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

[stevetastic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dtknow]

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

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

 

[stevetastic]

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

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

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

 

[dtknow]

steve: point taken.

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


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

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

 

[Kaimetsu]

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

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

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




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

 

[RoachGirlRen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[stevetastic]

+1 Its really long but everyone should read this!

 

[dtknow]

RGR: That was excellent.

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

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

 

[RoachGirlRen]

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

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

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

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

 

[JColt]

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