# Directly Misting The Tarantula



## Peregrin (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm gonna get so much hate for this but I actually directly mist my tarantulas. I do this so that the tarantula would be forced to drink bits of the water. 
I really don't get why people frown upon misting the tarantulas directly. I'm aware of the stress but seriously, these things can last for months without food and what's a few droplets to them?

Pls share your opinions and explain why the tarantula should not be misted. I see lots of people on other forums saying "DO NOT MIST THE TARANTULA DIRECTLY" without explaining the logic behind it aside from the probable stress it will induce.


----------



## Cavedweller (Sep 17, 2014)

Since spider hair serves as a sensory organ, I would imagine getting it wet would be quite unpleasant and possibly disorienting. 

Why do you force them to drink? Has dehydration been a problem with your Ts?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 17, 2014)

First of all, it is to my understanding their whole body is like a receiver. So you send them into sensory overload, a sensory overload that doesn't go away until the drops evaporate off of them. Like having sandpaper rubbed all over every single inch of your body for an hour or so. Which is why you shouldn't 'pet' your Ts either. If you choose to handle, let them crawl over your hands without rubbing them at all.

Second of all, +1 on why do you have to force them to drink? If provided with an adequate water source they'll drink when they want/need to.

Third, I have to say if you know you're going to get 'hate' for it then you must know on some level it's wrong and still choose to do so...why?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 17, 2014)

Their mouths are on the underside of their cephalothorax - logistically, spraying them directly won't force them to drink.  I mist some of my spiders in lieu of a waterdish, and I mist in either their webbing or the side of their enclosure.

Will spraying them directly cause stress related harm?  Nope.  Minor annoyance at worst, as they'll try and get out of "the rain" possibly.  But you're failing to do what you claim you want when spraying them directly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## High Lord Dee (Sep 17, 2014)

On several of my tropical T enclosures, I use automated misters to maintain humidity levels.  Occasionally, I have noticed a T standing in the mist stream.  Weird.  While not often, it has not harmed them so I can only assume it is not harmful but agree with all the posts that there is no reason to do it if the humidity levels are accurate and they have a water dish available.


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 17, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Will spraying them directly cause stress related harm?  Nope.  Minor annoyance at worst, as they'll try and get out of "the rain" possibly.


Just mild annoyance? Huh, I misunderstood. I really thought it was a little more severe. Not fatal or damaging, just sent their nervous system into a haywire.


----------



## BobGrill (Sep 17, 2014)

That's a rather stupid thing to do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Fins (Sep 17, 2014)

I have never intentionally directly misted any of my Ts.  However my A. seemanni got soaked accidentally when I was filling his water bowl.  He was sitting under a plant that covers the bowl.  I wasn't paying close attention.  He didn't budge.  He's weird.  

I don't mist mine anymore because the others all dislike it.  I use squeeze bottles or droppers.  But he never cared if I misted or if some water flowed into whichever hole he was in.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 17, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> Just mild annoyance? Huh, I misunderstood. I really thought it was a little more severe. Not fatal or damaging, just sent their nervous system into a haywire.


How do you think a species would survive for millions of years if, every time it rained, their brains malfunctioned?

Reactions: Funny 2 | Helpful 1


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 17, 2014)

Well, there are spiders that bathe in their water bowls. I also remember a method that a highly respected person does here (forget his name but he wrote a book. I think the tarantula handbook or some sort. Mostly likely schultz). He has a deep burrowing species of a tarantula and to maintain humdity, he douses the entire burrow of the tarantula with a glass if water (with the t inside the burrow). So, if the t can handle huge amountsnof water, what are a few droplets? 

There are also some Ts that submerge themselves completely in water.

I mist them to ensure directly to ensure they have water. I also like simulating the rain they would experience.

---------- Post added 09-18-2014 at 10:24 AM ----------




freedumbdclxvi said:


> Their mouths are on the underside of their cephalothorax - logistically, spraying them directly won't force them to drink.  I mist some of my spiders in lieu of a waterdish, and I mist in either their webbing or the side of enclosure


I also mist the webbings of my ceratogyrus darlingi. It's abdomen shrinks ever so often with the constant webbing so i make sure it gets water. Sometimes the ts get in thr way of the web lol


----------



## Biollantefan54 (Sep 17, 2014)

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier and less stressful if you just put in a water bowl?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cold blood (Sep 17, 2014)

Is it gonna kill them...no....annoy them, perhaps.  But please explain to me how they are going to be able to ingest water that's on them?  Makes no sense at all, unless you're dealing with amphibians, which t's certainly are not....water on the t will simply be there until it drys and won't help hydrate them, the exo will prevent that.  They ingest water that is beneath them, not above them

Also when it rains in the wild, t's are not generally out, they typically hide from the rain and emerge after the rains stop.

In 14 years I have yet to "mist" a single t...or its enclosure...its simply not the best way to maintain humidity.  I understand doing it for some species where you may lightly mist the side, or the webbing, but I find its more effectively done with a syringe as you can be exceptionally precise with your water delivery.  Misting is anything BUT precise and it generally evaporates quickly...if it doesn't, you probably have too little ventilation.
As for spiders that bathe in pools, the only species I know of that enjoys water enough to swim or submerge itself it H. gigas...and I consider it the exception to the rule.

No worries peregrin, its just a question/comment, I wouldn't worry about being lambasted by anyone.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 17, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> How do you think a species would survive for millions of years if, every time it rained, their brains malfunctioned?


I didn't think that it made their brains malfunction, so much as it was just very unpleasant. I've never seen a spider run into a rainstorm eagerly, they always seem to hide from it. But it's good to know it doesn't hurt them. I'm always extra careful not to get any water on them. I felt bad when my A. geniculata attacks the water and half-douses herself.


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 17, 2014)

cold blood said:


> Is it gonna kill them...no....annoy them, perhaps.  But please explain to me how they are going to be able to ingest water that's on them?  Makes no sense at all, unless you're dealing with amphibians, which t's certainly are not....water on the t will simply be there until it drys and won't help hydrate them, the exo will prevent that.  They ingest water that is beneath them, not above them


My tarantulas are very inactive but when they do spot food, they go for it. I mist them directly so the soil underneath also gets wet. They have webs all over so there would be some water on the ground beneath for them to drink. My enclosures are also too small to accomodte a water dish. They're just 3 inches and the containers have a 4 inch diameter. I also don't want to put a water dish yet to give them space to burrow and such. 
As for the small enclosure, I feel that it gives them security since they have very little area to be cautious of.


----------



## Akai (Sep 18, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> I also remember a method that a highly respected person does here (forget his name but he wrote a book. I think the tarantula handbook or some sort. Mostly likely schultz). He has a deep burrowing species of a tarantula and to maintain humdity, he douses the entire burrow of the tarantula with a glass if water (with the t inside the burrow).
> 
> There are also some Ts that submerge themselves completely in water.
> 
> ...


are you sure you are not describing the "flooding technique".  This is used to rehouse fossorial T's when you want to get them out of their burrow to rehouse them.  Flooding is the easiest way to get a T out of it's burrow and the T isn't going to live in a flooded burrow.

---------- Post added 09-18-2014 at 12:14 AM ----------




Biollantefan54 said:


> Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier and less stressful if you just put in a water bowl?


I was wondering the same thing.  :?


----------



## Storm76 (Sep 18, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> My tarantulas are very inactive but when they do spot food, they go for it. I mist them directly so the soil underneath also gets wet. They have webs all over so there would be some water on the ground beneath for them to drink. My enclosures are also too small to accomodte a water dish. They're just 3 inches and the containers have a 4 inch diameter. I also don't want to put a water dish yet to give them space to burrow and such.
> As for the small enclosure, I feel that it gives them security since they have very little area to be cautious of.


You keep 3" terrestrial (?) tarantulas in enclosures with a 4" diameter and you spray your T's by intent to ensure they drink? On top of that, you're sure "you'll receive a lot of hate" for that latter statement.

First of all: Do you have a dog, too? Do you throw him into the swimming pool to ensure he drinks? Seriously... 

Aside that, those enclosures are far too small! The rule of thumb is 3x legspan wide for terrestrials, or 3x height for arboreals. I'd like to see some pictures of your enclosures, please.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Akai (Sep 18, 2014)

What kind of tarantula are we talking about here?  Did I miss something?


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 18, 2014)

Oh come on. Is everyone here trying to tell me they don't jump in the shower whenever their thirsty?

Come on, tell the truth.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## viper69 (Sep 18, 2014)

As a long time owner of herps and Ts, particularly those you shouldn't "stress" out too much, I've always felt the word stress is overly used.

Many people on the forum here have described Ts and their primary modality (vibration/touch) in the context of the T freaking out due to some owner induced stimuli.

I really believe people over exaggerate the impact it may have on the animal. Humans primary systems are vision then  touch. WE don't freak out and we are bombarded by constant visual stimuli. The same for other animals that live in the wild and vision is there primary means of learning their world.

Whatever modality an animal uses they have evolved to handle a lot of stimuli from that primary sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Blue Jaye (Sep 18, 2014)

I am also wondering about the enclosure size, a 3 in T in a 4 in enclosure ? Wow that's cramped quarters !!! This could cause many different problems not enough space to molt and get bigger . As for misting the  T directly there's just no real good reason to do so IMO


----------



## viper69 (Sep 18, 2014)

High Lord Dee said:


> On several of my tropical T enclosures, I use automated misters to maintain humidity levels.  Occasionally, I have noticed a T standing in the mist stream.  Weird.  While not often, it has not harmed them so I can only assume it is not harmful but agree with all the posts that there is no reason to do it if the humidity levels are accurate and they have a water dish available.


What misting system are you using? What species have the system, and what's the flow rate on your nozzles?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 18, 2014)

Blue Jaye said:


> I am also wondering about the enclosure size, a 3 in T in a 4 in enclosure ? Wow that's cramped quarters !!! This could cause many different problems not enough space to molt and get bigger .


I have a 3" versi in a 4" diameter deli that is also 6" high, and the space is well more than adequate.   I don't know the depth of the enclosure the OP has, but the size isn't seeming too out of the ordinary to me barring a depth of, say, 3".


----------



## BobGrill (Sep 18, 2014)

Do whatever you want, don't be surprised if you get a lot of hate for it here. There's no reason to directly mist your spiders. You're pretty much doing it because you want to do it. There's no benefit for the tarantulas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poec54 (Sep 18, 2014)

As far as the spider knows, misting could be the beginning of a heavy rain that could wash them away.  It's also an excellent way to cause them to panic and run, especially in small cages.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timisimaginary (Sep 18, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> Oh come on. Is everyone here trying to tell me they don't jump in the shower whenever their thirsty?
> 
> Come on, tell the truth.


whenever i'm thirsty, i do the ice bucket challenge.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Python (Sep 18, 2014)

I don't mist anything but I don't think it's a mortal sin either. First, I see a lot of people saying there's no good reason for it. True enough. There's also no reason to catch them, take them home and put them in a fish tank other than pure curiosity and unless you are doing research of some kind, seriously that is, there's no reason for it. 
Second, the T doesn't like it, it freaks/stresses them out. Maybe, but no one has offered any evidence other than gut feelings. They run away from the water? True but watch TV for more than a day and it's almost a guarantee that you'll see at least one person running out of the rain thoroughly unstressed. Want to see animals, youtube has an entire fanbase dedicated to watching pets jump in a pool, ride a surfboard, attack a garden sprinkler, etc.
Third, pouring water on top of a spider to make it drink might work considering gravity might help move the water from the top to the bottom. Capillary action would assist in getting said water into the mouth. 
Come on guys, there are too many people here with the intelligence to tackle this without relying on pat answers. 
I don't know if there is or isn't any evidence to back all of this up but I do know that if the answer isn't here then someone here definitely has the ability and resources to find out. Let's here the data on this. Educate me!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Formerphobe (Sep 18, 2014)

I cause periodic 'rains' in my invert enclosures.  But, I aim away from the inhabitant(s).  All have hides or burrows to escape to if they're not already ensconced. The rare T and some of the scorpions will walk into the 'rainfall', most avoid it.
Deliberately misting a spider with no retreat in a tight enclosure is borderline abuse, IMO.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## MadMauC (Sep 18, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> As far as the spider knows, misting could be the beginning of a heavy rain that could wash them away.  It's also an excellent way to cause them to panic and run, especially in small cages.


That is so true - to add on - a hungry predator seeking a fat juicy tarantula to snack on would primarily sniff out its hide to detect its presence - misting - besides the water,  creates the hissing of air movement similar to an animal's breath - that's why Ts hate to be blown at - I believe they can probably also detect CO2.  




viper69 said:


> As a long time owner of herps and Ts, particularly those you shouldn't "stress" out too much, I've always felt the word stress is overly used.
> 
> Many people on the forum here have described Ts and their primary modality (vibration/touch) in the context of the T freaking out due to some owner induced stimuli.
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree with Viper - I find it quite amusing that we attribute human traits/feelings/affection to our pets - I believe these are only possible to higher intelligent  life forms - like our pet dogs, cats, parrots, ferrets etc where a reaction to an external stimuli could possibly be attributed to submissive behavior, anger or affection etc. Lower life forms like Ts do not get pissed get angry or display "affection". To them it's a fight or flight reaction to a stimuli - a matter of survival or be eaten - I don't handle my pokies but I have the best behaved pokies - from slings I have conditioned them to constant daily exposure to my scent, movement - hence have no reason to fight or take flight - but I don't think they are in any way tamed or domesticated - I still respect them still consider them as wild animals that will bite if they feel threaten. 

OP's posting was to harness information and gather our opinions - so others may also benefit from our insights - trashing or passing judgement or questioning of his actions will not enrich anybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 18, 2014)

viper69 said:


> As a long time owner of herps and Ts, particularly those you shouldn't "stress" out too much, I've always felt the word stress is overly used.
> 
> Many people on the forum here have described Ts and their primary modality (vibration/touch) in the context of the T freaking out due to some owner induced stimuli.
> 
> ...


I disagree slightly. I know a lot of people who get dizzy or nauseated from 3D movies, and my one friend gets migraines. Look at the Nintendo virtual boy. Messing with our ocular sensory system does have negative effects. Now, some are more sensitive and some are less. But it does happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oumriel (Sep 18, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> I didn't think that it made their brains malfunction, so much as it was just very unpleasant. I've never seen a spider run into a rainstorm eagerly, they always seem to hide from it. But it's good to know it doesn't hurt them. I'm always extra careful not to get any water on them. I felt bad when my A. geniculata attacks the water and half-douses herself.


Totally agree, it's one thing to get rained on and completely different to get scsshed scsshed in the face.


EDIT:
Yep, I just wrote that...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 18, 2014)

Formerphobe said:


> Deliberately misting a spider with no retreat in a tight enclosure is borderline abuse, IMO.


Borderline abuse seems completely melodramatic.


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 18, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Borderline abuse seems completely melodramatic.


I agree. It would be something if OP was doing these things to intentionally harm the tarantulas, enjoying the fact that he was causing them duress.

However, it seems like he wholeheartedly believes that his techniques are 'better' and perhaps even 'innovative'. Misguidance isn't the same as abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Formerphobe (Sep 18, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> I agree. It would be something if OP was doing these things to intentionally harm the tarantulas, enjoying the fact that he was causing them duress.
> 
> However, it seems like he wholeheartedly believes that his techniques are 'better' and perhaps even 'innovative'. Misguidance isn't the same as abuse.
> 
> ...


That's why I called it borderline.  If the OP had never been taught that hosing down a tarantula to give it a drink is inappropriate, then the abuse would stem from ignorance.  If all of his research and queries on reputable sites have indicated that directly misting is *not* the way to 'water' your spiders, and he does it anyway, then that is just plain stupid and is blatant abuse.  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Python (Sep 18, 2014)

I don't doubt the claims made that directly spraying a T stresses it but I'd still like to see something more substantial than "everybody knows it". How do they know it? Is there some evidence that spiders sprayed directly with water are stressed to the point of detriment? I see a lot of claims which, to me anyway, amount to little more than claims made by people swearing that tarantulas can kill you or that you can cut up snakes and the pieces will turn into new snakes. I'd like for someone to offer something more than opinion on this. Has anyone ever lost a tarantula due to it getting wet? I mean in the course of ordinary maintenance, not drenching one till the humidity is 90% for six months. Has any research even been done in this area? How could you even test for something as arbitrary as feelings, especially in an animal that function on a mere reactive level? Do they have enough of a memory to allow for suffering after the event has stopped? Is there research or is all of this simply opinion?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 18, 2014)

Formerphobe said:


> That's why I called it borderline.  If the OP had never been taught that hosing down a tarantula to give it a drink is inappropriate, then the abuse would stem from ignorance.  If all of his research and queries on reputable sites have indicated that directly misting is *not* the way to 'water' your spiders, and he does it anyway, then that is just plain stupid and is blatant abuse.  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.


I would argue that would be more negligence than abuse, but this isn't a court battle lol

Either way, I'm still a bit wary of OP stating he was going to get "hate" because they know you aren't supposed to do it- but continues to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Formerphobe (Sep 18, 2014)

Python said:


> I don't doubt the claims made that directly spraying a T stresses it but I'd still like to see something more substantial than "everybody knows it". How do they know it? Is there some evidence that spiders sprayed directly with water are stressed to the point of detriment? I see a lot of claims which, to me anyway, amount to little more than claims made by people swearing that tarantulas can kill you or that you can cut up snakes and the pieces will turn into new snakes. I'd like for someone to offer something more than opinion on this. Has anyone ever lost a tarantula due to it getting wet? I mean in the course of ordinary maintenance, not drenching one till the humidity is 90% for six months. Has any research even been done in this area? How could you even test for something as arbitrary as feelings, especially in an animal that function on a mere reactive level? Do they have enough of a memory to allow for suffering after the event has stopped? Is there research or is all of this simply opinion?


It's not the 'wet' that is the point, it's the method.  (As well as the [3 inch terrestrial in a 4 inch enclosure not big enough for a water bowl].  And if not big enough for a water bowl, certainly not big enough for a hide to escape.)
Mildly comparable to someone being a willing participant as the dunkee in a dunk tank, or being placed there blindfolded and the big dunk coming completely unexpectedly.  Here, have some water....  If I were aware and willing, it would be fun or at least cooling on a hot day.  If I was blindsided, it would come as a shock and, being human, I would be pissed.
Certainly tarantulas get caught in rain storms in natural settings, but they also have the ability to run for cover.  What the OP is describing is the regular misting of confined animals that have no cover and nowhere to run.  It is our responsibility as animal keepers to not deliberately inflict undue stress.  Doesn't matter if or how long the victim remembers the stress or suffering.  The fact that it is being imposed regularly speaks to the character of the keeper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobGrill (Sep 18, 2014)

How would you like it if someone sprayed you with a hose while you were just chilling on the wall minding your own business?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 18, 2014)

Unless someone takes their KK outside and sprays the spider with a garden hose, misting a tarantula isn't abuse.  It's hilarious at best and ignorant at worst to even imply misting a spider is abuse.  Jebus.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Oumriel (Sep 18, 2014)

BobGrill said:


> How would you like it if someone sprayed you with a hose while you were just chilling on the wall minding your own business?


I think they do that at Guantanamo. :sarcasm:


----------



## viper69 (Sep 18, 2014)

Formerphobe said:


> It's not the 'wet' that is the point, it's the method.  (As well as the [3 inch terrestrial in a 4 inch enclosure not big enough for a water bowl].  And if not big enough for a water bowl, certainly not big enough for a hide to escape.)
> Mildly comparable to someone being a willing participant as the dunkee in a dunk tank, or being placed there blindfolded and the big dunk coming completely unexpectedly.  Here, have some water....  If I were aware and willing, it would be fun or at least cooling on a hot day.  If I was blindsided, it would come as a shock and, being human, I would be pissed.
> Certainly tarantulas get caught in rain storms in natural settings, but they also have the ability to run for cover.  What the OP is describing is the regular misting of confined animals that have no cover and nowhere to run.  It is our responsibility as animal keepers to not deliberately inflict undue stress.  Doesn't matter if or how long the victim remembers the stress or suffering.  The fact that it is being imposed regularly speaks to the character of the keeper.


He keeps a 3" terrestrial in a 4" enclosure???  I think the Nazi's treated the Jews better.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 18, 2014)

The OP has yet to elucidate what species of spider and the depth of the enclosure.  As I said before, I have a 3" versi in a 4" diameter 6" deep deli cup where it has plenty of space.  In lieu of information, people have been substituting hysteria of abuse and Gitmo torture and probably Benghazi before it is all said and done.

Edit:  and in the Holy name of Al Gore, thank Jebus Viper made sure Godwin's Law remains ironclad!


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 19, 2014)

On reputable sites, they just tell us not to do it. No explanation why. Induced stress, sure. I was sure to get hate bc not misting tarantulas was the norm. I want to know why it's the norm. Give me better reasons aside from it's not the right thing to do. 

Enclosures are 4 inch in diameter and 7 inches in height. My Ts burrow all the time. Vagans, darlingi, pulchripes, albopilosum. I chose to give them height bc I want to see the intricate tunnels. 

Before, i would give them lots of surface area but they don't do anything. So I cramped them up to see some activity. An it worked. 

I've done so much research and I chose to do my own things. The norm is giving tarantulas so much space but they also molt in tight spaces. I had a 1 inch pulchripes in a 6 x 6 x 6 container half filled with coco peat and it still decided to molt in its brrow

I wanted to experiment and so far, i've grown my .2 inch slings to 3 inches. I like tunnels and I hate artificial hides. They said the tarantulas wouldn't grow well and die but Ts can handle so much shit so I tried somethin new.


----------



## cold blood (Sep 19, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> On reputable sites, they just tell us not to do it. No explanation why. Induced stress, sure. I was sure to get hate bc not misting tarantulas was the norm. I want to know why it's the norm. Give me better reasons aside from it's not the right thing to do.
> 
> Enclosures are 4 inch in diameter and 7 inches in height. My Ts burrow all the time. Vagans, darlingi, pulchripes, albopilosum. I chose to give them height bc I want to see the intricate tunnels.
> 
> ...


I like this, it looks great.  I put my B. vagans sling in a tall vial at 1/3", filled it with sub and gave it a smaller amount of room at the top, as it was a poor eater I wanted it to have to work as little as possible.  It has dug many very cool intricate tunnels and every once in a while just changes it. As it grew, its tunnels became more complex, and with the complexity the little scaredy became more confident and is now eating reliably and molting faster as a result. Very interesting, I plan on doing on a larger, deeper scale for P. muticus in the future.  Tunnels are very cool looking cool for sure.   It does look very natural when you observe them.  And the t certainly does not appear in any to be cramped in the least.  All the tunnels actually make for a lot of expanded area for them to move and maneuver.

And to be fair, there have been many good reasons given.

Why not just mist when they're in the burrow?


----------



## MadMauC (Sep 19, 2014)

fictional case - entertainment for someone who is obviously bored - waste of our time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 19, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> On reputable sites, they just tell us not to do it. No explanation why. Induced stress, sure. I was sure to get hate bc not misting tarantulas was the norm. I want to know why it's the norm. Give me better reasons aside from it's not the right thing to do.
> 
> Enclosures are 4 inch in diameter and 7 inches in height. My Ts burrow all the time. Vagans, darlingi, pulchripes, albopilosum. I chose to give them height bc I want to see the intricate tunnels.
> 
> ...


Did you ever consider maybe they're burrowing because the environment you're creating for them on the surface is unfavorable? 

And just because your techniques aren't what is typically taught doesn't mean it's new. I'm sure you're not the first person to directly spray their t. But in these decades the hobby has been around, the techniques were narrowed down into a few things that work the best. That's why they're commonly in practice. Yes there are always variations, and there is no "right" way to keep a tarantula.

There are several wrong ways however.

A little wary that your reasoning behind trying something "new" by direct spraying your tarantulas is because "Ts can handle so much crap". Because they aren't made of glass it's okay to test their boundaries? For what purpose? Your own curiosity? To tell everyone spraying their tarantulas won't kill them, but it also doesn't do anything beneficial either? Flawless thesis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## viper69 (Sep 19, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> The OP has yet to elucidate what species of spider and the depth of the enclosure.  As I said before, I have a 3" versi in a 4" diameter 6" deep deli cup where it has plenty of space.  In lieu of information, people have been substituting hysteria of abuse and Gitmo torture and probably Benghazi before it is all said and done.
> 
> Edit:  and in the Holy name of Al Gore, thank Jebus Viper made sure Godwin's Law remains ironclad!



I said it for exactly that reason. I thought you or someone similar may notice hahaahhah. If only 1 person had replied I wouldn't have said that, but after all the posts in this thread, you bet!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 19, 2014)

cold blood said:


> Why not just mist when they're in the burrow?


They get out of their burrows when I do the misting. Lol. I do the misting bc when I used water dishes, they dumped their food in there. And without the water dish, I need to give it a new water source. It could suck some water out of that soil. There are also droplets on the wall of the enclosure but it evaporates too fast.

---------- Post added 09-19-2014 at 04:25 PM ----------




miss moxie said:


> Did you ever consider maybe they're burrowing because the environment you're creating for them on the surface is unfavorable?
> 
> And just because your techniques aren't what is typically taught doesn't mean it's new. I'm sure you're not the first person to directly spray their t. But in these decades the hobby has been around, the techniques were narrowed down into a few things that work the best. That's why they're commonly in practice. Yes there are always variations, and there is no "right" way to keep a tarantula.
> 
> ...


Define "favorable."

This is just like the classic case of people imposing that cockroaches are better than superworms as a feeder because of the higher protein content even though no one actually knows the dietary needs of a T. 

State what I did wrong then prove that I'm wrong. Don't relate your arguments to human feelings. Help me learn. You forget to add examples along with your explanations. 

I wanted to know how much Ts could handle before freaking out and dying with a little water shower. I don't drown the T in 5 inches of water. I just give it 1 spray which creates droplets on its hair and I don't do it every day. It's more of a twice a month thing. 
There are so many tarantula keepers panicking that their t will die because they don't have a water dish, they stopped eating for a week, they are not providing the right humidity, and so many more. People panic over the tiniest reasons. Yes, I want to show that spraying a T won't kill it. I want to show that people can be confident about their Ts. I want to show that Ts can adjust, adapt and thrive even in conditions that are not "perfectly" suitable. 

I want to show that people don't need to panic every <edit> time they don't exactly do something stated on the internet. 

I started in this hobby and I always panicked because articles told me to put heatmats, create a mix of substrates, provide water dishes, mist every day, make sure the enclosure is 3 times larger, simulate night time and day time and the list could go on. I didn't have that much money because I'm just a college student and I really don't want to keep asking money from my parents.

Even with countless hours of research, no one told me that the bare essentials are more than enough to help a tarantula thrive and that this hobby allows huge leeway for those new to the hobby. All the articles on the internet explained tarantula care so rigidly and showed that tarantulas have so many needs even though they barely need anything.

---------- Post added 09-19-2014 at 04:31 PM ----------




Akai said:


> are you sure you are not describing the "flooding technique".  This is used to rehouse fossorial T's when you want to get them out of their burrow to rehouse them.  Flooding is the easiest way to get a T out of it's burrow and the T isn't going to live in a flooded burrow.




I'm sure it was being done to maintain humidity. After dousing the tarantula burrow with the glass of water, he would seal the enclosure with a saran wrap because he said that their place had a really dry environment which made maintaining humidity an obstacle.


----------



## Python (Sep 19, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> Did you ever consider maybe they're burrowing because the environment you're creating for them on the surface is unfavorable?


Or maybe they're obligate burrowers.



miss moxie said:


> There are several wrong ways however.


Maybe, but no one has provided any source material supporting the theory that misting a tarantula is bad.



miss moxie said:


> A little wary that your reasoning behind trying something "new" by direct spraying your tarantulas is because "Ts can handle so much shit". Because they aren't made of glass it's okay to test their boundaries? For what purpose? Your own curiosity? To tell everyone spraying their tarantulas won't kill them, but it also doesn't do anything beneficial either? Flawless thesis.


First, the entire reason for keeping tarantulas in the first place is "Your own curiosity". The spiders themselves did not volunteer to be kept captive, they were originally taken from their homes, put in collection jars, brought into a hobby where they are kept in little glass or plastic artificial worlds. Second, "testing their boundaries" is what makes science work. Without testing there are only theories, no solutions. Third, it doesn't do anything beneficial? Sources please? I think flawless thesis might be a bit harsh

As I said earlier, I do not mist at all, directly or indirectly. I don't even own a spray bottle although I could find use for one. I don't know if misting is good, bad or indifferent but I do know this, without proof, it's only a theory. I would really like to see some sort of information on this based on empirical evidence, not emotion, opinion or "everybody knows that". I don't care which way the argument swings either. If it turns out that direct misting causes brain rot and makes spiders implode, so be it but offering up the argument that it stresses the animal isn't valid unless you can prove it stresses the animal. I've been caught in the rain many times, I have to work in it in fact, but I was never stressed out about it. Granted, I got out of it as soon as I could but it had no negative impact on me whatsoever. I've seen more animals than I can count that actually liked to go out and play in the rain. quite a few of them were running around in it. Doesn't mean they were stressed just because they were running in the rain. 

The biggest problem I have with threads like this is people's opinions play heavily into the subject. Like I said earlier, making a definitive statement without proof is akin to saying tarantulas are deadly poisonous. It makes a person no better than the mainstream media spreading misinformation without any fact checking whatsoever. This is where good ideas break down because people just take it as read that everyone before them was right without ever questioning how they know. Sometimes bad ideas work too. If no one ever questions it, does it make it a good idea?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 19, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> They get out of their burrows when I do the misting. Lol. I do the misting bc when I used water dishes, they dumped their food in there. And without the water dish, I need to give it a new water source. It could suck some water out of that soil. There are also droplets on the wall of the enclosure but it evaporates too fast.
> 
> ---------- Post added 09-19-2014 at 04:25 PM ----------
> 
> ...


And you’ve already just brought up one of the classic reasons why misting is pointless. Because the water you mist into there evaporates too fast and doesn’t really do much of anything at all to hold moisture. And I feel like there may be a touch of back-pedaling going on. Now you say you're only doing it twice a month, but this is still in an attempt to prove the hardiness of tarantulas? Or is it because you "had" to introduce a new water source?

You didn’t do anything “wrong”, you’re not using cricket gel to water them and you aren’t keeping them on mulch. But my point that you aren’t grasping isn’t that misting is the devil, and here are ten reasons why. My point is that if a method is proven by someone who has had a lot more time and money and tarantulas than you, someone who has put decades into this hobby then why keep doing it? Specifically because you’ve no idea (no one does) if you’re hurting them or just pissing them off or not bothering them in the slightest. But the second part is mostly an after thought.

You say you want to prove to tarantula enthusiasts that tarantulas aren’t china dolls? Someone has already done that. The same person who also explained why misting is fairly pointless.

You say you want to mimic rain and nature? In Stan’s beginner website he states that there simply is no proof simulating nature is necessary. He says on his page about humidity that in the wild some tarantulas may not get a drink more than once or twice a year and survive without water completely if there is a drought. Then he goes on to say that keeping slings on moist substrate ensures a “higher, constant humidity around them” and also explains that as spiderlings begin to develop their waxy inner layer that keeps water in, you should start to dry them out. By drying them out, they respond by “producing a more impervious wax layer.”

So technically we could argue that they could possibly develop an insufficient wax layer if they aren’t exposed to dryer conditions. After all- is there any proof that this won’t happen? Any explanations? Has anyone proven or disproven this?

Stan also says “When most tarantulas are subjected to arid conditions, their first response is to drink more water. But, within a few weeks to a few months they develop a thicker, more impermeable layer of wax-like substance on their epicuticle to reduce water loss to the absolute, bare minimum. Many of the desert species are notorious for requiring little or no liquid water whatsoever, surviving almost entirely on the water held by their prey and from metabolic water (water produced de novo as food is metabolised for energy).”

And, the part that really spoke to me when I was first doing research:

"Decades of experience by literally tens of thousands of enthusiasts have amply demonstrated that within one or two molts almost all tarantulas larger than fifth or sixth instar babies, even most of the rain forest species, can not only survive but thrive in an effectively desert condition."

In your defense he does say that “we push the envelope to try and understand what full range of tolerances is for any given quality, and with a number of different species”. That being said however, what you’re trying to prove isn’t new. You aren’t the first person to try and prove they can adapt to basic and simple lifestyles. And unless you can make a sound argument why “forcing” them to drink and giving them cold showers is more beneficial to the tarantula, there is already a much simpler way to keep your tarantulas. But according to you, that isn’t what your constant watering is about. It’s so you can tell something that most people who do extensive research before plunging into the hobby already know. Tarantulas aren’t made of glass.

Now, onto misting. From Stan’s page on misting, he says, “The basic, underlying hypothesis is that one needs to spray or must a tarantula’s cage often in order to maintain an adequate humidity. Otherwise the poor creature that you just shelled out a day’s wages for was sure to crash and burn. But those were the days when we understood neither humidity not tarantulas worth beans. And worse, we’d been lies to for all our lives on both accounts!”



> If your tarantula's cage is fully enclosed or has a cover that retards at least 95% of the ventilation in the cage, the water evaporating from the water dish almost surely has already raised the humidity to almost 100%. All your time and efforts spent misting were wasted even before you started.
> 
> If you don't have such a cover on the tarantula's cage to retard ventilation, all the precious moisture that you've sprayed into the cage will have evaporated and wafted off into the room almost before you can put the mister away. All your time and efforts were wasted within a few minutes of walking away from the cage. Bummer!
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know how much more explanation you need, and I realize this is all from one single source/person. However if I haven't seen just about 12 dozen posts referring people to Stan's website/book then let me be struck down by whatever higher power their may be. So, it seems to be a general consensus that his research and word is more than a little bit respectable. 

You say:



> Even with countless hours of research, no one told me that the bare essentials are more than enough to help a tarantula thrive and that this hobby allows huge leeway for those new to the hobby. All the articles on the internet explained tarantula care so rigidly and showed that tarantulas have so many needs even though they barely need anything.


And I say: "The second thing you need to understand is the K.I.S.S. principle, not to infer that you're stupid." -- Stan Shultz

In conclusion, you're wrong that there isn't some influential tarantula enthusiast out there who is telling new hobbyists that they don't need to stress themselves out over heat mats, mixed substrates, misting, simulating nature, ect. And by myself I was able to find Stan's website and research. It wasn't pulling teeth, I didn't have to scour the deepest, darkest parts of this forum or the internet. His name and that website is practically a mantra.

Also as an after thought, you may want to mind your temper/language. We're supposed to avoid "the roughest" four letter words.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 19, 2014)

If Ts can adapt to their surroundings by altering their waxy layer, then why are water dishes still in use? In case the waxy layer fails? Or misting shouldn't be done aolely for keeping mites away?

I never said there isn't an expert telling us to keep it simple. A new hobbyist would just base his info on the first few sites he could find such as wikihow, about or youtube. Someone new also wouldn't know the existence of Stan. Google tarantula care and see if stan's site or name pops up. Not everyone wanting to own a tarantula also has the patience to do research.

But your reply truly is golden.


----------



## Python (Sep 19, 2014)

That's what I'm talking about, references to support theories and ideas. Lots of good information there. It doesn't address the question of whether it stresses the animal though. Sure, misting is unnecessary but is it actually harmful? I think you addressed that question by explaining the water retention properties of the  spider as it ages but considering they are kept in artificial environments under controlled conditions I would imagine the tarantula would adjust accordingly. 

Is it necessary?  No
Is it beneficial? Probably not
Is it harmful? Who knows for sure?


----------



## cold blood (Sep 19, 2014)

When it rains outside all spiders, even fishing spiders that make their living on the water, head for cover.


----------



## JohnDapiaoen (Sep 19, 2014)

cold blood said:


> When it rains outside *all* spiders, even fishing spiders that make their living on the water, head for cover.


Even diving bell spiders?? :? 

-JohnD.


----------



## Python (Sep 19, 2014)

cold blood said:


> When it rains outside all spiders, even fishing spiders that make their living on the water, head for cover.


And humans do too, doesn't mean they're stressed out about it.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 19, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> On reputable sites, they just tell us not to do it. No explanation why. Induced stress, sure. I was sure to get hate bc not misting tarantulas was the norm. I want to know why it's the norm. Give me better reasons aside from it's not the right thing to do.
> 
> Enclosures are 4 inch in diameter and 7 inches in height. My Ts burrow all the time. Vagans, darlingi, pulchripes, albopilosum. I chose to give them height bc I want to see the intricate tunnels.
> 
> ...


Nothing wrong with your enclosure sizes, especially with depth for burrowing.  And like I said before, spraying them directly won't induce drinking.  Spray the sub, the sides or the webbing and you're good.

---------- Post added 09-19-2014 at 11:40 AM ----------




viper69 said:


> I said it for exactly that reason. I thought you or someone similar may notice hahaahhah. If only 1 person had replied I wouldn't have said that, but after all the posts in this thread, you bet!


I figured that's why.  Made me laugh my arse off and I had to throw that edit in.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 19, 2014)

Python said:


> That's what I'm talking about, references to support theories and ideas. Lots of good information there. It doesn't address the question of whether it stresses the animal though. Sure, misting is unnecessary but is it actually harmful? I think you addressed that question by explaining the water retention properties of the  spider as it ages but considering they are kept in artificial environments under controlled conditions I would imagine the tarantula would adjust accordingly.
> 
> Is it necessary?  No
> Is it beneficial? Probably not
> Is it harmful? Who knows for sure?


I would like to second this person's statement.

Stan's claims are so brilliant, radical and counter-intuitive that i need to ask this question: what method did he use to arrive at that conclusion?

Did he publish the results of his experiment proving the existence of this waxy layer? How did he prove this existence? How did he prove that the amount of wax increases as time in a dry climate increases? Did he publish his results and data? What were the age of the slings? Were factors of molting, premolt and other stages of the life cycle of a tarantula taken into account? Was the feeding schedule, amount eaten, size of t, size enclosure and other factors properly documented? What would be his control in his experiement if there wqa any? So many questions must be answered. Sure, Stan is highly regarded. But we still need proof.

Can you show us data of his experimentation or method used to prove the existence of this waxy layer, miss moxie? No matter how reputable he is, i would only believe his claim of the increasing waxiness if he can completely remove the water dish and if he will share the data of his experiment


----------



## Python (Sep 19, 2014)

Nice call Peregrin. You are correct that everyone just takes the TKG as gospel without questioning methods. Good point. 
I myself have never read it and don't own it. When I got into the hobby it wasn't out yet so all of my learning at that stage was trial and error. Later, books became available but the information contained within ended up changing later. After a while, I gave up on the books and turned to other hobbyists. Then I found this site and just since I've been here methods have changed quite a bit. After a several year hiatus I found I needed to relearn the hobby. I was quite surprised. Anyway, the tried and true methods are the standard for a reason, just remember, standards change.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 19, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> If Ts can adapt to their surroundings by altering their waxy layer, then why are water dishes still in use? In case the waxy layer fails? Or misting shouldn't be done aolely for keeping mites away?
> 
> I never said there isn't an expert telling us to keep it simple. A new hobbyist would just base his info on the first few sites he could find such as wikihow, about or youtube. Someone new also wouldn't know the existence of Stan. Google tarantula care and see if stan's site or name pops up. Not everyone wanting to own a tarantula also has the patience to do research.
> 
> But your reply truly is golden.


I still am a new hobbyist. I got my first tarantula in June. And yet somehow I still managed to find it on my own within a day of joining this website, simply by digging through old threads.

I'm glad you enjoyed my reply, though it seems you don't have a real rebuttal for me.

---------- Post added 09-19-2014 at 06:04 PM ----------




Peregrin said:


> I would like to second this person's statement.
> 
> Stan's claims are so brilliant, radical and counter-intuitive that i need to ask this question: what method did he use to arrive at that conclusion?
> 
> ...


Sure, I'll just give his cell phone a ring.


----------



## Biollantefan54 (Sep 19, 2014)

Python said:


> And humans do too, doesn't mean they're stressed out about it.


I don't know about you guys but I for one get stressed out it if it pouring rain outside and I am in it.


----------



## advan (Sep 19, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> And you’ve already just brought up one of the classic reasons why misting is pointless. Because the water you mist into there evaporates too fast and doesn’t really do much of anything at all to hold moisture. And I feel like there may be a touch of back-pedaling going on. Now you say you're only doing it twice a month, but this is still in an attempt to prove the hardiness of tarantulas? Or is it because you "had" to introduce a new water source?
> 
> You didn’t do anything “wrong”, you’re not using cricket gel to water them and you aren’t keeping them on mulch. But my point that you aren’t grasping isn’t that misting is the devil, and here are ten reasons why. My point is that if a method is proven by someone who has had a lot more time and money and tarantulas than you, someone who has put decades into this hobby then why keep doing it? Specifically because you’ve no idea (no one does) if you’re hurting them or just pissing them off or not bothering them in the slightest. But the second part is mostly an after thought.
> 
> ...


You have a lot to learn. There are many, many things wrong with Stan's husbandry advice for many species. Not to mention all the other issues with the book that he likes to present as fact and are in reality his opinion.



> Decades of experience by literally tens of thousands of enthusiasts have amply demonstrated that within one or two molts almost all tarantulas larger than fifth or sixth instar babies, even most of the rain forest species, can not only survive but thrive in an effectively desert condition.


This quote is absolutely ridiculous. Common sense should tell you, you need to research the place the species you are keeping is from and mimic the seasons, temperatures and humidity for the spider to thrive. How does keeping a Brazilian rainforest species the same as a species from the Sonoran Desert sound OK to you? That is surviving(not thriving) and borderline abuse. Keep researching and welcome to the boards.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 19, 2014)

advan said:


> You have a lot to learn. There are many, many things wrong with Stan's husbandry advice for many species. Not to mention all the other issues with the book that he likes to present as fact and are in reality his opinion.
> 
> This quote is absolutely ridiculous. Common sense should tell you, you need to research the place the species you are keeping is from and mimic the seasons, temperatures and humidity for the spider to thrive. How does keeping a Brazilian rainforest species the same as a species from the Sonoran Desert sound OK to you? That is surviving(not thriving) and borderline abuse. Keep researching and welcome to the boards.


A personal welcome from a moderator? Well thank you. :]  If it wasn't an absolute pleasure before, it is now. I plan on doing lots of reading and research. It's such a fascinating hobby. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting if there weren't so many firsts to experience and a plethora of new information to be learned.


----------



## Dizzle (Sep 19, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> Did you ever consider maybe they're burrowing because the environment you're creating for them on the surface is unfavorable?
> 
> And just because your techniques aren't what is typically taught doesn't mean it's new. I'm sure you're not the first person to directly spray their t. But in these decades the hobby has been around, the techniques were narrowed down into a few things that work the best. That's why they're commonly in practice. Yes there are always variations, and there is no "right" way to keep a tarantula.
> 
> ...


IME there are few animals that enjoy being directly sprayed by a mister. The guy who sold me my P. imperator's said they like it and will raise their claws up at it. I have seen this but I have also seen them flee. I like what you said Miss Moxie, makes sense. It's definitely a better idea to work in the best possible interest of your pet instead of satisfying your own curiosity. Stress is no small thing, that I can vouch for having kept herps and creepy-crawlers all my life, including many wild-caught ones which are especially vulnerable to stress.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Python (Sep 19, 2014)

In my humble opinion, I doubt that a tarantula gets truly stressed when it gets wet. I would imagine it's not much more than an annoyance if anything. They may avoid it simply because the ones that didn't drowned when too much of it fell. It just seems to me that an animal that is subjected to rain as a natural consequence of living outside wouldn't be able to survive for long if it got stressed every time it got caught in a shower, especially considering how easy it seems to be for stress to kill them. For more arid species, it might actually have a devastating effect since rain is such a rare occurrence in the desert. I've never done the research so all of this is just conjecture and my opinion is worth exactly what you pay for it. I don't think misting will be the make or break decision when it comes to keeping a tarantula though. I just think it would be personal choice. I choose not to simply because they seem to do just fine without it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## viper69 (Sep 19, 2014)

Has heard Advan's rainforest species' collection is actually kept in Pretzel containers in Brazilian rainforests to provide them the ultimate in captive living! 

---------- Post added 09-19-2014 at 07:51 PM ----------




Python said:


> It just seems to me that an animal that is subjected to rain as a natural consequence of living outside wouldn't be able to survive for long if it got stressed every time it got caught in a shower, especially considering how easy it seems to be for stress to kill them..


Dude I couldn't agree more! I heard flying fish hate the water too!


----------



## sugarsandz (Sep 20, 2014)

I might be missing something here, but wouldn't the tarantula's response to misting be a great indicator on whether or not you should continue doing it? I have accidentally gotten water on a tarantula or two while filling water dishes and they didn't like it. Indicators of this would be kicking hairs or a leg lifting to kick hairs, or maybe a threat posture right?

OP what do your spiders do when you spray them? Surely some of them respond to getting wet in a negative manner. 

I personally don't mist, all of mine have bowls except one little sling. The reason I don't mist is 1- it would be a pain to spray water in enclosures compared to filling a bowl on occasion and 2- mine have reacted in a negative manner to getting wet. I like to make sure all of the animals in my house always have access to water.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 20, 2014)

sugarsandz said:


> I might be missing something here, but wouldn't the tarantula's response to misting be a great indicator on whether or not you should continue doing it? I have accidentally gotten water on a tarantula or two while filling water dishes and they didn't like it. Indicators of this would be kicking hairs or a leg lifting to kick hairs, or maybe a threat posture right?
> 
> OP what do your spiders do when you spray them? Surely some of them respond to getting wet in a negative manner.


I have spiders that react this way any time I need to open the enclosure for whatever reason.  Does this mean I need to stop opening the enclosure to feed, water and spot clean?


----------



## sugarsandz (Sep 20, 2014)

Not at all, but you can't really avoid that. All I'm saying is that could be an indicator that maybe the op should change their methods if that happens. I have no way of proving that my spiders with their water bowls are better off than the ops. I just mentioned it since nobody else did, something to add to the discussion. This whole thread is all opinion since there doesn't seem to be any real concrete data available right?


----------



## LordWaffle (Sep 20, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> On reputable sites, they just tell us not to do it. No explanation why. Induced stress, sure. I was sure to get hate bc not misting tarantulas was the norm. I want to know why it's the norm. Give me better reasons aside from it's not the right thing to do.
> 
> Enclosures are 4 inch in diameter and 7 inches in height. My Ts burrow all the time. Vagans, darlingi, pulchripes, albopilosum. I chose to give them height bc I want to see the intricate tunnels.
> 
> ...


Alright, I'll bite.  I'm sure I'll regret this, because I've learned to ignore people like you, but here goes:

First, you say on "reputable" sites they tell you not to do it.  By using the word "reputable" you are implying that you trust their judgment and their advice, yet you've chosen not to follow it.  Why?  Are you a rebel?  Fight the power, man.

Second, you're asking why you shouldn't, and without any concrete reason you're saying that you can continue to do so simply because you have no reason not to.  That's ridiculous.  "You can't tell me why I shouldn't, therefore I will" is no more an argument _for_ the practice than "it's bad" is against it.  

Third, your assertions that keeping a tarantula in an enclosure _barely_ larger than its leg span is okay because they burrow are ridiculous.  Even the fossorial species you listed, like C darlingi need more room than you're giving them.  I have a few juvenile C darlingis that are approximately an inch, maybe an inch and a half in legspan.  They are in enclosures that measure about 5 inches by 5 inches with around 5 inches of substrate (the enclosures are about 6 inches tall).  Even at their size, they use the entire space to have an intricate web of tunnels.  Even ignoring the fact that many of the species you listed (G pulchripes for instance) do not generally burrow heavily, you're inhibiting their natural behavior and forcing them to adapt to substandard conditions.  Your piss poor husbandry is evidence that your practice of "directly misting" your tarantulas is coming from an uneducated, obstinate, and/or stupid place.  Stop what you're doing and reexamine yourself immediately.  If you're capable of learning, you'll see how bad you've been doing and adjust your practice.  You won't, because I can already tell you're not receptive to advice and feedback _that you asked for and chose to ignore._

On to the meat of this topic:  why is directly misting your tarantula bad?  If it doesn't kill the spider, how can it be a mortal sin?  I'm honestly not even sure where to begin with this.  If you had a dog, would your first instinct be to blast it in the face with an air hose because that's not the "norm?"  So far, the only reason you've given for your insistence on spraying your tarantulas is that "most people don't, so I want to."  What kind of reasoning is that?  Most gun owners don't intentionally shoot themselves in the genitals, does that mean they should to see what all the fuss is about?  I really fail to see your logic.  Are you simply trying to rile us up?  Are you stupid?  Are you really just very uneducated and legitimately seeking advice?  I don't know.  I sincerely doubt it's option three, as at this point in the thread you're still rebelling against all evidence.  

So, because I don't think you'll accept it in any format other than an easily digestible list that any kindergartner could grasp, misting is bad because:

1) As you mentioned, it causes undue stress on your pet.  This is bad for a few reasons:  a) it's your responsibility as a pet owner to care for your pet.  If you are intentionally antagonizing it as an "experiment" you are a bad pet owner and should seek a better home for your animals immediately.  b) while stress may not be immediately fatal, it can lead to defensive behavior that results in a lack of feeding.  If you need evidence of this, the next time you feed one of your tarantulas, start tapping on the enclosure walls, maybe prod the spider with a paint brush's bristles.  It will immediately drop and ignore its food in favor of survival behavior.  Spraying a spider makes it feel like it's in a rain storm.  If you continually stress it out, it won't eat, because it will be on its guard.  It's the same reason why a tarantula in a bad enclosure with the wrong environmental conditions will refuse food.  Stop being obstinate.  Treat your pet with respect and care.  It's your responsibility.

2) Your tarantula does not drink with its face, its abdomen, the back of its legs, or the top of its carapace.  Your tarantula's mouth is located on the ventral side of its body.  If you mist it directly, it simply cannot access the water that you are giving it.  You are agitating your pet with literally _no benefit whatsoever._  If the tarantula absolutely was dehydrating, not eating, and needed some water immediately and its mouth was on its head, you'd have a brilliant idea.  Since you claim your spiders are in good health (despite your terrible skills when it comes to caring for them, not because of them) we can assume they aren't in drastic need of water.  ANd since they can't drink _from the top of their carapace_ we know that even if they did need the water, your method wouldn't work.  

3) There has been mention of the fact that if rain killed tarantulas, they wouldn't have survived for millions of years virtually unchanged.  This is true; however, a tarantula's natural instinct when rained on is to seek shelter.  When you directly spray your tarantulas you are prompting them to seek shelter, but because of your terrible enclosures they are unable to do so.  Even if they were, since you insist on spraying them directly, they would not be able to fulfill their instinctual need to escape the "rainfall."

Honestly, I'm starting to get angry.  I can't finish this.  If you insist on being a poor keeper, knock yourself out.  Do us all a favor, though, and do it in silence.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 20, 2014)

No reason to continue to do so and no data not to do so 

Let's get rid of the humanity and be objective about this. Is my tarantula a dog? Is the pressure coming from an air hose the same as from a water spray? No, i wouldn't blast my genitals with a gun. Would I blast the genitals of my tarantula with a gun? No again. Your attacks are amusing because they're all just opinions and false analogies. 


You're telling me I'm stupid and all you say is that i should reexamine myself... What would be my standard for rexamination? If you're gonna blow up all over me , you might as well exert the effort to gve me concrete advice. Not your piss poor arguments relating my tarantula care to a dog or a gun owner. 

What are you trying to prove with the example of your darlingis? Do they really need to make intricate tunnelss? My enclosure for the darlingi is much smaller but it still uses the entire thing. With what you're saying, it could be concluded that either darlingis use the entirety of their home or they need more space brcause they used the entirety. Back up your opnions with better data. What you're saying is ambiguous. 

You're also saying that a tarantula isn't in the suitable environment f it doesn't eat. I mist them then leave a superworm overnight. Next day, a bolus is all what is left. I used to mist them everyday too yet they still ate. If they're eating, does that mean that the environment is suitable? Ya, i tapped my container before when my tarantula was eating. It dropped it but after a while, it picked it up again. What are you trying to prove? What are your standards in basing that my husbandry is piss poor? Back it up with data. Your paragraphs lack substance. It's literally a hate mail. 

With the wter, i mist them directly so that wter droplets are left on the soil they're sitting on. They have burrows but they choose to stay to get misted. They can scurry away anytime but they don't. I know the chelicerae is under. I don't spray ot directly thinking the hairs would absorb the water. If it didn't need water, then why is it suggested that water dish should be kept in the enclosure at all times? If it could adjust to a desert climate, then what's the point of a water source? Think a little first because you're just an angry mess. 

Stop relatin things to feelings. Browse the thread a little. You'll see that "most people don't so I'll do it" isn't my only reason. 

---------- Post added 09-20-2014 at 05:19 PM ----------




sugarsandz said:


> Not at all, but you can't really avoid that. All I'm saying is that could be an indicator that maybe the op should change their methods if that happens. I have no way of proving that my spiders with their water bowls are better off than the ops. I just mentioned it since nobody else did, something to add to the discussion. This whole thread is all opinion since there doesn't seem to be any real concrete data available right?


I chose to do away with the water dish because they usr t as a garbage can so I used misting as the substitute for water. Idk if they need it and no one can prove to me they don't so i'll just give it water.

Some act as if it's nothing. Others hunch a little. None would attack the water spray. I see it as a necessary evil and I went here to post what I'm doing to get cncrete, scientific advice backed up by data and experiements but so far, most I'm gettig are just opinions or claims without data.


----------



## LordWaffle (Sep 20, 2014)

I didn't say you were stupid.  I did, however, say you're uneducated and obstinate. You're reading into what I said to suit your own agenda. I also did not say that the pressure of an air hose is the same pressure as a spray bottle.  You completely missed the point.

Congratulations, your unwillingness to understand why you are wrong has completely drained this thread of any purpose it could have had.  Why did you even start it in the first place?  People like you make me sad that people are a species.

---------- Post added 09-20-2014 at 04:31 AM ----------

Also the fact that you want "scientific data" pertaining to spraying a tarantula is laughable at best.  Do you have any grasp on what "scientific data" is?  Do you understand why that request is absolutely ludicrous?


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 20, 2014)

LordWaffle said:


> Also the fact that you want "scientific data" pertaining to spraying a tarantula is laughable at best.  Do you have any grasp on what "scientific data" is?  Do you understand why that request is absolutely ludicrous?


Stan Schultz claimed that tarantulas could develop a waxy layer and even increase the waxiness. He published this in his book or website. Now, how could he say that without publishing the data and experiment he used to uncover that?

You could easily create an experiment to see the effects of a water misting each day. Get some slings, divide into 3 groups. First one, no water source, only food. Second, leave it with a water dish. Third, do the water misting. Document the reactions, size ofthe t, amount of food eaten and control the humidity. That's scientific data for you.


----------



## LordWaffle (Sep 20, 2014)

Oh dear lord. You're hopeless. I'm done here.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## ParryOtter (Sep 20, 2014)

The thing is, while people aren't relying on rigorous quantitative studies, they are relying on generalizable knowledge gained from previous observation and experience. In certain husbandry matters, I'm not sure I feel the need for formal studies when I have a wealth of knowledge about tarantula habitats and behavior in the wild. Why wouldn't I want to mimic that as closely as possible? Just cause? I'm not going to go against obvious preferences of my tarantulas because I have an issue with the lack of data backing up what common sense already tells me.

I wouldn't catch a bug outside and put it in an enclosure with a pillow and blankie, try to feed it from a spoon, and have it drink from a straw. It would probably find a way to survive just fine, maybe even thrive. But I would much rather do my part as a good keeper and provide a more natural environment. Prudence doesn't just mean caution and good judgement- it is wisdom based on experience. That, to me, validates the standards of not directly misting a tarantula trapped in an enclosure that is not ideal or as natural as possible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Python (Sep 20, 2014)

Well that escalated quickly. 

I wonder, how do people know what a tarantula feels? I've seen a lot of people make claims, very specific ones, about how their T's react to misting, except they don't mist their T's. I wonder how that works.

No one here advocated doing anything simply because no one else does it. I think everyone has given reasons for doing what they do, both pro and con. 

I've already pointed out that the effects of gravity and capillary action will, in fact, carry water from the topside of an animal to the bottom. I'm not sure how the thought arose that water is stationary and doesn't wick, but there you go.

There could be benefits to misting, no one here seems to know. Most people accept that misting is bad simply due to some tarantulas (imagined?) response to it. Taking this to another level, when a child is sat down for supper, it will usually react very favorably to chocolate, ice cream, cake, etc. and usually react poorly to brussel sprouts, spinach, squash, etc. Using the logic presented here by a few individuals who also chose to make analogies, the child shouldn't be fed vegetables. Nobody in their right mind would advocate that but they make claims that misting is bad based on the same criteria. What if regular misting helps clean the spider? It's certainly a possibility. This is the only place that I have ever seen people advocate keeping an animal absolutely happy no matter what. I have never thought neutering a dog wouldn't stress it out and I have never considered it necessary to the dogs health but people do it daily. Just because the spider doesn't like it doesn't mean it's bad.

Personal attacks seem to stall the march of progress and I thought we were making some here. Knowledge is power and unless people are willing to look at another view, they have no power and never will. Unless there is something concrete to back up claims on either side of the argument, it's just opinion and neither side can claim to be right.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## cold blood (Sep 20, 2014)

When you get dozens of keepers with potentially hundreds of cumulative years of keeping, giving their observations across a great deal of time, with a great deal of species and the op completely discounts them because we weren't wearing lab coats or writing dissertations on the subject, and assuming that our observations are not good enough to be anything but opinion because of that, there's going to be a level of frustration.

Its not even worth bothering with at this point.  Its obvious that the only person the op will listen to is required to be wearing a lab coat.   Good luck, hopefully a scientist will respond so there is SOMEONE for him to actually listen to and not immediately discount.  No matter how much info is available here from serious keepers with decades of experience, its apparently still not even close to enough for the op to take seriously.   Why even bother to help or discuss the subject.  He's been given real world observations from dozens of very experienced individuals so far, and has simply chosen to explain that their observations don't mean enough for him to even consider as reality for a minute.

To each their own.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Python (Sep 20, 2014)

cold blood said:


> When you get dozens of keepers with potentially hundreds of cumulative years of keeping, giving their observations across a great deal of time, with a great deal of species and the op completely discounts them because we weren't wearing lab coats or writing dissertations on the subject, and assuming that our observations are not good enough to be anything but opinion because of that, there's going to be a level of frustration.
> 
> Its not even worth bothering with at this point.  Its obvious that the only person the op will listen to is required to be wearing a lab coat.   Good luck, hopefully a scientist will respond so there is SOMEONE for him to actually listen to and not immediately discount.  No matter how much info is available here from serious keepers with decades of experience, its apparently still not even close to enough for the op to take seriously.   Why even bother to help or discuss the subject.  He's been given real world observations from dozens of very experienced individuals so far, and has simply chosen to explain that their observations don't mean enough for him to even consider as reality for a minute.
> 
> To each their own.


One very important thing to remember is that there is no one on here qualified to say with absolute certainty and honesty that they know what their tarantula thinks or feels. Also remember, using the argument 'I know because everybody knows' is  crap argument. I have decades of experience working with arachnids, reptiles and many other animals and the one thing I know for a fact is that I just don't know. 

I've seen a few people on here trying to pass off opinion as fact. Just because everyone else feels that way doesn't make it right. It certainly doesn't make it wrong but you must concede that it is possible that the feelings of many do not constitue fact. Remember, the majority of the earths population at one time believed it to be flat. People were ridiculed and murdered for claiming otherwise. Their opinions amounted to nothing more than yours does without proof.

Emotions are not evidence and what someone else think is just as unreliable. Observation is only so reliable. Remember that throughout history observations have been proven false time and again. I'm not saying that's the case her, I'm just saying that until something more reliable than feelings comes along, wouldn't it be best to dispense with the blanket statements? Again, I'm not for or against misting, I just wish people would be honest about what is a fact and what isn't

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 20, 2014)

cold blood said:


> Its not even worth bothering with at this point.  Its obvious that the only person the op will listen to is required to be wearing a lab coat.






"Try misting with something other than water, for example carrot juice. Then your tarantula will have improved vision."


----------



## cold blood (Sep 20, 2014)

Python said:


> One very important thing to remember is that there is no one on here qualified to say with absolute certainty and honesty that they know what their tarantula thinks or feels.


No one knows this for sure, no one, not even scientists studying them to their fullest extent....if you are waiting for that info...you have a lot of waiting ahead of you, I don't care who you talk to, that info isn't available.  Reading a t's mind isn't an option for anyone on this planet.

Years of observations provide us with the most educated information.  This has ZERO to do with emotions, human or otherwise.  Our collective decades of interactions and observations by far provide us with the best info we have available and this is EXACTLY what was provided and then promptly discounted.


----------



## ratluvr76 (Sep 20, 2014)

Peregrin said:


> I'm gonna get so much hate for this but I actually directly mist my tarantulas. I do this so that the tarantula would be forced to drink bits of the water.
> I really don't get why people frown upon misting the tarantulas directly. I'm aware of the stress but seriously, these things can last for months without food and what's a few droplets to them?
> 
> Pls share your opinions and explain why the tarantula should not be misted. I see lots of people on other forums saying "DO NOT MIST THE TARANTULA DIRECTLY" without explaining the logic behind it aside from the probable stress it will induce.


When I first read this thread and started following it I thought the OP was just trying to open a dialogue about his husbandry habits. The opening statement, "I'm gonna get so much hate for this", in light of subsequent happenings on this thread, no sounds like the opening salvo of an intentional drama war. Tbh, collectively, we don't, or at least shouldn't, have any more time for this crap.
OP, you asked for opinions, and you got them, you wanted explanations, you got them. The only reason I can see for starting this thread was to cause drama. This is evidenced by the confrontational tone in your opening post, and proven in your increasingly stubborn, heels dug in, attitude.

Let's just all agree to disagree shall we? You keep doing your thing, the rest of us will continue to let our animals have enough room to fully stretch out and turn around comfortably. Just don't expect a lot of people to waste their time in the future answering your questions and concerns. 

Enjoy your day.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Python (Sep 20, 2014)

Human emotion has absolutely everything to do with it. If you raised a baby according to the methods described here for raising a tarantula, how would that work out? If the baby cried and got stressed when you bathed it, would you stop bathing it? When a baby doesn't like to eat green beans and carrots, do you feed it ice cream and cake? If a baby screams and cries when you tell it no, it can't play with the knife, do you gice in and say yes? The arguments offered here for not misting T's are the exact same as this. No? Of course not, one is a human and we know what's best for the baby, the other is a spider and it knows better than we do. That is an ignorant argument on any level but all thise who are saying it stresses the T and is therefore bad can not concede that there may be another option. Just because everyone thinks something is true doesn't make it so and to make that claim is as uneducated a thing to say as any I've ever heard. The sad thing is, if these people are wrong, they will never know if there is a better way to do things. Sounds like progress is in trouble if we can't consider ways of thought. Thank heavens not everyone was as narrow minded or we'd still be on a flat earth butning people at the stake


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 20, 2014)

Nine times out of ten a tarantula will flee (or otherwise react negatively) when sprayed with water - if that isn't sufficient evidence of a preference to not be sprayed with water, well, you are beyond convincing - period.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## viper69 (Sep 20, 2014)

cold blood said:


> When you get dozens of keepers with potentially hundreds of cumulative years of keeping, giving their observations across a great deal of time, with a great deal of species and the op completely discounts them because we weren't wearing lab coats or writing dissertations on the subject, and assuming that our observations are not good enough to be anything but opinion because of that, there's going to be a level of frustration.


I'd like to point out that some people who influenced society through science were not formerly trained as scientists, one example is Gregor Mendel. There are scientists and scientists doing their graduate work in Ts on this forum too. And most of us don't wear white coats either.

---------- Post added 09-20-2014 at 02:24 PM ----------




miss moxie said:


> View attachment 130113
> 
> 
> "Try misting with something other than water, for example carrot juice. Then your tarantula will have improved vision."



What a phony stock photo that is hahaha...Clever.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 20, 2014)

viper69 said:


> What a phony stock photo that is hahaha...Clever.


It sounds like you don't think she's a real scientist. But how can that be? She's wearing a lab coat. :wink:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Sep 20, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> It sounds like you don't think she's a real scientist. But how can that be? She's wearing a lab coat. :wink:


Short answer- She's too pretty. The majority of women in science aren't that pretty, and interestingly the women say the same about the men.

Yet, if you walk by a nursing school class, the classes typically have a much higher proportion of attractive women.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 20, 2014)

viper69 said:


> Short answer- She's too pretty. The majority of women in science aren't that pretty, and interestingly the women say the same about the men.
> 
> Yet, if you walk by a nursing school class, the classes typically have a much higher proportion of attractive women.


You may be on to something...that neckline is awful low-cut.

Does the long answer involve 'lack of eye protection'?


----------



## viper69 (Sep 20, 2014)

miss moxie said:


> You may be on to something...that neckline is awful low-cut.
> 
> Does the long answer involve 'lack of eye protection'?


No the long answer involves more info than I was willing to type, it's long so I wouldn't sound too sexist. The first answer sounds a bit sexist to the casual reader or ultra left wing nutjob. However, I really don't care if people think I am sexist because they don't know me.

The neckline isn't low at all. That's what you'd see in a lab. Sometimes you'd see more. This doesn't apply to industrial or government labs however. Actually A LOT of scientists don't wear eye protection. I know someone that wears eye protection when he drills but doesn't when he's in the lab. Being in the lab isn't necessarily being in a hazardous environment.


----------



## scorpionchaos (Sep 20, 2014)

I always remove them into a catch cup the spray and put the back in.

I find apraying the tarantula directly will just equal a tarantula on the loose...


----------



## viper69 (Sep 20, 2014)

scorpionchaos said:


> I always remove them into a catch cup the spray and put the back in.
> 
> I find apraying the tarantula directly will just equal a tarantula on the loose...



Same here.


----------



## ratluvr76 (Sep 20, 2014)

viper69 said:


> Same here.


when I mist, now that I have an Avic avic... I mist into the opposite corner of wherever it is at the time, or, if I really want to mist closer, I use a small piece of paper or something to use as a block so that none of the water hits her directly ever.


----------



## Python (Sep 20, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> Nine times out of ten a tarantula will flee (or otherwise react negatively) when sprayed with water - if that isn't sufficient evidence of a preference to not be sprayed with water, well, you are beyond convincing - period.


9 times out of ten a person at the dentist will flinch (or otherwise react negatively) when given a shot - if that isn't evidence that shots are bad then you are beyond convincing. Same argument could be used with children eating the proper foods, taking bad tasting medications, doing a job that one dislikes, going to funerals (sometimes weddings), filing an insurance claim, watching a bad movie, getting chewed out by the boss, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The argument that just because they don't like it has absolutely zero impact on whether it has any benefit for them or is detrimental to them. Liking something is not a criteria to use when determining how healthy or unhealthy it is.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Sep 20, 2014)

90 replies to the well worn topic of "misting a tarantula".  Fantastic.  Even if there were any "scientists" left that haven't been turned off by the pure drivel that oozes from this particular sub-forum I'm certain this would do it.  They won't be back to answer this query.  Congratulations on on your complete and collective failure as a species on your interwebz machines.  If there is a high water mark, this is well below it, tool users.  Not even worth modding.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 20, 2014)

cold blood said:


> No one knows this for sure, no one, not even scientists studying them to their fullest extent....if you are waiting for that info...you have a lot of waiting ahead of you, I don't care who you talk to, that info isn't available.  Reading a t's mind isn't an option for anyone on this planet.
> 
> Years of observations provide us with the most educated information.  This has ZERO to do with emotions, human or otherwise.  Our collective decades of interactions and observations by far provide us with the best info we have available and this is EXACTLY what was provided and then promptly discounted.


What info was discounted?  I *flat out* gave him *my* experience that what he was doing was only "wrong" in so far as it didn't enable drinking by spraying directly.  What I *have* observed is the discounting of the "common wisdom" that misting is worthless and stressful cause Stan or certain keepers say so, despite a number of *other* experienced keepers having flat out stated misting is the *only* way they water spiders with zero consequence.  This entire discussion *has* been pure emotion - hell, someone had the gall the call misting abuse. That's purely emotional with *zero* fact behind it.

I'm starting to hope Chad returns and locks this thread.  There was some good ideas here until people accused the OP of abuse and torture and ignoring advice when, in reality, only *one* perspective was being ignored in favor of another perspective.

Edit:  zon works, too.  I think this thread has served its purpose.  Can we end this now?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cold blood (Sep 20, 2014)

yeeeeaaaaah, I wasn't referring to you discounting anything said, I was referring to the op basically discounting EVERYTHING anyone had to say that wasn't what he was looking to hear.

And I was saying that emotions have no place in the topic.   Just observations.  My, and many others observations make it clear, to us at least, that they would rather not be directly misted.  Goodoldneon said it in a nutshell.  I don't need a study to show me what is obvious from over a decade of observation, others seem to feel the same way.  I agree with you 100% regarding the ridiculously emotional aspect.

  Was I really that difficult to follow?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 20, 2014)

Python said:


> 9 times out of ten a person at the dentist will flinch (or otherwise react negatively) when given a shot - if that isn't evidence that shots are bad then you are beyond convincing. Same argument could be used with children eating the proper foods, taking bad tasting medications, doing a job that one dislikes, going to funerals (sometimes weddings), filing an insurance claim, watching a bad movie, getting chewed out by the boss, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The argument that just because they don't like it has absolutely zero impact on whether it has any benefit for them or is detrimental to them. Liking something is not a criteria to use when determining how healthy or unhealthy it is.


Wow, just... wow. You can't be reasoned with, and what's worse, you think you're being reasonable.


----------



## Python (Sep 20, 2014)

So far, no one has tried reasoning with me. For one thing, I'm not promoting either side but you seem to think I am. If you can provide one compelling reason for me to rethink my position, I would be more than willing to listen. As I said, neither side of this has a valid scientific reason that can be proven other than their opinion on what they observe. At least the OP is honest enough to admit that. I'm afraid that belief does not constitute proof and never has. If it did, the earth would have been flat and at the center of the universe.



goodoldneon said:


> Wow, just... wow. You can't be reasoned with, and what's worse, you think you're being reasonable.


If you want to try reason, give this a shot. Explain to me how my argument is invalid and yours is valid. That's all I ask. If you can't at least try then maybe it isn't me that can't be reasoned with. It should be a simple request and I will listen to any and all replies but so far, not a single person has addressed any of the points I've brought up. If you are right, I will gladly concede. I am not trying to be right because I'm not on a side. I've already said I don't mist and don't intend to. I just don't really buy into the argument 'everybody knows it's true so it must be true'. That's a lazy answer and I don't buy it.


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 20, 2014)

cold blood said:


> yeeeeaaaaah, I wasn't referring to you discounting anything said, I was referring to the op basically discounting EVERYTHING anyone had to say that wasn't what he was looking to hear.
> 
> And I was saying that emotions have no place in the topic.   Just observations.  My, and many others observations make it clear, to us at least, that they would rather not be directly misted.  Goodoldneon said it in a nutshell.  I don't need a study to show me what is obvious from over a decade of observation, others seem to feel the same way.  I agree with you 100% regarding the ridiculously emotional aspect.
> 
> Was I really that difficult to follow?


Ya sure. I'll believe you when you start arguing with how a tarantula would feel even though no one actually knows that. 9 times out of 10, a tarantula would flee. With that reasoning, I could also say 9 out 10 babies cry when given a bath or forced to eat. 9 times out f 10, a dog would flee when given a bath. If everyone would just provide advice based on evidence (other than a tarantula's feelings related to the feelings of a dog), not advice backed up with the caption "i have *insert nunber* years of experience," then i'd strt listening.

I was only asking data on Stan's claims. Don't say wht I'm doin is piss poor because yiu say tarantulas act in a negative way even though no one knows how tarantulas actually feel. I'm just trying to grt evidence. Not replies like "hey you're wrong brcause it should be done like this. I know this based on my rxperience. I just know"

10 years later into the hobby, should I start shutting down new ideas brcause I could reason out tht I have more experience? Say that my husbadry really is bad, then that would be my experience of 10 years. Then some one new has his own way that works. Should i tell him to do what I'm doig brcause i'm 10 years mor eexperienced?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 21, 2014)

cold blood said:


> yeeeeaaaaah, I wasn't referring to you discounting anything said, I was referring to the op basically discounting EVERYTHING anyone had to say that wasn't what he was looking to hear.
> 
> And I was saying that emotions have no place in the topic.   Just observations.  My, and many others observations make it clear, to us at least, that they would rather not be directly misted.  Goodoldneon said it in a nutshell.  I don't need a study to show me what is obvious from over a decade of observation, others seem to feel the same way.  I agree with you 100% regarding the ridiculously emotional aspect.
> 
> Was I really that difficult to follow?


Cold, my point was the OP *wasn't* discounting everything said.  He discounted the conventional yet unfounded (to me and a number of other keepers) idea that misting is pointless or abuse or torture or whatever other hyperbole people threw out.  The OP interacted with me quite reasonably.  He discounted the ideas that what he was doing was wrong - cause what he was doing wasn't wrong but just another way of doing things.  A way that I and other keepers have done for years - and we pointed out our observations just as you and your side did.  And when people accused him of abuse and ignorance, IMHO, he had less reason to take anything any of those posters said seriously, especially when all manner of snark tossed at him.  

As for your final comment, drop the snarky attitude.  My decade of observation is just as valid as yours, and I elucidated quite clearly that the OP wasn't ignoring advice - not that you implied that *I* did.  He was confirming his observations conformed to those of others.  There are a number of ways to keep.these.animals, and neither side owns the *One True Way*.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ratluvr76 (Sep 21, 2014)

I never had issue with the misting thing.. I really think misting is up to the keeper and based on his spiders reactions.... I was more thinking about the space in the enclosures.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 21, 2014)

ratluvr76 said:


> I never had issue with the misting thing.. I really think misting is up to the keeper and based on his spiders reactions.... I was more thinking about the space in the enclosures.


Which too many people jumped on the OP for *before* knowing species or container depth.  And when he explained the species and depth, lo and behold, the containers were more than adequate.


----------



## ratluvr76 (Sep 21, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Which too many people jumped on the OP for *before* knowing species or container depth.  And when he explained the species and depth, lo and behold, the containers were more than adequate.


depth wise perhaps but a 3 inch spider in a 4 inch diameter container? idk.


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 21, 2014)

ratluvr76 said:


> depth wise perhaps but a 3 inch spider in a 4 inch diameter container? idk.


Let's put it this way. In the wild, a burrowing spider would have more or less just enough space for itself in the burrow. I think you're thinking that the space isn't enough because it wouldn't be able to molt. Again, in the wild, a t wouldn't go outside of its burrow to molt. Think about it. If the t got out of it's burrow and sat on open ground for hours while showing off it's most vulnerable side, wouldn't that be more dangerous than molting in a tight space? It would feel much more secure in a tight space since it would be able to feel all the vibrations around it. I've also seen them molt in their burrows and if it's too small, tey could just fold their legs. And ts spend most of their time in burrows or hidnig spots. They don't actively hunt food. They're opportunistic. They just need a home. 

And in a tight container, the t could think that its entire container is its burrow.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 21, 2014)

ratluvr76 said:


> depth wise perhaps but a 3 inch spider in a 4 inch diameter container? idk.


As I said before in this thread, I have a 3" versi in a 4" diameter 6" deep deli cup where there is room for a web tunnel and roaming.


----------



## cold blood (Sep 21, 2014)

lol freedumb, I was in no way being snarky with you, I legitimately was wondering if I was hard to follow.

In case you didn't notice, I DIDN'T discount everything he said, I even explained how I had used his housing method WITH SUCCESS.  In perusing the thread I can't see a single place where someone told of their misting views/experiences where the op was willing to even consider their info, he just repeatedly asked for "proof", IMO experience and the observations that come with it, are the proof.  And I even went as far at to tell him not to worry about being "lambasted".   I look and see a snarky attitude coming from your way...its all in the perception on the reader, doesn't make it automatically so.  

I haven't done anything with feelings or emotions other than to say they don't belong in the conversation.

I wasn't the one telling him he was being abusive and I wasn't referring to my experience, but rather the experience of the collective group...alone my experience doesn't mean much.  When just about everybody shares the experience, it does.

I asked if I was hard to follow, simply because I am in basic agreement with you, yet you don't seem to realize that....it was a very legitimate question, if I am being unclear, I would certainly like to know, wouldn't you?  

I'm so done with this thread, there's really nothing positive here, I'm not here to get in ridiculous spats based on misunderstandings.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 21, 2014)

The basic thing we are disagreeing on is the OP and his disposition.  The emotions and differing methods we've already discussed elsewhere and are in agreement on - the point I was making is the OP is not being headstrong as so many newbies are, and so many people have written him off when he doesn't deserve  that.


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 21, 2014)

Python said:


> So far, no one has tried reasoning with me. For one thing, I'm not promoting either side but you seem to think I am. If you can provide one compelling reason for me to rethink my position, I would be more than willing to listen. As I said, neither side of this has a valid scientific reason that can be proven other than their opinion on what they observe. At least the OP is honest enough to admit that. I'm afraid that belief does not constitute proof and never has. If it did, the earth would have been flat and at the center of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to try reason, give this a shot. Explain to me how my argument is invalid and yours is valid. That's all I ask. If you can't at least try then maybe it isn't me that can't be reasoned with. It should be a simple request and I will listen to any and all replies but so far, not a single person has addressed any of the points I've brought up. If you are right, I will gladly concede. I am not trying to be right because I'm not on a side. I've already said I don't mist and don't intend to. I just don't really buy into the argument 'everybody knows it's true so it must be true'. That's a lazy answer and I don't buy it.


Try this, the next time you have guests over, and one of them requests a glass of water, walk out to the garden, get your house, return to the house, and spray them with it. When they react, no doubt negatively, explain that is no empirical, peer reviewed evidence that what they are feeling is unwelcome, nor will it result in long term harm or stress. I'm guessing most if not all will either flee the stream of water, scream, "Stop! Are you insane?", possibly take a swing at you, or simply leave - i.e. - retreat. You could, if you were so inclined, make the argument that it could even be beneficial, assuming they haven't showered lately. 

Tarantulas, of course, can't tell us how they're feeling, they can, however, speak through body language. One could choose, as is the case with the OP, to simply disregard the tarantulas behavior, but that, I think, is disrespectful. I could, if I chose, briefly remove my daughter's goldfish from it's tank, and blow dry it for several seconds - all the while ignoring its thrashing and obvious discomfort. Chances are, it would survive the ordeal, and all similar future ordeals. After all, there is no scientific evidence buttressing the negative effects of blow drying fish - the science simply hasn't been performed. So, based on your current line of reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable. 

I avoid or otherwise make more palatable vegetables my daughter does not like. Or, ideally, serve her those she will eat. Dentists take pains to ensure their patients are comfortable, through the use of Novocain or an anesthetic - i.e. - where possible, we go out of our way to avoid causing stress in others, human or otherwise. 

Unless, of course, one is a sadist or a sociopath.


----------



## Nicolas C (Sep 21, 2014)

It's fascinating how some threads sounds like soap operas! I read them with a kind of smile because of what these threads causes! And I must admit I have fun!!!

I think Python's replies are very interesting, because he asks about facts, and to come out of some dogmatics answers ("it is well known...", "it's always been like that...", etc.). It's good in such a forum to have the opportunity to question our "knowledge" and to open our minds! Sharing our experiences and discoveries (even scientific ones) is good. We shouldn't be so afraid of people doing things in a different way, as soon as it doesn't harm the T. Rather, it's a possibility to learn new things (and it has been a long road of learning, when we read some 20 years old books about T husbandry...!)

About misting, I've never mist my Ts so far, except inadvertently. Every time it happened, I've seen my T being scared and running away. Secondly, I know that the T won't be able to drink this way, as was stated before. Third, I've never read an article or book saying that it's good to do it. For all these reasons, I don't mist myself. But I've realised there are other possible ways in reading this thread.

I wanted to say something about the post of Advan, some pages ago.



advan said:


> You have a lot to learn. There are many, many things wrong with Stan's husbandry advice for many species. Not to mention all the other issues with the book that he likes to present as fact and are in reality his opinion.
> 
> This quote is absolutely ridiculous. Common sense should tell you, you need to research the place the species you are keeping is from and mimic the seasons, temperatures and humidity for the spider to thrive. How does keeping a Brazilian rainforest species the same as a species from the Sonoran Desert sound OK to you? That is surviving(not thriving) and borderline abuse. Keep researching and welcome to the boards.


After reading Schultz, I had the feeling that he wasn't saying his way was the only way. He even speaks about Marshall (and lots other authors) doing things in a more naturalistic way and saying it's good too. But the "dry enclosure" for almost every T, which is absolutely not natural, is more practical (specially for beginners) and avoids some problems (like mold and pests).

I've been keeping Ts for a little more than 5 years now. That's not so much, and I'm still learning. But I've been using dry enclosures with waterdishes for them all, with an extra careful watch on how they will react. Sometimes I'm increasing humidity a little bit when a molt is coming (because I'm a rather anxious man!). What I've noticed so far is this: almost all my T were eating, rather calm, not standing over the waterdish, not restless, in short: I couldn't see any signs of problems. Only my T stirmi and my X immanis seemed to need more RH, which I've provided when I saw that. I've never had a molt issue so far. I'm not able to say if a T is thriving or only surviving, if it's happy or not, it's beyond my capacities. But as far as I can see, my Ts show no signs of being suffering.

Trying to mimic the natural environment is excellent, I think, when it's possible to do it (and I know some people who are doing it in a great way!). But for me, it's way to difficult, there too many parameters I'm not able to take into considerations, and I assume that the captivity is not natural for them. That's why I still find Schultz advices very useful for me, and I'm still following them. Maybe is there no "good way / bad way" between the two positions, but only two possibilities which are ok for the T (once again: as far as we know... it's so difficult to understand what these creatures are really feeling/thinking...!).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Python (Sep 21, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> Try this, the next time you have guests over, and one of them requests a glass of water, walk out to the garden, get your house, return to the house, and spray them with it. When they react, no doubt negatively, explain that is no empirical, peer reviewed evidence that what they are feeling is unwelcome, nor will it result in long term harm or stress. I'm guessing most if not all will either flee the stream of water, scream, "Stop! Are you insane?", possibly take a swing at you, or simply leave - i.e. - retreat. You could, if you were so inclined, make the argument that it could even be beneficial, assuming they haven't showered lately.
> 
> Tarantulas, of course, can't tell us how they're feeling, they can, however, speak through body language. One could choose, as is the case with the OP, to simply disregard the tarantulas behavior, but that, I think, is disrespectful. I could, if I chose, briefly remove my daughter's goldfish from it's tank, and blow dry it for several seconds - all the while ignoring its thrashing and obvious discomfort. Chances are, it would survive the ordeal, and all similar future ordeals. After all, there is no scientific evidence buttressing the negative effects of blow drying fish - the science simply hasn't been performed. So, based on your current line of reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable.
> 
> ...


OK, for your first point, you are correct in your assertion that my guests would freak out if I hosed them down. But they are not captive and reliant upon me for their every need. If they need a bath, they go home and get one. Of course those that are dependent on us do get hosed down from time to time. Invalids get bathed as well as uncooperative prisoners. House guests aren't really in the same situation so I don't think it's very analogous. The fish thing, I'm not sure what that's about. As for the rest, you are absolutely correct, we do strive to make things more palateable/pleasant, but if we can't, we still do it. Thousands of people had body parts removed or other surgeries without anasthetic during the civil war and I bet that was unpleasant. Not everything good is pleasant and not everything pleasant is good. That is my entire point. I'm not arguing in favor of misting, I'm just saying it may not be as bad as you think.


----------



## Billy 5ek (Sep 21, 2014)

troll thread


----------



## ratluvr76 (Sep 21, 2014)

Python said:


> OK, for your first point, you are correct in your assertion that my guests would freak out if I hosed them down. But they are not captive and reliant upon me for their every need. If they need a bath, they go home and get one. Of course those that are dependent on us do get hosed down from time to time. Invalids get bathed as well as uncooperative prisoners. House guests aren't really in the same situation so I don't think it's very analogous. The fish thing, I'm not sure what that's about. As for the rest, you are absolutely correct, we do strive to make things more palateable/pleasant, but if we can't, we still do it. Thousands of people had body parts removed or other surgeries without anasthetic during the civil war and I bet that was unpleasant. Not everything good is pleasant and not everything pleasant is good. That is my entire point. I'm not arguing in favor of misting, I'm just saying it may not be as bad as you think.



very good points imo.




Billy 5ek said:


> troll thread


Yeah, I pointed that out several posts ago.. the OP was definitely trolling for drama.. and unfortunately, too many of us bit the bait. hook, line and sinker. Notice the OP Hasn't chimed in for quite a while?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy 5ek said:


> troll thread


No, the OP was not.  I have spoken with him via PM.  He is no troll.

---------- Post added 09-21-2014 at 10:09 PM ----------




ratluvr76 said:


> Yeah, I pointed that out several posts ago.. the OP was definitely trolling for drama.. and unfortunately, too many of us bit the bait. hook, line and sinker. Notice the OP Hasn't chimed in for quite a while?


If you asked an honest question and were accused of ignorance and abuse, how long would *you* hang around?


----------



## Peregrin (Sep 21, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> Try this, the next time you have guests over, and one of them requests a glass of water, walk out to the garden, get your house, return to the house, and spray them with it. When they react, no doubt negatively, explain that is no empirical, peer reviewed evidence that what they are feeling is unwelcome, nor will it result in long term harm or stress. I'm guessing most if not all will either flee the stream of water, scream, "Stop! Are you insane?", possibly take a swing at you, or simply leave - i.e. - retreat. You could, if you were so inclined, make the argument that it could even be beneficial, assuming they haven't showered lately.


Sometimes my tarantulaa tap their containers begging for water... So i drown the whole enclosure in water. My darlingi likes this because it swims and does tricks such as backflip in midair and sometimes, it would do a backstroke.

I am thinking it's beneficial since it replaces the water dish. I wet the ground it's sitting on and the whole enclosure. Directly misting the t is the best way i've found to wet the ground it's own. I disregard the body language because i think it's necessary. And i really don't like water dishes.

---------- Post added 09-22-2014 at 10:32 AM ----------




ratluvr76 said:


> Yeah, I pointed that out several posts ago.. the OP was definitely trolling for drama.. and unfortunately, too many of us bit the bait. hook, line and sinker. Notice the OP Hasn't chimed in for quite a while?


If I you knew I was a troll, then why keep subscribing to the thread. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your company.


----------



## Python (Sep 21, 2014)

Interestingly enough, I have gotten more positive feedback from this thread than any other, much of it from people who haven't posted to this thread. It's interesting to see the responses and the reactions to something like this. Several people have called troll on this but there is the potential for a lot of good information to change hands here. There are people on both sides of the fence here and they have the opportunity to share their ideas and opinions on this subject and that's healthy. The more the merrier I always say. I've followed this thread from the beginning and I've seen the heated responses that some people gave. Some of them may have been looking to rile folks up, most were just stating their opinions on the matter and that's ok. To everyone who was genuinely sharing to try to make the community a better place, I say kudos to you regardless of which side you are on. People get very emotional when talking about their pets and their children so it's very easy to let emotion get in the way of objectivity. No one can be blamed for that, it's what makes them good pet owners. In the end, it's whether the animals thrive or not that makes a difference. If they are eating well, molting well and there are no problems with them, I wouldn't worry about a little water being spritzed on them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ratluvr76 (Sep 22, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> No, the OP was not.  I have spoken with him via PM.  He is no troll.
> 
> ---------- Post added 09-21-2014 at 10:09 PM ----------
> 
> ...





Peregrin said:


> Sometimes my tarantulaa tap their containers begging for water... So i drown the whole enclosure in water. My darlingi likes this because it swims and does tricks such as backflip in midair and sometimes, it would do a backstroke.
> 
> I am thinking it's beneficial since it replaces the water dish. I wet the ground it's sitting on and the whole enclosure. Directly misting the t is the best way i've found to wet the ground it's own. I disregard the body language because i think it's necessary. And i really don't like water dishes.
> 
> ...





Python said:


> Interestingly enough, I have gotten more positive feedback from this thread than any other, much of it from people who haven't posted to this thread. It's interesting to see the responses and the reactions to something like this. Several people have called troll on this but there is the potential for a lot of good information to change hands here. There are people on both sides of the fence here and they have the opportunity to share their ideas and opinions on this subject and that's healthy. The more the merrier I always say. I've followed this thread from the beginning and I've seen the heated responses that some people gave. Some of them may have been looking to rile folks up, most were just stating their opinions on the matter and that's ok. To everyone who was genuinely sharing to try to make the community a better place, I say kudos to you regardless of which side you are on. People get very emotional when talking about their pets and their children so it's very easy to let emotion get in the way of objectivity. No one can be blamed for that, it's what makes them good pet owners. In the end, it's whether the animals thrive or not that makes a difference. If they are eating well, molting well and there are no problems with them, I wouldn't worry about a little water being spritzed on them.



Fair enough, it's easy to get into misunderstandings when communicating something in text only, with no body language or facial cues. This, combined with potential language barriers and cultural biases, I get that. Ok, if I mistook the original post to the thread then I apologize. I still don't agree with not having, in my opinion, enough floor space for a terrestrial T, whether it's a burrower or not. I am completely ambiguous to misting and honestly if I had a T that upturned and or filled the dish with substrate every time right away after filling it I'd remove the water dish also in favor of simply dampening part of the substrate every couple of days. Like I said before though, I wish everyone could just agree to disagree on some of these points. I'm new to the boards, new to T's and new to the whole experience. There definitely is a learning curve; and I don't want to see good people go to blows over something so trivial in the long run.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 22, 2014)

ratluvr76 said:


> There definitely is a learning curve; and I don't want to see good people go to blows over something so trivial in the long run.


Keep in mind most people don't take this personal.  This isn't the first cold and I sniped at each other, and it won't be the last.  But 90%+ of the time we are on the same page - and I guarantee he was just as personally *unoffended* by me telling him to drop the snark as I was at his comments toward me.  I made a point to continue in this thread because the OP reached out to me - and not at all to ask for defense but to express his desire to genuinely learn.  So, despite asking the thread to end a couple pages back, I returned because I didn't want to see someone wanting to grow as a keeper run off.  We need to keep this in mind before.we toss.out.accusations of troll or abuse
  This person wants to learn - and I want to help facilitate his desire.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobGrill (Sep 22, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Keep in mind most people don't take this personal.  This isn't the first cold and I sniped at each other, and it won't be the last.  But 90%+ of the time we are on the same page - and I guarantee he was just as personally *unoffended* by me telling him to drop the snark as I was at his comments toward me.  I made a point to continue in this thread because the OP reached out to me - and not at all to ask for defense but to express his desire to genuinely learn.  So, despite asking the thread to end a couple pages back, I returned because I didn't want to see someone wanting to grow as a keeper run off.  We need to keep this in mind before.we toss.out.accusations of troll or abuse
> This person wants to learn - and I want to help facilitate his desire.


Why would you drop The Snark? That's not very nice

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Sep 22, 2014)

BobGrill said:


> Why would you drop The Snark? That's not very nice


The Snark was too heavy, as he was holding one of his cats.  I told him it was.the cat or him.  Snark never even let go as he hit the ground.


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 22, 2014)

Python said:


> OK, for your first point, you are correct in your assertion that my guests would freak out if I hosed them down. But they are not captive and reliant upon me for their every need. If they need a bath, they go home and get one. Of course those that are dependent on us do get hosed down from time to time. Invalids get bathed as well as uncooperative prisoners. House guests aren't really in the same situation so I don't think it's very analogous. The fish thing, I'm not sure what that's about. As for the rest, you are absolutely correct, we do strive to make things more palateable/pleasant, but if we can't, we still do it. Thousands of people had body parts removed or other surgeries without anasthetic during the civil war and I bet that was unpleasant. Not everything good is pleasant and not everything pleasant is good. That is my entire point. I'm not arguing in favor of misting, I'm just saying it may not be as bad as you think.


A dog, if you point at something, will look only at your finger. 

I'm done.


----------



## Python (Sep 22, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> A dog, if you point at something, will look only at your finger.
> 
> I'm done.


I have no idea what that's supposed to mean

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cold blood (Sep 22, 2014)

Python said:


> I have no idea what that's supposed to mean


I thought the same...plus, its really not true.  Its not that difficult to train a dog to work on hand signals, following a pointing finger included.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 22, 2014)

Python said:


> I have no idea what that's supposed to mean


In essence, you missed the point of my entire rebuttal.

I'll make it as simple as possible - based on negative physical response, tarantulas appear to dislike being sprayed with water, therefore, avoid spraying them with water.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Python (Sep 22, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> In essence, you missed the point of my entire rebuttal.
> 
> I'll make it as simple as possible - based on negative physical response, tarantulas appear to dislike being sprayed with water, therefore, avoid spraying them with water.


I think I've addressed that several times and I don't think most people had a problem with my explanation. Just because it's not pleasant doesn't mean it's not good and just because it's not good doesn't mean it's not pleasant. I even cited examples of things that were terribly uncomfortable and, in fact, horribly painful but were necessary for survival. It's not just my opinion that discomfort does not equal bad, it's well documented fact. Your assertion that a spider doesn't like it therefore it must be bad isn't refuted by that idea, but you must admit that the possibility exists for it to be true.


----------



## goodoldneon (Sep 22, 2014)

Python said:


> I think I've addressed that several times and I don't think most people had a problem with my explanation. Just because it's not pleasant doesn't mean it's not good and just because it's not good doesn't mean it's not pleasant. I even cited examples of things that were terribly uncomfortable and, in fact, horribly painful but were necessary for survival. It's not just my opinion that discomfort does not equal bad, it's well documented fact. Your assertion that a spider doesn't like it therefore it must be bad isn't refuted by that idea, but you must admit that the possibility exists for it to be true.


:wall:

It provides no discernible benefit – they cannot and do not injest water sprayed on their carapace or abdomen – there are other, more appropriate ways to provide water – it appears to piss them off – therefore, given that there are many, less annoying alternatives, a water-dish, misting the substrate or sides of the enclosure, injecting water into the substrate using a syringe – it would seem to me, as a pet owners, we should go out of our way to avoid causing unnecessary stress and discomfort. That’s called compassion, responsible pet ownership and plain old common sense. My cat doesn’t appear to enjoy being petted “against the grain” rather than attempt to rationalize why I should, despite the fact she doesn’t like it, I don’t – it’s that simple.


----------



## Python (Sep 22, 2014)

OK, clearly there is a misunderstanding here somewhere. I'm pretty sure I have very specifically addressed each and every one of your points on misting. Correct me if I'm wrong. Did I miss something or was it just that my answers weren't in line with what you believe or is there another option that I'm not thinking of. I am more than willing to listen to anything you or anyone else has to say but I think I should be allowed the same courtesy. If you say something that I can't refute, whether I like it or not I will concede, but so far that hasn't happened to my knowledge. If it has, I apologize and I'd appreciate another chance to hear what you have to say.


----------



## Python (Sep 22, 2014)

goodoldneon said:


> In essence, you missed the point of my entire rebuttal.
> 
> I'll make it as simple as possible - based on negative physical response, tarantulas appear to dislike being sprayed with water, therefore, avoid spraying them with water.


I got the point of your rebuttal and I addressed it. You, however, have missed the point of mine and have not addressed it. Using your logic, people dislike root canals so we shouldn't do them. Another example, dogs dislike having their bits clipped so they can't make puppies anymore so we shouldn't do that anymore either. Examples are abundant, suffice it to say, I addressed your rebuttal, now address mine. Spiders can't drink water that's sprayed on their carapace... Please direct your attention to the Thorny Devil (Moloch horridus). It can drink by simply sitting in water. How does it manage such a miraculous feat? Capillary action. A well known, well documented occurrence in which water is wicked from one place to another, such as from a carapace to the underside of a body. 
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?167768-Tarantula-straws&
A good read on the very effect that I'm talking about. It doesn't prove anything except that it's not unheard of, except by some. 
Next, 





goodoldneon said:


> It provides no discernible benefit


. You don't really know that do you? You believe that, apparently with all your heart, but you don't actually know it. Water is used everyday in a beneficial capacity for most of the animals on this planet, why would it be assumed that tarantulas are the one creature that doesn't benefit from a good cleansing now and again? Of course there might be other benefits besides just cleanliness that I don't know about, but I'm not crossing anything off the list just yet. 


goodoldneon said:


> it would seem to me, as a pet owners, we should go out of our way to avoid causing unnecessary stress and discomfort.


Absolutely. I agree 100% with you on that. I think I applauded you and all the others for caring for their animals the way that you clearly do. I don't know about anyone else but I certainly do not fault you for the way you treat your animals and I applaud you for it. The problem I have is when people speak in absolutes without actually having proof and observation has been proven to be faulty more than once, on a global scale no less. 

My whole argument is simply this, just because they don't like it doesn't mean there are no benefits. It just means they don't like it. That's all. There is no proof that it makes them live longer, die sooner, grow larger or anything else. There just isn't. I do not now nor have I ever disagreed on whether they like it or not. I believe that they don't like it, same as you. I don't advocate misting. I don't advocate not misting either. It's up to the person keeping them. There are arguments for both sides. That means that no one knows. If someone did know, there couldn't be an argument, there would be absolute proof.


----------



## MissouriArachnophile (Oct 5, 2018)

Bumping. This post in reference to another on going thread.


----------



## SuzukiSwift (Oct 6, 2018)

Zombie thread 

Interesting read though


----------



## Garnet3942 (Jul 29, 2020)

Peregrin said:


> Well, there are spiders that bathe in their water bowls. I also remember a method that a highly respected person does here (forget his name but he wrote a book. I think the tarantula handbook or some sort. Mostly likely schultz). He has a deep burrowing species of a tarantula and to maintain humdity, he douses the entire burrow of the tarantula with a glass if water (with the t inside the burrow). So, if the t can handle huge amountsnof water, what are a few droplets?
> 
> There are also some Ts that submerge themselves completely in water.
> 
> ...


My tarantulas home is in the rainforest and drinks off the plastic I have a small waterbowl I made for the sling I have seen it put its abdomen in there and hung it's legs out (sling is quite fat lol) like a beanbag it was adorable and my dad claims that the sling "likes it when he sprays the cage but, no it hides under leaves and runs around avoiding it but that's how we give it water I never see it drink out of the waterbowl. I agree and I try to make it feel like home for the sling.


----------



## Kitara (Jul 29, 2020)

SuzukiSwift said:


> Zombie thread
> 
> Interesting read though


As soon as you think it's dead... *poof* it reemerges.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Dorifto (Jul 29, 2020)

Kitara said:


> As soon as you think it's dead... *poof* it reemerges.


Umm Kitara... You quoted a post from 2018, so double fail

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Kitara (Jul 31, 2020)

Dorifto said:


> Umm Kitara... You quoted a post from 2018, so double fail


I know, I did that on purpose.  I was replying to the content, not the person.  Clearly the joke didn't translate.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## MBArachnids (Aug 1, 2020)

I had a laugh at this thread  Do you jump in the shower when you are thirsty got me real good


----------



## Nich (Aug 1, 2020)

Guys/Gals this is serious I don’t understand how people can pretend that watering your pets is bad. This is how I hydrate my cats, they hiss a lot but I found is the only way I can really soak them.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Dorifto (Aug 1, 2020)

Nich said:


> Guys/Gals this is serious I don’t understand how people can pretend that watering your pets is bad. This is how I hydrate my cats, they hiss a lot but I found is the only way I can really soak them.


That could end in a caTastrophe

Reactions: Like 1


----------

