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

[the toe cutter]

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

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

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

 

[stevetastic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ZephAmp]

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

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

 

[the toe cutter]

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

"You should also code some quotes into you post so people know what you said is not something I said."

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



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

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

"This is symantics."

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

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

"Pertains to the relevance of "feelings" of animals of being captive. Simply explaining their perception and cognitive functions."

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

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

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

 

[dtknow]

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

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

 

[kevin91172]

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

 

[RoachGirlRen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bugs In Cyberspace]

A very interesting discussion.

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

CONTEXT

1. Tarantula

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

2. Tarantulas have eight legs and eat cockroaches.

The word has context as part of an idea.

3. a Photo of a Tarantula

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

4. seeing a pet Tarantula in a Cage

opportunity for a human to directly observe the live animal

5. seeing a tarantula in its natural habitat

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

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

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

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

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

I very much like what dtknow has written.

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

 

[TomM]

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

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

 

[stevetastic]

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

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

 

[cacoseraph]

tl;dnr

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

 

[Bugs In Cyberspace]

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

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

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

Tarantulaty?

tl;dnr

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zonbonzovi]

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

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

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

by Stephen T. Asma

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

 

[Crawly]

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

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

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

 

[Bugs In Cyberspace]

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

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

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

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

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

or

2. freedom to do whatever you wanted

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

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

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

 

[deathwing]

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

 

[Kaimetsu]

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

Cheers.

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

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

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

So my exchange of ideas on facebook continued.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoachGirlRen]

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

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

 

[Kaimetsu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dtknow]

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