 28, 2010)

Kaimetsu,

Concede defeat. Your friend is correct in this argument. It is simply immoral to keep a living organism in any captive environment for mere human use. There is no justifying an individual organism's removal, not just for the sake of the individual, but for the ecosystem that has created it to fill a specific role. The repercussions are incalculable, though seemingly insignificant in the minds of our present culture. Imagine the tiny roles that the smallest consumers play in the environment, which are in turn eaten by others. Every fallen leaf, every decomposing leaf-eating animal forms the soil. Every seed springs from this base.

You can't be human and not be a hypocrite. Accept that, but tread lightly. Our culture does not promote awareness of the imbalance between what you take from the planet and what you give back. Taking two tarantulas from "our" backyard, breeding them in captivity, and returning 200 spiderlings to the wild does not necessarily equate to "giving back", nor does it necessarily help the species even if it does have lower than historical numbers.

Nature is in absolute perfect balance. It takes inconceivable amounts of time to create this perfection. Perfection expects and accounts for change. A few people may help to maintain or manage certain key species in small ecosystem transects, but true refuges and humans don't coexist.

So, while you have lost the argument, you can use a hobby that you enjoy for the potential betterment of ALL species. Tell your friend that you are taking different paths to the same goal. By keeping bugs as pets, you help to assign them a positive role in our culture. Bugs are made out by our culture to be our enemies in multiple ways. Obviously, you have found beauty and fascination in them and you are human. So can others. If people shift their consciousnesses about them from fear and disgust to admiration and respect, imagine how amazing the outdoor world would become to our culture again. I do feel lucky to have the perspective I have on the life outdoors. 

Boredom is something humans should only experience inside their tanks or cages (often with their dogs and cats).


----------



## Earthworm Soul (Nov 28, 2010)

Stop hanging out with annoying people.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Nov 28, 2010)

Heres the response to the last thing i said, i don't have time to respond to it right now.

Friend:   "Wolves and dogs are different, and are bred different, on purpose. Can't compare them.

Even if reptiles stay still, it's ignorant to think they wouldin't be happy in the wild. And even if not, it's ego god like to think it's okay to store them in multiple glass cages, just for your viewing pleasure."

  Bugs in cyberspace i don't think i have lost any argument just because the other side has some good points as well in fact you also provided some more points that i can use in support of my argument.  It is worth keeping these animals in captivity in order to be able to admire their natural beauty and help educate people about them.  If people fear and do not understand these animals because they have never experienced them they are less likely to care about their conservation.

What I'm thinking in regards to this debate is if i can demonstrate to my friend that my animals are at least content in captivity then what will remain of her argument is the belief that animals have a right to be free despite their comfort level.  Then it comes down to my support of animal welfare vs her support of animal rights, the distinction between the two being something i learned from pitbulllady.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Nov 28, 2010)

friend:  Wolves and dogs are different, and are bred different, on purpose. Can't compare them.

Even if reptiles stay still, it's ignorant to think they wouldin't be happy in the wild. And even if not, it's ego god like to think it's okay to store them in multiple glass cages, just for your viewing pleasure.

I asked my friend who is a trantrula expert, HE says that many species of tratulas love running, and often move their tube webs to new places, and that they are extremely fast. He says different species of trantulars have different preferences, some will stay still, some will travel, and some will not hide in burrows or webs at all.

I think lots of children like caged pets... I know I had hamsters, which were purposedly domestically bred, and I still think THAT is wrong now. 

There's a huge difference between domesticated pets that were bred, to the point where they can not survive in the wild at all, and even if they were, their introduction to the wild would cause a huge imbalance in nature.....and wild pets. 

Unless you think a poodle is going to hunt down large prey or scavenge through dead prey. Imagine a chihuahua, who will freeze to death in the wild... a pug who has no signifcant jaw bone to "attach" if it wanted too. Most animals are so poorly bread they have genetic problems that would kill them if left untreated.

So again, you cant compare domesticated animals/wild animals such as wolves. You wouldn't keep a pet wolf, pet tiger, or pet rhino. 

I hate caged birds, I think it's disgusting to keep creatures that are supposed to fly in a cage.

I'm not peta. And I think children should have pets, like that, to teach them about animals which help them contribute to environmental issues in the future. I don't think animals should be kept as show pieces for amusement.

If you were going to eat them go for it.

Hey do what you want, it's just my opinion. I love spiders, snakes, rats, mice and all of that. I just get very sad when I have to see them all caged up in a pet store. 

Obviously rats, and mice in a pet store, could enver live in the wild, since they are bred to have non-natural colors, to be lizard food.

Me:  Most captive reptiles are bred in captivity and can't survive in the wild anymore either. and there is a huge diversity of environments that tarantulas live in and some are very fast, but they don't like to run and they generally only move there homes if they arnt getting enough food or too much moisture or environmental problems like that. On the other hand many male tarantulas will leave their homes to find a mate, many get killed before they ever find one, and those that do find a mature female will usually be eaten by it after they mate. In captivity tarantulas can often be separated after they mate to save the males life. I'm not saying you don't have some good points, you do, but the animals i keep are safe and content, i know i made some mistakes with not taking good enough care of an iguana when i was a kid, but that isnt who i am anymore i take the welfare of my reptile friends very seriously. I'm also not sure they would be happier in the wild, i think i made some good points previously but i also want to point out that their lifespans are significantly longer in captivity.


----------



## pitbulllady (Nov 28, 2010)

Ask your "friend"(and as the old joke goes, "with friends like this, who needs enemas?") if he knows what the word _"anthropomorphism"_ means, and give him a moment to roll all those syllables over in his wee little brain.  His line of thinking-or lack thereof-is a clear example of anthropomorphism, assigning human traits, wants, needs, and abstract thought processes/concepts to things that aren't human.  To make the argument that a tarantula or a snake wants "freedom" because WE do is absolutely ludicrous.  Wild animals don't do what they do because they "enjoy" doing so.  They "run around", etc., because that is what they HAVE to do in order to survive!

Ask him, with regards to the "wolves vs. dogs" things, if he has ever actually lived with a pack of wolves on his property, as I have, and gotten a first-hand chance to actually compare, side-by-side, wolf and dog behavior, especially when the dogs are primitive breeds like Akita Inus.  I bet he hasn't, or he'd know that there really aren't as many differences between fundamental wolf behavior and dog behavior as the AR's want us to believe.  But then, wolves/dogs are also much more intelligent than spiders, so if he REALLY wants to be comparing apples to oranges, he is doing so by comparing a dog to a tarantula, with his whole lame "at least dogs get to go outside" line.  I have no moral issue whatsoever with keeping animals in tanks, inside the house, in a kennel, whatever, anymore than I'd have putting restrictions on what a child can or cannot do.  Much of the whole AR argument is based on anthropomorphism, the belief that if WE want this, or think like that, or feel this way about something, ALL animals, right down the the inverts, feel or think exactly the same way that we do.  If WE would not want to be confined to an enclosure, all animals must hate being confined.  If WE feel a need to go out and mingle with others of our kind, ALL animals want to do the same thing.  If WE want this right or that, ALL animals want the same rights as we do and can understand them and be expected to act responsibly within those rights and should therefore expect to be held accountable for their actions when they don't.

I had the great pleasure of humiliating a local AC officer, who is a strong AR supporter, in public years ago, in a court case involving dogs kept on long chains.  She, like your so-called "friend", believed it was cruel and immoral to confine ANY animal to a space that was smaller than what it would require "in the wild" for more than a few hours, and used as her argument the "would YOU want that" perspective.  I told her that if dogs wanted the same things WE do, then the reverse must also be true.  She agreed.  I then asked her if she greeted people by sniffing their butts or publicly allowed others to sniff HER butt, and when was the last time she rolled on a dead rotting possum carcass.  The judge got into the act, asking her if she and her family drank from the toilet and peed on the front lawn, chased cars and had to turn around 10-15 times before lying down to sleep!  Those are all things that DOGS want to do, after all, part of THEIR "value system" and natural behaviors, so if they make dogs happy, they must make US happy, as well.  Needless to say, that shut her up.  It pointed out that what's good for the goose is NOT necessarily good for the gander.

pitbulllady


----------



## Kaimetsu (Nov 28, 2010)

I can assure you this friend is a good person worth having as a friend, and i'd rather be friends than enemies with someone like this so i could help to change there minds.  As usual pitbulllady your the best source out there for refuting these kinds of arguments, thank you.  I should add though that i was the one who initially compared dogs to wolves, although i know there are big differences in regards to behavior, i was trying to make the point that animals that she is ok with keeping in captivity also don't get as much exercise or free space as their wild counterparts.


----------



## pitbulllady (Nov 28, 2010)

Kaimetsu said:


> I can assure you this friend is a good person worth having as a friend, and i'd rather be friends than enemies with someone like this so i could help to change there minds.  As usual pitbulllady your the best source out there for refuting these kinds of arguments, thank you.  I should add though that i was the one who initially compared dogs to wolves, although i know there are big differences in regards to behavior, i was trying to make the point that animals that she is ok with keeping in captivity also don't get as much exercise or free space as their wild counterparts.


Ask her to define "free space", and to explain WHY animals in the wild need that "free space".  It's NOT because they WANT it; it's because they HAVE to have so much space in order to find food, find water, find shelter, find mates, avoid predators.  And, if she still wants to anthropomorphize, have her compare animals to human children.  It's the nature of human children to want as much freedom as possible, to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to come and go as they please, and as a veteran teacher, I can certainly vouch for that!  Children resent rules and restrictions, which they see as "mean" or "too strict".  Does this mean that adults should simply allow children to do whatever they want, with no restrictions on their "freedom"?  Would she consider a parent or teacher to be a responsible adult if they put no restrictions on the "freedoms" of the children in their care, but simply allowed them to do whatever they wanted, to come and go as they pleased, just because it's what children "want"?  If not, then have her explain WHY it's wrong to curtail a child's freedom, but not an animal's, even though a child, even at a young age, has a greater grasp on the abstract concept of "freedom" than any animal.  Why is it cruel to put an animal in an enclosure that protects it from harm, and in which all of its biological needs are met, but it's not cruel to force a child to go against his/her inate nature by telling that child that he/she cannot go into certain areas, cannot leave the house beyond a certain point in time, cannot do this or that, even though doing this or that is fun, cannot associate with certain other children, cannot eat this or that, to force said child to perform "not fun" tasks like homework or room cleaning or yard chores instead of doing fun things?  For that matter, you can even use adult humans as an analogy.  I love fast cars.  I love to drive my car REALLY fast, and I have a car that can go really fast.  Should I be allowed, on any highway, to drive my car as fast as I want to, because it's my nature to do so, and because restricting my nature is stressful and annoying to me?

Even in the "wild", animals do not get to do what they "want" to do.  They do what they HAVE to do; they are still very much bound by restrictions, albeit not always man-made restrictions.  They have to deal with territorial boundries, and are limited to staying where they can find food, etc.  If they "want" to go outside those areas, they pay the price with their lives. Nature has some very stingent rules and restrictions, actually, and organisms which do not "obey" those rules die, plain and simple.  There was actually a scientific study conducted in Australia by Dr. Jeff Downing of the University of Sydney on the effects of stress on "free-range" vs. caged chickens, and guess what?  The free-range chickens had stress hormone levels many times higher than the caged chickens did.  The free-range chickens were subject to attacks by predators and by each other, had a more difficult time getting food and had to compete with each other and other animals for it.  The free-range chickens were subjected to whatever the weather could throw at them-extreme heat, rain, cold, hail, etc.  Now, to a HUMAN, it would seem to be a chicken's dream existance, to just run around, scratching in the dirt, eating whatever they wanted, as opposed to sitting in a wire cage inside an enclosed building 24/7, with your food periodically dumped into a container in front of you by an automated device, never touching the ground, not knowing if it was raining outside or sunny, and not being able to have much, if any, contact with other chickens or other kinds of animals.  The chickens, though, obviously didn't see it that way at all.  What WE consider "freedom", they considered highly stressful and unpleasant, and what WE look at as "cruelty", they saw as security.

pitbulllady


----------



## the toe cutter (Nov 28, 2010)

PBL has the best answer so far in this discussion. Anthropomorphism is completely insane if you think about it rationally and is happening with more and more frequency I feel as of late. MOST "exotic" animals are animals with, shall I say less than desireable intellectual faculties; I mean when was the last time your Cornsnake beat you in a game of checkers? Or the last time you and your Lasiodora parahybana enjoyed a nice tall Chai and discussed the ideological fall of Rome under Constatine? If this has happened to you, you have a far more interesting life than I, and by all means please continue and write blog about it! I'd love to read that. People seem to be worried about the welfare of others pet animals but not so much the welfare of the natural environment as it stands right now. You could also say that the Ficus I keep in my home, or the ones down at the dentists office, are in the same rationale, probably very unhappy about their current circumstances as well. They are after all living things and would probably absolutely and positively like a bit of freedom to go to the local pub when it feels like or just hang out with its family back in a South East Asian forest soaking up the rays, aside from the occasional nip from those darn caterpillars and ants! All joking aside There is no argument in protest that is logical to the keeping of exotic animals, if that was the case why do I not hear these same ideals thrown like torches at a witches stake, at institutions like Zoological parks or most US Colleges with research departments that include the observation and breeding of exotic animals? Or the numerous pharmaceutical research and development institutes that breed and maintain thousands of specimens for research into things like cures for acute and minor illnesses? Now while I understand that my personal collection of animals is definitely not going to extend the life of my fellow human, because I refuse to participate in such vane attempts to extend human life, but scientific observation can be done by anyone. Most of the early and famous scientists of the last 2000yrs were not tenured professors or even college graduates, but self proclaimed naturalist with little to absolutely no college biology instruction. The captive husbandry of animals is a small key that unlocks alot of fascinating world discovery and better understanding of the natural and behavioral mechanics of that particular species and further the understanding and tolerance of these wonderful animals to the local populace. Most of these animals even common ones are so rarely studied in their natural habitat that we as keepers are at the fore front of understanding these animals and their behaviors.

Now overcollecting of wild specimens IS a huge downfall to this hobby, but there are hundreds, probably thousands of people making great attempts to breed in captivity rare species and with far better success than we have gotten in the past. But honestly if we stopped buying WC animals from other countries would it stop the overcollecting? Absolutely not! If anyone here has traveled around this great big world a bit, if some did not import these animals as pets they would be shipped somewhere else on the globe for other purposes ie, interesting accompaniments to local whiskeys, fashionable apparel, cures for erectile disfunction, fun and exciting exotic cuisine, and so on and so forth. Its usually poor countries that these animals inhabit whose inhabitants need money in whatever means necessary, collecting and selling local animals for example, to help their families and friends. Thats why Tigers are probably going to be extinct before my kids will. Under-educated peoples in third world countries are going to exploit whatever they can in whatever possible manner to further their own existence, no matter how fleeting the endeavor is. Even if that means the complete extinction of a species. This is by no means an attempt to say that importing animals is ok, so don't take it that way. I don't much care for it either, I was just stating the homeostatis errors in human nature. So, regardless of if imports of exotic animals cease the animals will be extirpated anyway. You wanna save the worlds wildlife? Educate the masses, because its the only way that will ever happen. A friend of mine told me about a Vietnamese adult male colleague of his who asked him if horses laid eggs and thought that snakes lived for eternity. Think about the ignorant questions/posts you see here on occasion and probably get from other "normal" supposedly educated people then times that by local mythologies/legends and a lack of education past 5th grade and poverty on a fairly good size portion of the world. Not to mention the annihilation of wild habitat for human expansion, farming and the like. Which i read recently the huge amount of clearing of rainforest now for soy fields is rivaling the expansion of the animal food farming, kind of ironic if you think about it?! Saving animals by not eating them only to destroy natural habitat and kill off species that may or may have not yet been discovered.

Ok well I seem to have lost myself in a rant there for a minute. But yeah just some things to consider. I'd much rather keep a person in a glass cage as they would be far more interesting to observe, and a WC baby would be preferred in that particular case as feral children I find to be better suited for study since they don't usually have the capacity for BS'ing. Unfortunately for myself and Kathy Lee Gifford, this is generally not seen as "ethically viable" practices and usually illegal... usually. So in short I'm sure this will be talked about both for and against, it is simply my opinion and things I have read/seen for myself. And we, unlike our pets, have lots of differing opinions about the world and how it should work; that's the difference. Hope that helps a bit and if not it will be exciting to see where this thread goes!;P


----------



## bugmankeith (Nov 28, 2010)

I only adopt sick or injured animals, those who would have died or had a life of misery without my help. If I could have released some animals back where they lived in the wild  through a rehabilitation program (for wild caught species only you find sold) I would have loved too seeing them back in the wild and not captive. But for those I do have, captive was better than the tiny cages they were already in being sick and dying, with me at least their living conditions have drastically improved and they are loved. 

But if I had to choose, I would choose to have no pets if they could live wild.

Thats why I love sanctuaries that try to give animals as natural a habitat as possible.


----------



## TomM (Nov 28, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> when was the last time your Cornsnake beat you in a game of checkers? Or the last time you and your Lasiodora parahybana enjoyed a nice tall Chai and discussed the ideological fall of Rome under Constatine?


I tried having an intelligent discussion with my LP, but it only spoke Portuguese so the conversation didn't go far. :wall: 

Sorry, had to do that.  Anyways, this is a very interesting discussion.  I would have to say that if the animals biological requirements are being met, I don't see the problem with having pets.  That being said, there are a lot of animals being sold at pet stores that we do not know enough information about to be kept properly.  If anyone wants to get an amazing perspective on this subject, I HIGHLY recommend reading "Animals Make Us Human" or any other book by Temple Grandin.  Just my two cents.


----------



## catfishrod69 (Nov 28, 2010)

a true friend doesnt have to like what you do, but they must atleast respect that you like it...i recently got rid of a friend for that reason, and hes a retard...but i also had a blood brother for 15 years, we did absolutely everything together...hunting, trapping, hiking, killing things, making bombs, other illegal things, list goes on and on, until he got addicted to pills....we all tried to walk him through it, but now he also after 15 years isnt my friend....extremely hard loss for me....but wasnt my fault....anyways your friend should understand you like it and _______....


----------



## Bugs In Cyberspace (Nov 29, 2010)

It's very possible I missed something in this already long discussion, but I don't see where the "friend" was falling prey to anthropomorphism. It’s a nice, big flashy word but I don’t see the context for it here. This distraction from the argument, however, may work as an effective diversion or entrap the friend later in the conversation. Maybe the point of this thread is just helping Kaimetsu to "win" his argument. That is fine.

I also do not understand the point of the child analogy that Pitbulllady made. Children cannot survive in the wild on their own. That entire paragraph does nothing to the friend’s argument.

Toecutter says that if we cease to buy WC tarantulas it won’t make a difference. That’s like saying one vote doesn’t count in a democracy. Toecutter also likes Pitbulllady’s argument. I, too, love the point about anthropomorphism as a general topic of interest, despite its irrelevance against the friend’s argument. Toecutter seems to justify overcollecting by saying that hobbyists are making great attempts to breed rare species. He qualifies his statement by using the word “success” in relation to hundreds or thousands of people doing it. Maybe I’m out of touch, but I’m not seeing the connection here as either a justification or even as a fact. Sure, the word “attempts” was used, but are we talking about “successful attempts” here? I’m successfully “attempting” to make sense of this entire discussion.

We humans have the ability to manipulate the creatures around us. Dogs and cats and chickens in their domesticated forms are probably content, and nearly stress-free. The same is true for a teenager with an IPod in their ears while watching television and eating a bag of Fritos while not even attempting to taste them. Chickens may not be very conscious animals, but the teenager is making an arguably conscious choice to be fat and lazy.

Free range chickens may be more stressed than caged ones, but so what? Stress is a natural, often healthy part of (natural) life. All animals are capable of fight or flight. If they are in their natural setting, they are naturally adapted to survive—not necessarily an individual, but as a species. 

Clearly, the referenced chicken study showed that the stress for the free ranged chickens was negative (what is the definition of free ranged…a larger caged-in area on a farm, rather than a 2 ft. cage? And who paid for this study…KFC-Oz?). As with the argument the two friends are having, the important issue with the chickens is actually quite larger and more important than the argument itself. It is not whether an individual animal or even a species is stressed or not in captive setting, but what role its existence plays on this planet of interconnected life. Everything is connected, not in some metaphysical way, but in very direct ways. The predator the study called a stressor often belongs in that habitat and exists to eat the chicken or anything of a comparable size (on a chunk of land that the farmer’s farm is displacing the predator’s entire species from). Are we really supposed to believe the chicken was actually in the wild rather than being in some larger fenced in farmyard with no place to hide from the predator? Even if this reference was relevant, it would still be cause for concern.

Okay, if the chicken is being raised to feed people, that’s its purpose. Fine. Why pamper it in the larger cage? What is the point? But if we are to compare captive chickens to wild chickens (is there such a thing anymore?) or birds of any kind, there is no justifying which life is more natural or “right”. Isn’t the argument between the two friends about whether it is right or wrong to keep animals as captives?

Aren't human beings the most domesticated animals of all? How many truly happy people do you know? Couch potatoes, couch humans, couch dogs, caged tarantulas! When will Apple make the first IPawd for a dog?

There is a wild cat that roams the grounds where I work. A kitten trails behind it, lately. It has survived through several years of changing seasons. It is a more glorious animal than any “pet” I've seen in anybody's house. It behaves like a wild animal. It is "catlike". Even if it let you, you would think twice about walking up to it to pet it. It has teeth and claws and a free, wild and natural spirit. Some cat-owners at work pity this champion of cats, this survivor. I feel differently.

When you think of what makes a tarantula an amazing animal, do you close your eyes and picture this miraculous predator sucking on a dead pinky mouse in a glass aquarium or the fast food equivalent of a pet store cricket--or do you imagine it feeding on a live, writhing mouse that it has just pulled into its burrow beneath the gnarled, exposed roots of an ancient tree in a dank, dark rainforest? If you could only choose one existence for all tarantulas, what would you choose? What feels right?

If you THINK too far beyond what you just felt, you might be tempted to anthropomorphize yourself, justifying your thoughts on the basis of your culture’s, your society’s, your church’s or your family’s belief’s on this subject.

Everything natural has a right place in the order of nature. But, people don’t need order as much as they want convenience. This is why we let the dust build up on shelves until somebody is coming over for Thanksgiving dinner. We want to relax after “work”, not clean. We want to veg out. We want to bring a plant or a tarantula into the house instead of going out and exploring nature. What is this need we have to have these things in our homes? Is it safe to say that some of us see more beauty in nature than others? Is it accurate to say there are degrees of appreciation, and degrees of everything? Who values nature more, the person that reverently displays a tarantula in a cage or one who chooses to revere them by leaving them where they naturally occur? And where does the person that would sooner squash a spider fit in?

Bugmankeith understands degrees in his reply above!

When a species is not threatened, the degree of concern for collecting it is very low. When a species is threatened, the degree for concern is high. If these degrees do exist, then right and wrong exist. If there is a spectrum between these two poles, there are many degrees imaginable. Some actions may be mostly okay, others mostly discouraged. It is mostly okay to keep a captive tarantula. It is mostly not okay (morally) to hybridize close species and sell them to the masses.

Most neighborhoods recycle now, but I occasionally find myself throwing something that is actually recyclable into the trash that goes to the landfill…and my trash bag is RIGHT next to my recycle bins. Degrees! I do recycle, but I don’t always recycle every little bit of recyclable material. Who does not feel that little twinge of guilt when doing this? Sure, it hardly even measures as a twinge, but that is a conscious moment of right vs. wrong.

Self-accountability.

Something to consider…

A pet comes back to you when you let it free. A captive does not. A human child is something else entirely.

Like TomM, I don’t personally see a “problem” with keeping most bugs as pets, unless, as the Toe Cutter mentioned, they are WC, over-collected species. It’s not about it being a problem, it’s about whether it is really right or wrong. As I stated in my first post in this discussion, I admit I am a hypocrite, but I do believe that some good work is done by us hobbyists, as we propagate our perspectives on bugs through the masses. I see it as a means to an end. I'm not convinced it makes a damn bit of good. Obviously, a tarantula won't "care" that it is in the cage, but we might care to consider whether that is the best place for it as more and more of them disappear in nature.


----------



## the toe cutter (Nov 29, 2010)

This is my favorite part: http://bugsincyberspace.com - Live Bug Supersite! 

But what he says is true, and as for PBL's second comment, I think she may have lost me as well with the whole child comparison. And unfortunately I only read her first page before commenting. I type REALLY slow:}! And in an Ideal Utopian Kurt Vonnegut-esque world I agree that ethically keeping animals should be avoided to some extent! However, there are a few comments I feel should be addressed, like this one and I don't mean to pick on bugmankieth, so no offense taken I hope: 

"But if I had to choose, I would choose to have no pets if they could live wild."

Well get that address labeler ready because they can live in the wild and most have done so for millions of years! Well, until we got more involved.

"Thats why I love sanctuaries that try to give animals as natural a habitat as possible."

Hmm. this is tough...let me see...nope, Still caged! And more than likely due to the ineptitude of either volunteer staffing or simply people who are exceptionally empathetic but not too knowledgeable, and especially from what I have seen in 20yrs in the reptile hobby from "sanctuaries" and "rehabilitation/rescue" organizations, I am not so impressed and feel I maintain my animals in better/optimal conditions and standards than SOME, NOT ALL, of these types of places. I have heard and seen of some pretty insanely idiotic things from accredited rescue organizations.

"I only adopt sick or injured animals, those who would have died or had a life of misery without my help."

And a life of misery implies empathetic feelings imposed on an animal, and thus, da da dada! Anthropomorphism, perhaps a life of inproper husbandry at best would be a more proper terminology there. But in all seriousness, I do applaud your efforts there.

"Toecutter says that if we cease to buy WC tarantulas it won’t make a difference. That’s like saying one vote doesn’t count in a democracy."

In a Democracy it does, in our current state of a Republic, not so much. And as far as I can recall, there aren't a whole heck of alot of democracies in the world? If you lived in a place where the only thing you had to sustain your families existence was to catch and sell the local wildlife either for pets, skins, or tasty meals because of the non-existent concern of your countries particular government that month, would you do it to survive? And anyway, have you ever been to a market in Dubai? or Bangladesh? Thailand? Argentina? Colombia? Maybe Morocco? or alot of other countries where the use of animals for whatever the new cool fad is? Or what they think is tasty or appealing to whatever other senses and are used/slaughtered on a MASS scale and not even given the oppurtunity to at very least have a chance of being captive and possibly surviving? What in that case is more ethical?

And we can go ahead and assume that encroachment of the human populace will have no ill effect on the local indigenous wildlife as well from this statement, can we not? Are ther not numerous organizations that are removing local populations of wild animals, frogs and toads for instance, for theit benefit and survival, which is in its self an evolutionary oxymoron since the frogs that are still surviving are naturally immune to the devastating Chytrid fungus wich is one of the oldest known fungi in the world? I believe the last Panamanian Golden Frog that was collected from the wild was in 2007 by the IUCN's Amphibian Conservation Action Plan and the Amphibian Ark project. How does that factor in to your idealistic utopian world of wild animals being in the wild? Or the hundreds of other endangered animals that there are more of in the captivity than in wild?

"We humans have the ability to manipulate the creatures around us." Once again see above statement!

And we do it every day all over the world whether for the better or for worse, and usually for worse! But I am not here to refute your message, I actually agree that thats the way things should be! But that will never be the case as long as "WE" are here and manipulating our environments instead of even attempting to reach a natural stasis or equlibrium with Nature, which is against our fundamental nature if you want to wax philosophically about it. We can't even get along with ourselves, much less everything else the majority of people on this rock think as a lower life form, for whatever reasons?! What is better, for us who have the ability to alter environments, even on a micro scale, to do so to conserve what we would like, which is against even the basic laws of evolution, or to let those(animals) less fortunate, what we deem as "non-cognizent", to be decimated and then attempt retroactively to do something constructive about it? I do believe that Crested geckoes were only established in the US from a dozen pairs of WC animals imported here, and more than likely every single CB one out there today are directly descended from those original 12 pairs. That is quite an accomplishment in my opinion, especially since a female will usually only lay a single egg 4-6 times a year! That is a good survival plan in my opinion, and if ever need be, which is a current issue in their natural habitat because of over-collecting, there are PLENTY of them that could be re-introduced into the wild and be quite successful. 

But like I said before there is a huge concern with over-collecting and there are plenty of species readily available CB for sale that there is really no need for WC anymore. The exception being for the collection of certain species for their continued survival effort. So in short kaimetsu, Ideally you con not win this argument as BugsinCyberspace said earlier. And it is not really an argument as much as a difference in opinion and preferrence of lifestyle. I am not here to repudiate anyone nor "win" a debate for anyone, just offering some other opinions and ideas for debate which is supposed to be used to give different ideaologies and promote a better understanding overall. Maybe that will shed more light on my previous statements, which were intended to be somewhat comical and satirical, but as I have feared some people here lack a sense of humor! 

Cheers.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Nov 29, 2010)

> I can assure you this friend is a good person worth having as a friend, and i'd rather be friends than enemies with someone like this so i could help to change there minds.


What exactly gives you the right to change their mind on the issue? You both have _opinions_ on keeping animals in captivity. If you are actually a good friend, and s/he a good friend in turn, you'll both agree to disagree instead of bludgeoning one another with your opinions over something that there is frankly no true "right" or "wrong" answer to. Its OK for friends to not agree on everything if they can respect one another's differences. I suggest you both do just that and leave one another to your respective ideologies. You may not like being preached at about keeping animals in cages, but I can guarentee your friend doesn't like being preached at about the merits of doing it either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## stevetastic (Nov 29, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> PBL has the best answer so far in this discussion. Anthropomorphism is completely insane if you think about it rationally and is happening with more and more frequency I feel as of late. MOST "exotic" animals are animals with, shall I say less than desireable intellectual faculties; I mean when was the last time your Cornsnake beat you in a game of checkers? Or the last time you and your Lasiodora parahybana enjoyed a nice tall Chai and discussed the ideological fall of Rome under Constatine?


So anthropomorphism is insane but exotic animals are less intelligent because they can't play board games or don't enjoy spiced tea and history?  



> And a life of misery implies empathetic feelings imposed on an animal, and thus, da da dada! Anthropomorphism


Misery has nothing to do with empathetic feeling.  An animal can certainly be in distress or suffer due to it needs not being met without applying human characteristics to it.


----------



## the toe cutter (Nov 29, 2010)

stevetastic said:


> So anthropomorphism is insane but exotic animals are less intelligent because they can't play board games or don't enjoy spiced tea and history?
> 
> The answer actually is yes! that and they do not have the cognition, much of the frontal lobe regions associated with "feelings" and other such cerebral morphological traits that set us apart! They are pretty much all or mostly hindbrain, or in lay-mans terms the primitive part of the sensory perception organ called your brain. And Invertebrates, doubly so! In insects, specialized sense organs detect information from the environment and transmit it to the central nervous system. Such sense organs include simple and compound eyes, sound receptors on the thorax (the main body) or in the legs, and taste receptors. The brain of an insect consists of a ganglion in the head. Ganglia are also found in some segments of the insect's body. The information that insects use for behaviors such as walking, flying, mating, and stinging is stored in these segmental ganglia. In experiments in which heads are cut off of cockroaches and flies, these insects continue to learn. Anyone with any knowledge of common science, should now that. Plus that is what I was talking about when I said I was afraid that some of the people here have no sense of humor!
> 
> ...


It sure can, since it is NORMALLY applied to human beings in certain situations. But it can be applied to anything living, kept in poor or squalid, substandard conditions. So Touche! you I suppose this means I should dust and water my Ficus plant as I would not want to exacerbate its misery! 


I would hope this will give you more steam to re-buttle my previous statements, or at least to go and read some current Biology books and gain a sense of humor people!


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Nov 29, 2010)

> at least to go and read some current Biology books


Funny, I was going to suggest that you do some reading on contemporary animal behavior & cognitive ethology if you think that "most" exotic animals are unintelligent. I'll ignore the fact that "exotic pet" can cover  _very intelligent_ animals like parrots and chimps and assume that you mean reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. In reptiles especially, fairly advanced cognitive abilities are _quite_ well documented if you bother to read any modern studies on the topic. I don't agree with people who say that other animals are "exactly like people," but I also think that anyone who still abides by the _extremely_ outdated concept that nonhuman animals are simple little biological machines is grossly misinformed. 

FTR: The general consensus of modern science on the brain is that we sure as heck don't know as much about the brain as we thought we did. We've recently proven short and long term memory in the nautilus, which doesn't have the brain anatomy "required" for either. We've recently discovered that most of the brain mass of "higher" animals is a bunch of repetitious junk and does not correlate to greater intelligence. We've recently discovered that brains previously thought "simple" like those of birds are simply _extremely efficient_ and able to pack quite a punch in a small and 'primitive' package. Neurobiology and related "brain science" fields are in their relative infancy and new information is being discovered all of the time that utterly blows our prior notions out of the water.


----------



## stevetastic (Nov 29, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> It sure can, since it is NORMALLY applied to human beings in certain situations. But it can be applied to anything living, kept in poor or squalid, substandard conditions. So Touche! you I suppose this means I should dust and water my Ficus plant as I would not want to exacerbate its misery!
> 
> 
> I would hope this will give you more steam to re-buttle my previous statements, or at least to go and read some current Biology books and gain a sense of humor people!


You should of course water your ficus.  You should also code some quotes into you post so people know what you said is not something I said. 


As for 





> The answer actually is yes! that and they do not have the cognition, much of the frontal lobe regions associated with "feelings" and other such cerebral morphological traits that set us apart! They are pretty much all or mostly hindbrain, or in lay-mans terms the primitive part of the sensory perception organ called your brain. And Invertebrates, doubly so! In insects, specialized sense organs detect information from the environment and transmit it to the central nervous system. Such sense organs include simple and compound eyes, sound receptors on the thorax (the main body) or in the legs, and taste receptors. The brain of an insect consists of a ganglion in the head. Ganglia are also found in some segments of the insect's body. The information that insects use for behaviors such as walking, flying, mating, and stinging is stored in these segmental ganglia. In experiments in which heads are cut off of cockroaches and flies, these insects continue to learn. Anyone with any knowledge of common science, should now that. Plus that is what I was talking about when I said I was afraid that some of the people here have no sense of humor!


While this was all very fascinating... 20 years ago... I fail to see what it has to do with whats being discussed.  

RGR... +1


----------



## the toe cutter (Nov 29, 2010)

RGR, I applaud your effort and appreciate the skepticism! But by "exotic pets" pertaining to this thread, am referring to reptiles and invertebrates specifically, thus the neurobiology of INSECTS I previously covered which was apparently overlooked. I would LOVE to see any more current information into the Neural reception and cognition of Arachnids and Reptiles as pertaining to higher levels of cognition! That would be great information since my 5yr subscription to Bioscience and Scientific American Mind and numerous Evolutionary Developmental Biology books written by Sean B Carroll, and Harry W Greene scientific papers and books into the evolutionary, behavioral and biological aspects of Reptiles aparently are insufficient data to pull from. Perhaps I should start making Flashcards, or build a very small piano for my scorpions and give them a weekly test? It could work! *This is called satire*

Steve, while what RGR is doing is considered to be logical debate, you are doing what is called nonsensical debate and have made absolutely no alternative points but have just tried to correct my use of punctuation as a rebuttle? And I'm sure NOONE will ever mistake what you say for what I say. And the anatomical neuro-biology of invertebrate/insect brains that I posted is absolutely still current. And even if it was 20yrs old, it generally takes evolution a tad bit longer to change such things, even if you believe in the theory of Punctual Equilibrium. It is not an opinion of the Neural layout of an insect, but is in fact the actual neural layout! 

And like I said, all I am doing is posing a different point of view and mean no offense to anyone as it appears that some of you have taken offense to what I am communicating here. I enjoy a good debate mainly to uncover some facts or opinions that I have yet to consider. So far I still like what both PBL(1st page) and BugsinCyberspace had to say, though kind of alternative view points both are to be learned from. But lets not detract from the topic too much, and I apologize again if it seems I am "picking" on anyone as that is not my intention. Cheers

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## stevetastic (Nov 29, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> Steve, while what RGR is doing is considered to be logical debate, you are doing what is called nonsensical debate and have made absolutely no alternative points but have just tried to correct my use of punctuation as a rebuttle? And I'm sure NOONE will ever mistake what you say for what I say. And the anatomical neuro-biology of invertebrate/insect brains that I posted is absolutely still current. And even if it was 20yrs old, it generally takes evolution a tad bit longer to change such things, even if you believe in the theory of Punctual Equilibrium. It is not an opinion of the Neural layout of an insect, but is in fact the actual neural layout!


What?  I don't believe I ever corrected your use of punctuation.  :?

And I also don't think I was ever debating you.  I merely pointed out that animals can suffer from "misery" to which you said 



> It sure can, since it is NORMALLY applied to human beings in certain situations. But it can be applied to anything living, kept in poor or squalid, substandard conditions. So Touche!  you I suppose this means I should dust and water my Ficus plant as I would not want to exacerbate its misery!


And I agree that NORMALLY misery is applied to human beings "some of the time."

It is also NORMALLY applied to anything that is distressed or suffering "some of the time."

I think you agreed with me when you said "So Touche!"  

I also agree that insects have a nervous system.  I still find no use for that information as it pertains to what this thread is about, but they certainly do have a nervous system!  

So I don't see the nonsensical debate you spoke of nor do I see any debate of any kind between you and I.

All I am worried about is did you water that poor Ficus?


----------



## ZephAmp (Nov 29, 2010)

Doesn't anyone else think we have a moral obligation to caring for animals?
I mean, seriously, we cut down the rainforests, dam the rivers, fence up the land- And, as many people should have figured out already, unless society blows up in one huge nuclear disaster, it's all just going to keep on happening. At some point there won't be any space left for any animals (minus the ones that have adapted to living among us) and we'll have to rely on captive husbandry to keep things alive. Preserving land will not cut it. All it takes is an oil spill, a dry year, a wet year, a fire, or some other disaster and miles of "preserved, wild, untouched" land is destroyed.
I like to think of it from two perspectives.
From the Darwinian perspective, we're at the top of the food chain. We evolved and dominated the world, and if we didn't do so well, we wouldn't be here. What species did this before us (for example, dinosaurs) is irrelevant. We're here now and we rule. What other animals can travel at supersonic speeds, travel underwater for days, grow vast amounts of food, build factories, and do theoretical mathematics? Sure, you could argue there is one animal for each of these things, for example, termites build mounds ("factories") and fish live underwater. But none can do all of the above, and any of which we can easily destroy using our intelligence if we want to. As for viruses, bacteria, and all those other pesky things; we're getting there. Penicillin is a good example of how we began our war against them and succeeded, and, seeing as there are plenty of humans left on the planet, I don't think we're losing any battles on the disease front. Being human, and being of higher intelligence, we acknowledge our position as "top dog" and realize that reckless actions have repercussions that threaten our own well-being. So we conserve, recycle, and do our best to maintain the environment, because if it fails, we die. And, we study and keep pets to enlighten/enrich ourselves, and also to prevent our own demise.
From the Christian perspective, we were put here to be stewards and were given dominion over every other animal. We can do whatever we want (destroy the rain forests, pollute the rivers, and drive entire species extinct) but yet again, we realize that doing whatever we want is not exactly what Someone else wants. And because it's not what He wants, it's going to kick us in the rear eventually. Otherwise, polluting  wouldn't kill things and poison us, because if it's what He wanted, He would have made it beneficial to us. The same goes for other acts that degrade the environment. 

So if you want to keep an animal as a pet, I see nothing wrong with it either way.


----------



## the toe cutter (Nov 29, 2010)

stevetastic said:


> What?  I don't believe I ever corrected your use of punctuation.  :?
> 
> "You should also code some quotes into you post so people know what you said is not something I said."
> 
> ...


"D@&%!!! I forgot again! LOL yeah I actually did, and removed most of the dust and cat hair!"


----------



## dtknow (Nov 29, 2010)

I'll go ahead and add to this that most captive preservation(except perhaps AZA accredited institutions) means nothing to wild populations. If the world ever gets to a point that their is "no room for animals"-well...keeping them as pets will be the least of our problems.

I believe that animals kept in captivity, particularly reptiles/bugs in the private sector can serve as ambassadors for their wild brethren and allow many people who would otherwise not see and appreciate them to do so and perhaps foster a more positive attitude to conservation. The problem with many animals as pets is the bond with the wild is basically broken. I think that if they aer seen merely as domestic animals/pets, than any such message is a lot less powerful.


----------



## kevin91172 (Nov 29, 2010)

Sure glad I am a shallow :3::5::3: !! This is fun to read,some good points made from both sides,but I still do as I want. And I enjoy all my caged critters,hey the keep me busy and out of trouble

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Nov 30, 2010)

toe cutter, if you would truly "love" to know more on the topic of cognition in reptiles and invertebrates, feel free to simply search for it - the information is readily available in any number of scientific journals and texts. You may want to specifically look for information in the field of cognitive ethology and/or animal behavior if you're having trouble finding it. You've made it a point to toot your horn about what a great reader you are, so I suspect you'll find plenty of information if you search prudently enough.  To help narrow your search, you should find some decent information on crocodilians, monitors, turtles, arachnids, cephalopods, and crustaceans. 

Also: I didn't "miss" your explanation of the invertebrate nervous system. I'm already quite aware of it and simply found it irrelevant to the point I was addressing. My only point was, it isn't very accurate to state that most exotic pets lack any semblence of cognition. Let's be clear: I'm not arguing that a tarantula is capable of sitting in a tank and contemplating its existence, pining for freedom and brooding about the injustice of captivity. I have no real issue with tarantulas being kept in captivity so long as their needs are being met. But I don't agree with writing off anything but a mammal or bird as being too primitive for any degree of cognition. Not only is it simply not true based on modern research, but it isn't particularly logical. Everything else in animal evolution seems to indicate that we (humans and nonhuman animals) differ primarily in _degree_. Why would there be a major black and white cut-off between a crocodile and a crow when it comes to cognition when everything else about the two shows a _gradual_ shift from the simple to the more advanced?

To be honest, I think intelligence is sometimes given undue focus when it comes to debates of the appropriateness of keeping an animal in captivity. It's important, but it is only one facet of captive husbandry; there are intelligent animals that are relatively easy to care for (a dog or pig is a good example), and animals that lack anything resembling cognition that are very difficult to care for (like a sea anenome). I don't care if the animal is as dumb as a brick; the core issue is if its needs can be adequately met in captivity, and THAT in my opinion is where the true matter lies.



> I'll go ahead and add to this that most captive preservation(except perhaps AZA accredited institutions) means nothing to wild populations. If the world ever gets to a point that their is "no room for animals"-well...keeping them as pets will be the least of our problems.
> 
> I believe that animals kept in captivity, particularly reptiles/bugs in the private sector can serve as ambassadors for their wild brethren and allow many people who would otherwise not see and appreciate them to do so and perhaps foster a more positive attitude to conservation. The problem with many animals as pets is the bond with the wild is basically broken. I think that if they aer seen merely as domestic animals/pets, than any such message is a lot less powerful.


Ah, now this is a refreshing post. I completely agree. Conservation does not occur through morph breeding ball pythons in a rack in your basement. It occurs though the preservation of habitat, the establishment for alternative forms of income for individuals who rely on exploiting wild populations, through public education about the value of animals in their environments, etc. I too am a firm believer of the potential educational value of captive exotics (as I'm sure anyone who has heard me preaching about its merits can verify, haha), but I have no illusions that my choosing to own a tokay is in some way "saving" the species. If the only thing we have left of a species is a few heavily inbred captive specimens in the pet trade, the species is as good as exinct.


----------



## Bugs In Cyberspace (Nov 30, 2010)

A very interesting discussion.

As we consider whether it is ethical to keep tarantulas, for example, in cages, we need to create perspective, or...

CONTEXT

1. Tarantula

The word is a symbol, but there is no context.

2. Tarantulas have eight legs and eat cockroaches.

The word has context as part of an idea.

3. a Photo of a Tarantula

It is two dimensional but worth some "thousand words" of description.

4. seeing a pet Tarantula in a Cage

opportunity for a human to directly observe the live animal

5. seeing a tarantula in its natural habitat

learning the most basic aspects of what a tarantula is/does

6. understanding all interactions of a tarantula with its natural environment

This is beyond any present human's ability to research to a point of even beginning to understand.

Humans aside, there is no species on this planet that has context without its predator and prey relationships, combined with the incalculable contributions to whatever ecosystem it lives in. 

Nothing that lives in a cage has much context, much meaning, unless it is "one of the last". We can call our tarantulas "tarantulas", but that is like putting a child's mother in prison for twenty years and referring to her as a "mother" instead of an "inmate" those twenty years. Nevermind that her child will be an adult when she is released. Our caged tarantules are captives, plain and simple. Or call them "pets". Either way, they are not truly "tarantulas".

I very much like what dtknow has written. 

I wonder, in the end, if "the friend" will have access to this thread.


----------



## TomM (Nov 30, 2010)

Bugs In Cyberspace said:


> Nothing that lives in a cage has much context, much meaning, unless it is "one of the last". We can call our tarantulas "tarantulas", but that is like putting a child's mother in prison for twenty years and referring to her as a "mother" instead of an "inmate" those twenty years. Nevermind that her child will be an adult when she is released. Our caged tarantules are captives, plain and simple. Or call them "pets". Either way, they are not truly "tarantulas".


Not going to lie, this just blew my mind.  This whole thread is very interesting but I think this quote takes the cake.  A very interesting perspective.


----------



## stevetastic (Nov 30, 2010)

Bugs In Cyberspace said:


> Nothing that lives in a cage has much context, much meaning, unless it is "one of the last". We can call our tarantulas "tarantulas", but that is like putting a child's mother in prison for twenty years and referring to her as a "mother" instead of an "inmate" those twenty years. Nevermind that her child will be an adult when she is released. Our caged tarantules are captives, plain and simple. Or call them "pets". Either way, they are not truly "tarantulas".


After 20 years the mother/inmate is still a human.  Captivity can't take away your species.  Captive tarantulas are still very much tarantulas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cacoseraph (Nov 30, 2010)

tl;dnr

BICS  please don't suggest releasing anything back into nature, even in jest


----------



## Bugs In Cyberspace (Dec 1, 2010)

stevetastic said:


> After 20 years the mother/inmate is still a human.  Captivity can't take away your species.  Captive tarantulas are still very much tarantulas.


I purposely placed quotes around the word tarantulas, but the larger point is that their lives in cages have lest context, less meaning. Simply consider an empty cage vs. a cage with a pet in it. Which has more meaning as a cage? I understand the reluctance some people might have to attaching themselves to these points. I consider how meaningless my life would feel without a thousand captive bugs! Truth is, then, that this hobby is really not about what's in the cage, but what's outside of it.

A captive mother (pardon the example) is still human, but what is left of her humanity? 

Tarantulaty?



cacoseraph said:


> tl;dnr
> 
> BICS  please don't suggest releasing anything back into nature, even in jest


Ah, I've seen you champion this issue in the past, as when you strongly cautioned a member not to release the "exotic mantis" she had just caught back into the wild. I came into that thread late, pointing out it was a native Stagmomantis carolina and she should not worry about all the people jumping on the judgmental bandwagon. I know your intentions are good ones and, even then, I made a mental note to someday discuss with you why you are so concerned about WC pets being returned to the same backyards. There's a good chance I might learn something and an even better chance you are ahead of your time with these concerns. A lone voice in the dark, but I suspect the moderators are watching by now and hoping we all stay on topic. I'd certainly enjoy a private discussion with you on that topic via email. The night is young and so are we.

Before I move on, let me firmly state (to your satisfaction, I hope) that I do not recall my suggesting in this thread that pets should be torn from their captive homes and set free, nor do I recall jesting about it.

Coincidentally, I uploaded a video I shot, over the long holiday weekend, of a Scolopendra polymorpha to Youtube. I had placed it in a rather small cage with a six inch ruler. I shot the video. I uploaded it to the web. I watched my video in its final form. When it was finished, Youtube scrolled off another six or so thumbnails of related videos. Cacoseraph, you are one of a half dozen people I actually subscribe to on Youtube (not because of the clarity of your videos, but because of who you are and what you do) and I recognized your name next to one of the videos for the same subject. I watched you pick up the flushed-out specimen and release it. It scurried rapidly across the desert floor. You chased it. You commented that you would not be taking it home. Few people would pass up on the opportunity. Whether you really did or not, and I do trust you did, you publicly demonstrated that it was an option (for many of us, collection would be the only option).

While my video has a BIC Contextual Index Value of 4, yours has a BICCIV of 5. Well done! (if anybody is confused, please see my previous post for an explanation)


----------



## zonbonzovi (Dec 1, 2010)

I don't have any personal thoughts to add as the psychology behind collection has been covered elsewhere, ad nauseum.  However, there is a fantastic book about the subject that came out last year.  Specifically, it takes a look at the rise of taxonomy and museum collections and of course, the grandfather to our current discussion, Wardian cases.  It's sure to ruffle some feathers 'round here(but what doesn't?).  I think anyone involved in this discussion would at the very least find it stomach-churningly informative.  I'll hump around the databases and see what I can come up with...

Edit: I think this is the right one...

"Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads: The Culture and Evolution of Natural History Museums"

by Stephen T. Asma

You can bombard my home with feces if this isn't the right one.


----------



## Crawly (Dec 1, 2010)

I think with the high potential for mortality at a young age due to predation, starvation, disease and/or fatal injury, and severe environmental conditions, if a non human animal could weigh that against being kept in captivity where it would receive regular meals, have an environment that suits its needs in terms of temperature, humidity, and light/dark exposure, plus receive medical care, and even the potential opportunity to mate in a secure environment, and could logically choose where it would live based on the comparison, in many cases the animal would choose captivity.  They would potentially have most of the things that we humans enjoy (or neglect to enjoy), without having to work.

Also, with the multitude of environmental problems at hand (many of them anthropogenic) including: habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution, competition from invasive species, and the emergence of pathogens, I don't think there are many places left in the world where any animal is really free.

But, I think it's all relative to what species it is, and even depends on the individual.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bugs In Cyberspace (Dec 2, 2010)

I understand what Crawly is saying, however if these captive animals were aware enough to choose captivity over freedom, those same powers of awareness and logic would inevitably cause them to regret their decision. Submitting to a life in captivity, though comfortable, would mean at least the following sacrifices...

lack of suitable hiding places
humidity issues
food offerings based on keeper's schedule
ah, mom...crickets for dinner AGAIN?
room temperature or worse
lack of mate choice, or mates at all
lack of movement/freedom to move
goodbye offspring
no stimuli
etc.

History (even the modern era) is full of examples of peoples that were/are provided comforts without freedom. It doesn't set so well.

Imagine if you were given the choice between the following two options and you could only pick one:

1. confinement to your home for the rest of your life with all the supposed human comforts provided to you.

or 

2. freedom to do whatever you wanted

Crawly's tarantula dream home sounds more like a nice place to quietly die after you've already grown too old to care for yourself.

Further, and I actually hate to do this, I also disagree with the statement about there being few places that animals are free. This may be true if you are looking at megafauna, but animals that we can see are in the minority.

[Zonbonzovi, you peaked my interest and I found the 2nd paragraph on page XIII from the Introduction section in the book you mentioned quite interesting in the "context" of this discussion ;-) http://books.google.com/books?id=HI...&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false ]


----------



## deathwing (Dec 2, 2010)

I bet it is wrong to keep a blue whale in a 5 gal tank... but a pet hole do sure enjoy a matchbox with a lifetime supply of prey items and other necessary compounds.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Dec 2, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> But like I said before there is a huge concern with over-collecting and there are plenty of species readily available CB for sale that there is really no need for WC anymore. The exception being for the collection of certain species for their continued survival effort. So in short kaimetsu, Ideally you con not win this argument as BugsinCyberspace said earlier. And it is not really an argument as much as a difference in opinion and preferrence of lifestyle. I am not here to repudiate anyone nor "win" a debate for anyone, just offering some other opinions and ideas for debate which is supposed to be used to give different ideaologies and promote a better understanding overall. Maybe that will shed more light on my previous statements, which were intended to be somewhat comical and satirical, but as I have feared some people here lack a sense of humor!
> 
> Cheers.





RoachGirlRen said:


> What exactly gives you the right to change their mind on the issue? You both have _opinions_ on keeping animals in captivity. If you are actually a good friend, and s/he a good friend in turn, you'll both agree to disagree instead of bludgeoning one another with your opinions over something that there is frankly no true "right" or "wrong" answer to. Its OK for friends to not agree on everything if they can respect one another's differences. I suggest you both do just that and leave one another to your respective ideologies. You may not like being preached at about keeping animals in cages, but I can guarentee your friend doesn't like being preached at about the merits of doing it either.


Alot of excelent debate going on in this thread but i want to respond to these two points.  I realize that this is an issue with no clear ethical answer, and i do respect my friends opinion on this topic.  There are issues which many people consider to be matters of opinion/belief which i do think have objectively right and wrong answers(such as politics and religion, liberal athiest here!) but this isnt one of them.

I can respect someone but still want to debate a topic, exchange ideas, and maybe change opinions to an extent.  One point i think i can make in regards to my friends views is that they don't exist in a vacuum, they have real world implications as people who share these views write legislation, and there are already efforts underway to ban alot of the animals we love so much.

So my exchange of ideas on facebook continued.

Friend:  There's a difference between bred in captivity and being domesticated through generations and generations of breeding and interbreeding.

Domestic cats life spans and dogs are longer when you keep them indoors, but when you let them be indoor outdoor pets it's shortened by a few years. Same with homeless people. because they aren't exposed to the natural elements in the outside world that keep a balance of life.

But I let my cat outside, it's her choice, she's let in and out at her own free will. that's HER choice.

Me:  Back to the topic of pets christine i realize you think i'm rationalizing an unethical thing to seem ethical simply because it's what i want to do but i disagree with that assessment and i want to make a few more points on the topic. Tarantulas definitely don't like to run and most cold blooded vertebrates don't like to either. I think your anthropomorphizing these animals by assigning them characteristics of humans and other inteligent mammals like canines who do enjoy running and being free. When cold blooded animals run in the wild it's almost always because they are evading a predator that wants to eat them, and this is just about the most stressful thing any animal can experience. Most animals in the wild will eventually be caught and eaten by something, and that isnt an enjoyable way to die. In captivity they never have to experience this stress.

Reptiles have very specific wants and needs and they don't necessarily include "freedom" however you define it, they usually include needs like temperature, humidity, food, water, day/night cycle, sometimes UV light in the case of diurnal animals, and yes space, but not necessarily alot. These needs can all be met by responsible pet owners. Yes alot of pet stores get these things wrong and abuse their pets, but the same stores tend to abuse cats and dogs too.

I guess your really arguing that living things have an intrinsic right to be able to exist in their natural habitat, outside of their own individual desires, and the desires of the humans that keep them. I somewhat disagree but i can emphasize with that world view. I do think that there are benefits to keeping these animals though, benefits to humans and to all species. By keeping arachnids and snakes as pets i am assigning them a positive role in our culture(last few words not mine but they rang true with me). Spiders and snakes are viewed as monsters by a huge chunk of the population, i have found beauty in them and i want to share that beauty with others, and experience it for myself. It's a little bit selfish wanting it for myself, but most of what humans to is selfish on some level. But through my selfish experiences i can become empowed to spread a knowledge of these animals.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Dec 2, 2010)

That that were my friend, I'd point out that giving her domesticated cat the "choice" of "freedom" is part of what is devastating ecosystems of the animals YOU keep globally. Domesticated cats pose a serious threat to wildlife, and she is deeply ignorant to romanticise the idea of a domesticated animal's "freedom." Domestication by definition essentially removes freedom from the equation; it makes animals utterly reliant on human beings.

I personally _do_ think it is best for wild animals to by and large be left in the wild for a number of reasons (obviously this is situation dependent - SSPs, for example, have prevented extinctions by captive breeding). However, thinking that species domesicated to rely on human beings for all aspects of their care and safety deserve the "right" to freely roam, damaging habitat for WILD animals, is asinine. If your friend truly cared for her cat as well as wildlife, she would give it outdoor access... in the form of a safe outdoor enclosure, just as she'd fence a yard for a dog or corral a sheep.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Dec 2, 2010)

I mostly agree on the cat thing, the cats i used to have were outdoor cats but i think if i get cats in the future they will remain indoors.  It's kind of silly that people are so upset about burmese pythons in the everglades when an adult burm only eats like ten rodents a year, considering that a domestic cat can probably kill that many in a day.  Not that burms belong there either but cats are worse.

I'm not entirely sure if i should post my continuing argument since it just sort of turned into a personal attack on me, whatever this is an important topic and it's already public on facebook anyway.  This thread has been very enjoyable so far.

friend(despite this): Then donate them to a nature center, or a school, or be proactive with them. Not stick them in a room and gawk at them like visual slaves...

I dont care, animals shouldn't be caged, you're not doing it a favor by keeping it in a cage, because you aren't breeding it, you aren't giving them specalized vet care, You aren't adequate providing it anything close to the natural freshness of being free.

And you are trying to justify it. Just like you do everything else. You haven't changed in 9 years, since you were a teenager. You try to rationalize everything, without taking into account human factor, or realistic natural factors. 

If someone said you had a choice to spend the rest of your life, 50 years in a 10 x 10 room, with someone delieverying you food, changing your bedding but you had no tv, no music, no wind, no nature sounds, no real sun, no rain, nothing or you can live in the wild for 1 year.

Knowing that I'd probably die from something in the wild, I would still rather go in the wild, instead of looking at your fugly face gawking at me for amusement.

Me: Thats exactly what i said your just accusing me of trying to justify an unethical action rather than fairly evaluating the evidence. It's wrong to assume that just because a human would not be happy in an enclosed space for a long period of time that no animal would be. Thats the very definition of anthropomorphism.


----------



## dtknow (Dec 2, 2010)

Interesting. 
So if a snake is provided a rodent or two every once in a while-a warm spot, a cool spot, some cozy places to hide, and spends most of its time doing what snakes do(nothing much) is it not enjoying the "freshness of being free"? Your friends arguments just reek of anthromorphism.


----------



## stevetastic (Dec 2, 2010)

> Me: Thats exactly what i said your just accusing me of trying to justify an unethical action rather than fairly evaluating the evidence. It's wrong to assume that just because a human would not be happy in an enclosed space for a long period of time that no animal would be. Thats the very definition of anthropomorphism.


The way she explained it is very anthropomorphic but the idea she is trying to express is not.  Plenty of animals are not "happy" with being held in enclosed spaces for long periods of time.




dtknow said:


> Interesting.
> So if a snake is provided a rodent or two every once in a while-a warm spot, a cool spot, some cozy places to hide, and spends most of its time doing what snakes do(nothing much) is it not enjoying the "freshness of being free"? Your friends arguments just reek of anthromorphism.


The friend never said they enjoyed the "freshness of being free."  She said 


> You aren't adequate providing it anything close to the natural freshness of being free.


Now, while "the natural freshness of being free" is an odd phrase, it is not a human characteristic so it is also not anthropomorphism.


----------



## dtknow (Dec 3, 2010)

The natural freshness of being free-if that denotes freedom...then most animals probably don't have much concept of that-therefore to attribute it to them is anthromorphism.

Sure-many animals may not be happy in enclosed spaces for long periods of time. This is simply a problem of inadequate husbandry. Make the enclosure large enough, provide enough enrichment, and this should vanish-no?(in truth, this may not be practical for certain species-but it does not mean they have some kind of desire to be free).


----------



## stevetastic (Dec 3, 2010)

dtknow said:


> The natural freshness of being free-if that denotes freedom...then most animals probably don't have much concept of that-therefore to attribute it to them is anthromorphism.
> 
> Sure-many animals may not be happy in enclosed spaces for long periods of time. This is simply a problem of inadequate husbandry. Make the enclosure large enough, provide enough enrichment, and this should vanish-no?(in truth, this may not be practical for certain species-but it does not mean they have some kind of desire to be free).


If "the natural freshness of being free" does mean freedom (and not just utter nonsense) then it is still not anthropomorphism.  She didn't say the snake was longing for freedom only that it wasn't being provided it.  The snake does not need to understand the concept of freedom to be effected by it.


----------



## dtknow (Dec 3, 2010)

steve: point taken.

OTOH-doesn't the snake need to understand the concept of freedom to be affected by freedom itself? Unless perhaps we are talking of the potential quirks of freedom(more choices of hiding places, chance of being eaten, etc. etc.)Freedom is to some extent internal and something of the soul. If you release a bird, for example, it will get the benefits of having more space, food, etc...but I don't think its soul is uplifted at the thought of itself being free. So it can't really enjoy freedom itself(if freedom is defined as the right and the ability to do what one chooses-and that said animals can "choose" between being free and captive). If freedom is defined as the power to determine action without restraint...then yes, the snake could experience freedom...but whether it really is the best interest of my pet parakeet to fly off into the wild blue yonder because it wants to...well.. 


If you think about it-lots of people today are far from free-either. 

ok-I think I just went in a circle-but I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Dec 3, 2010)

My conversation is basically over i'm gonna let it end, but it should definitely continue here.

friend: it's wrong to assume an animal/creature who would live longerin captivity would rather be stuck in cage for the rest of his life too.

Hey you can do what you want, it's just my opinion. I've seen people who've "OWNED" spiders, and lizards. When they are real fans of them, they become their world. They treat them like family. Holding them each day, feeding them the best of the best, creating giant tanks and rooms for them. They are the center of their world. They are no longer a pet, when someone cares THAT much, for their animals.




So whatever, i guess my problem isnt that someone feels this way, i can totally understand that, my problem is that people who hold these beliefs frequently make laws to restrict what reptiles we can keep as pets without knowing anything about them.  Like that bill that adds like 9 snakes to the lacey act.  I think that living with these animals enriches my life in profound ways, and i hate that people don't think i should be able to live with them.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Dec 3, 2010)

"Anthropomorphism: The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects."

What is implied by this definition, although not outright stated, is that to anthropomorphise something, you must be attributing qualities _unique to humans_ to a non-human. I see the phrase used often, here and elsewhere, for characteristics that aren't necessarily unique to humans.

Let's take a very extreme example of a situation where anthropomorphism doesn't apply. Humans have a bone in their body called a femur. A femur is thus a characteristic of a human being, but it isn't anthropomorphism to say that a horse has a femur: both species share this trait.

Let's take a more commonplace example: some people will swear up and down that it is anthropomorphism to say that a dog can be "happy." Now, true enough, dogs and humans probably do not experience happiness in the same ways, to the same depth, or for the same reason. However, there are certain biochemicals that are associated with human happiness that are equally present when dogs are exposed to pleasurable stimuli - this is a scientific truth. In reality, human happiness is also just a response to a pleasurable stimuli - we just have the added intelligence to get that happiness from something abstract like the beauty of a painting rather than say, rolling in a dead squirrel. Irregardless, when you whittle it down to brain chemistry, dogs and humans are both quite capable of their respective versions of "happy." 

Now, if you said, "My dog was watching the Steelers game with me and he was SO HAPPY that they won," that would be anthropomorphism. Dogs do not understand nor appreciate sports winnings, and if you dog hops around wagging his tail like a happy idiot as you cheer for your sports team winning, he's picking up on your reaction rather than sharing your enthusiasm for football.

As I said before, differences between humans and animals are often differences of _degree_ rather than _kind._ Most animals have _some level_ of cognitive ability, many have _some level_ of basic emotion, and at least vertebrates all have _some level_ of a capacity for physically experiencing both pleasant and unpleasant stimuli.

Now let's consider some of the ethical questions raised here about freedom vs. confinement of wild animals. Let's take the issue of if wild animals "enjoy" freedom. It sounds a bit like anthropomorphism, and if you say wild animals "enjoy" freedom in the abstract sense that humans do, you'd be right. However, "enjoy" by some definitions simply means "to benefit from" or "to take pleasure in." 

The former definition is VERY applicable; there are just as many benefits to a wild animal living in its natural habitat as there are to the safety and comfort of captivity. While captive animals have their basic needs provided for, there are also some serious setbacks (especially with more intelligent and socially complex species). Even among reptiles, we see some issues: for example, MBD is virtually non-existent in wild populations, but rampant in captive specimens, because captive reptiles housed indoors are deprived the benefits of sunlight.

Do wild animals "take pleasure" from being "free?" Well, that probably depends on both your definition of pleasure and on what that wild animal happens to be experiencing at the time. When a wild buck mouse is grooming a member of his harem, they are both flooded with biochemicals, many of which will result in a pleasurable experience. When that same buck is being kept solitarily in captivity because the owner wishes to avoid an unwanted litter, he is deprived for life of contact with conspecifics. In this case, I'd say that the wild buck is enjoying one of the benefits of his freedom. However, if you asked me if the same mouse is enjoying being eaten by an owl rather than the comparative safety of an enclosure, I'd say he's not enjoying his freedom very much at all.

Captivity results in _trade offs_ for an animal. I find that people on both ends of this debate have romanticised the concepts of either captivity or the wild based on which side of the fence they are on. Being a wild animal is not just frollicking around freely, but being a captive animal isn't just having it made in the shade. If the wild was as awful as some folks have made it out to be in order to shed captivity in a more positive light, I don't imagine many species would thrive in it as they do. Likewise, if captivity was just the absolute best situation, we wouldn't have so many health and behavioral issues that are observed ONLY or overwhelmingly more often in captive populations. There are benefits to both and downsides to both, _period_.

I have but one more thought for this discussion on the freedom vs. captivity. One thing I keep seeing cited that may be fairly accurate for female tarantulas and a few other species is that confinement isn't a problem because either a) x animal doesn't move around much or b) they only move around a lot in nature because there is a NEED to. I want to address both. First of all, while there are some terribly sedentary animals out there, it is a wildly inaccurate statement to suggest that most herps in particular don't move around much. Yeah, a horned frog or burm isn't a wildly active animal. But anyone who has observed wild reptiles and amphibians is either smoking something or in denial to say that herps are inactive animals. A tiny little anole covers a HUGE ammount of territory for a lizard of its size, for example. I'd say there are more active herps than inactive herps, even if many spend a decent chunk of the day basking. 

Now, this brings us to the suggestion that it's fine to keep even active lizards in small enclosures because they are only active due to a need to find a basking spot or hunt a prey animal. However, the fact that an animal's needs are being met does not remove the underlying instinct. If you cage an animal that roams, even if you give it a big bowl of food and everything it could want for, it will still instinctively have the desire to roam. This is why we have stereotypical behaviors like pacing when we place active animals in small enclosures; the animal's brain is compelling it to move, move, move even when it doesn't HAVE to. And some reptiles DO exhibit this sort of behavior even if it is more common in "higher" species. 

So no, I don't believe that the fact that snakes aren't terribly active and don't have a reason to move around much since they are being tong fed mice once a week means that it is OK to cram a snake in an enclosure so small that the animal can't fully extend its body. At the very LEAST we should be able to agree that wild snakes straighten out every once in a while and should probably be allowed at least that very minimal degree of freedom of movement in the captive environment. Yet many are not, especially in the case of larger snakes, because it is impractical to provide that ammount of space. 

I lied about a final thought. My true final thought is this. I have seen a few posts now noting that life in the wild is "teh awfulz!" because animals need to live in constant fear/stress of predation. However, the fact that they are safe from predators _does not mean that they know this_, so they have just as much stress from the looming threat of predation in captivity as they do in the wild. Most reptiles are not domesticated and no inverts are. Many will not adjust to the idea that human =/= predator. A reality is that many need to face a potential predator every day when its keeper walks into the room to turn on the basking lights or open the cage door to feed/water. And unlike in the wild where they can dash a few yards to get far away, they can run to the side of an enclosure and scrabble frantically against the glass. How is THAT less stressful? Anyone who has watched a lizard grind its face off because it smashes into the side of its enclosure in a frantic escape effort every time someone walks into the room can not honestly say that captivity is less stressful for that animal.

Again, I'm not unequivocally opposed to captivity. However, I do find it interesting that so many folks on here are happy to make all kinds of assumptions on how great captivity is for reptiles, yet call it anthropomorphism if someone suggests that freedom might have its benefits as well. If we can't be aware to the negatives of captivity due to blinders imposed by our desire to keep pets, we really can't adequately defend it with its merits.


----------



## stevetastic (Dec 3, 2010)

+1   Its really long but everyone should read this!


----------



## dtknow (Dec 4, 2010)

RGR: That was excellent. 

I'd like to point out that while yes many animals do suffer from, say, malnutrition in captivity-it should be the owners responsibility to provide adequately to prevent this from happening. For fairness in comparison we should assume the captive animal is kept in humane and adequate conditions.(and that the wild animal is in habitat conducive to its growth/survival).

I'm not saying that freedom(defined here as life in the wild) does not have certain benefits as far as the animal is concerned, but I feel that unless it is something that cannot absolutely be provided in captivity-then the animal is really enjoying the benefits of "being free". The buck mouse in your example could be placed in an enclosure with dozens of female mice.(and could be all alone by misfortune in the wild) His enjoyment of that isn't the enjoyment of "being free"...assuming he's just as happy with lots of females irregardless of whether or not he's in an enclosure.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Dec 4, 2010)

dt, I agree that much of the suffering of animals in captivity is due to a failure to provide for their needs. However, I also think that if we are to debate captivity vs the wild, we need to keep two things in mind: 1) there is no set standard for "ideal" captive care - if you ask two different keepers they'll give you two totally different opinions and b) excellent husbandry where every possible need that can be met is met _isn't_ necessarily typical. Realistically, I'd say that sadly _most_ animals from the domesticated to the wild are not having as many of their needs met as is feasibly possible in the captive environment. Mediocrity, at least in my experience, is far more common in pet ownership than excellence - it takes a truly devoted enthusiast to go all out for a companion animal, whereas many people keep pets casually. 

As a small example: many people keep leopard geckos as pets. Is ideal husbandry for a leopard gecko merely providing it with food, water, heat, and a hide, then? Does this mean that the care of a leopard gecko being kept in a shoebox sized enclosure typical of a breeding rack & eating a capful of mealworms every day is ideal? What about a leopard gecko being housed outdoors (climate appropriate, obviously) in a large enclosure where it has access to varied hiding places, choices of basking spots, etc. and is allowed to hunt several species of prey in its enclosure? The latter option provides more space, environmental enrichment, and behavioral enrichment, but both meet the leopard gecko's basic needs. 

The question for me is, where do we draw a line for an animal's captive "needs?" Is it only what it requires to survive, or should it also address as many of its natural behaviors and inclinations as possible? If we pigeonhole reptiles and amphibians as something too "primitive" and "dumb" to need things like enrichment, are we doing them a disservice in the captive environment by making presumptions about what they do or do not need? These are my concerns when I read some of the posts in this thread.

ETA: I am probably at least a little biased in this discussion because I have moved to an area where I can provide most of my herps with large, outdoor enclosures. I'm not really sure of how to describe it, but something very impressive happens to the health, body condition, activity level, and behavior of a reptile when you are able to provide it with a spacious, naturalistic environment. After seeing our beardies thriving an outdoor 8x8 enclosure rather than surviving in a 55g aquarium despite the latter being considered perfectly adequate captive care, I have trouble thinking of animals in glass boxes the same way. Indeed, I am sad for my tortoise, box turtle, leopard geckos, etc. who are being overwintered in indoor enclosures I once thought perfectly acceptable which now seem woefully inadequate after observing them outdoors.


----------



## JColt (Dec 4, 2010)

That conversation with me would have lasted all of a second. Cant print what my answer would have been but it would have been over


----------

