Handling an A. Seemani.. Yes .. no...carefully???

[Drachenjager]

Momma said life is like A. seemani ... you never know how its gonna act...

And thats all i have to say about that

PS: Please note that ME handling this PARTICULAR A. seemani is not a reflection on the handability of the species. I dont even like to move the Big female as she freaks out and sprints around. Not agressive just a high speed black sports T lol. Also, I reccomend against handling a T just to handle one. I generally only handle them to check them for injury , sex ect or to move them or to take pics . I do not believe in "playing" with them

 

[cacoseraph]

Generalizations on species are usually pretty accurate. Renegade devil brachy's, and kitty-cat OBT's are very much the exception, not the rule.

You will always find slight differences among a species, as well as between the sexes. But temperaments can be 'assumed' about most species.

gross generalizations are a crutch for the weak minded

i have seen no acceptable generalization for seemani, except that there is no acceptable generalization

i am firmly convinced the only reason seemani are touted as good starters is that there is so many imported. most of the seemani i have seen are more nervous than most of the P. regalis i have seen. in pet stores i have seen more bedraggled seemani than any other species. they are hard to mate. they are hard to get viables from

speaking of obts... every obt i have owned (something like 100, 10-15 of which were subadult or older) has been calmer than every adult seemani i have owned i have free handled obts VERY frequently at lower instars and a few times at the subadult level... never free handled a seemani

it's been my experience over the years with hundreds or thousands of bugs that all temperment generalizations do is get you in trouble and uh... i *do* seem to free handle more bugs than pretty much anyone else that i can think of

 

[Jaygnar]

I would not advise handling an A. Seemani, but if the individual spider seems like it is calm enough to be handled then you should only attempt it in close proximity to the floor and using the utmost caution.
I don't realy see the point in handling it unless your 100% comfortable with it.
The T will probably not like being handled and to you it will just feel a big spider crawling on your hand.
Whatever your pleasure.

 

[ShadowBlade]

and uh... i *do* seem to free handle more bugs than pretty much anyone else that i can think of

No more then me, I guarantee it. You may handle more 'pedes (because I've only owned one adult.). But I've handled like every Tarantula/spider/bugs I've ever owned or found in the Eastern and Middle US.

Why aren't generalizations accurate? Tell you what, breed a sac of C. crawshayi. And tell me what percent will throw threat displays and snap at 1.5". Compared to a batch of A. seemani at 1.5". Or Brachypelma's.
Breed C. schioedtei and compare to P. scrofa. - get what I'm saying?

There are generalizations that can be made. And they're not 'crutches'.

 

[Windchaser]

I don't handle any of my animals. I've found that there is absolutely no circumstance at all that requires me holding them.

This is somewhat of an extreme answer and not necessarily correct. There are several instances that could require handling. Working on an injured tarantula will require some sort of handling. You could end up inadvertently being required to handle if there is an escape. It is one thing to recommend that tarantulas not be handled on a regular basis, but it is completely different, an inaccurate, to say that there is "absolutely no circumstance at all that requires" handling.

In general I don't recommend handling tarantula on a regular basis. However, I do believe it is worthwhile knowing how to handle them and at times becoming accustomed to handling them for situations like I mentioned above.

 

[becca81]

gross generalizations are a crutch for the weak minded

As I would hope you would already know, this completely depends on the context.

Some generalizations are unfair, yes, but some generalizations are very accurate.

Let me state, once again - generalizations are NOT accounting for every individual of a species. In this context - looking for an acceptable tarantula to handle - generalizations are highly appropriate.

 

[cacoseraph]

As I would hope you would already know, this completely depends on the context.

Some generalizations are unfair, yes, but some generalizations are very accurate.

Let me state, once again - generalizations are NOT accounting for every individual of a species. In this context - looking for an acceptable tarantula to handle - generalizations are highly appropriate.

uh no, most gross generalizations are stupid. oh i suppose saying stuff always falls down a gravity well is safe enough (even though it is not always true).

but in general, unless you are talking physics or maths gross generalizations are stupid

there are ungross generalizations that are passing fair... but still better not to think like that

and i would say that in this case, asking if an individual spider that binky already owns... generalizations are idiotic.

if she had said, do A. seemani in general make good handling pets (which is what she actually said... but i am generally left with trying to figure out what people meant, rather than what they said)... well, of course the only think you *can* do is resort to generalizations.... you are talking about a general case

 

[cacoseraph]

No more then me, I guarantee it. You may handle more 'pedes (because I've only owned one adult.). But I've handled like every Tarantula/spider/bugs I've ever owned or found in the Eastern and Middle US.

Why aren't generalizations accurate? Tell you what, breed a sac of C. crawshayi. And tell me what percent will throw threat displays and snap at 1.5". Compared to a batch of A. seemani at 1.5". Or Brachypelma's.
Breed C. schioedtei and compare to P. scrofa. - get what I'm saying?

There are generalizations that can be made. And they're not 'crutches'.

now, if we were talking about every A. seemani or most A. seemani... generalization is the way to go.

but we aren't. binky has a specific spider... which may or may not follow whatever prevailing generalizations are out there (p.s. what *is* the generally accepted belief about seemani temperment? there isn't one as far as i have seen)

certainly some species tend to be more "nervous" or whatever... but we aren't talking about a species trend... we are talking about one spider.

generalizations ARE crutches. almost by definiton. a crutch supports something so that it doesn't have to support itself. generaliztions allow decisions to be made without any external support. crutches.

 

[becca81]

and i would say that in this case, asking if an individual spider that binky already owns... generalizations are idiotic.

Her asking about a specific specimen is no different, in this case, than asking about the species in general.

All we can do is apply a generalization about the species - it does not matter if we are talking about a specific spider or not.

If, on average, a particular species is more likely to not be a good handling specimen, then it is more likely than not that that particular spider would not be a good handling pet.

 

[becca81]

certainly some species tend to be more "nervous" or whatever... but we aren't talking about a species trend... we are talking about one spider.

Your logic is flawed.

If the species is typically nervous, then there is a good chance that the particular specimen is nervous.

No one said her spider is definitely nervous and/or skittish, but based on what we know about the species, there is a good chance that it is.

 

[cacoseraph]

Her asking about a specific specimen is no different, in this case, than asking about the species in general.

All we can do is apply a generalization about the species - it does not matter if we are talking about a specific spider or not.

If, on average, a particular species is more likely to not be a good handling specimen, then it is more likely than not that that particular spider would not be a good handling pet.

Your logic is flawed.

If the species is typically nervous, then there is a good chance that the particular specimen is nervous.

No one said her spider is definitely nervous and/or skittish, but based on what we know about the species, there is a good chance that it is.

good grief.

if we are talking about a species in general then generalizations are the only thing that work

once we are talking about an individual experimentation is necesary or well... you are stupid to depend on a generalization when you can just frogging find out

i really can't make it anymore simple than that

 

[becca81]

good grief.

if we are talking about a species in general then generalizations are the only thing that work

once we are talking about an individual experimentation is necesary or well... you are stupid to depend on a generalization when you can just frogging find out

i really can't make it anymore simple than that

Of course she can just find out. But before she does - she can depend on a generalization to know what to expect. If it doesn't fall in the normal skittish / nervous range, then fantastic. However, it would be irresponsible of us as a community to tell her that she shouldn't be aware of the generalizations of this species prior to handling it.

 

[ShadowBlade]

I gave you an example to show 'trends' in behavior. Breed C. crawshayi and A. seemani. Find out what percentages will throw threat displays at 1.5".
I guarantee you, the difference will be so great, as to make generalizations sensible.
There are many other species to compare as well.
Compare a batch of Brachypelma emelia to Ceratogyrus brachycephalus. Or Aphonopelma chalcodes to Haplopelma sp. 'Vietnam' (vonwirthi)

Like, of the G. auriostriata slings I've seen, I couldn't smash a threat display out of one, whereas I had a 2+" H. gigas jump from the dirt and bite my finger. And that seems to be their attitude.

Just because A. seemani seems to be a 'wild card'. Doesn't mean countless other species can't be given some sort of a guess to its behaviour.

 

[BGBYTOY]

uh no, most gross generalizations are stupid. oh i suppose saying stuff always falls down a gravity well is safe enough (even though it is not always true).

but in general, unless you are talking physics or maths gross generalizations are stupid

LOL, You, for hating generalizations, you use them when you find a place they suit your need!

Lets see, I have 9 horses standing in my corrals. and for me to say "In General" If you are around a horse long enough, you will get Kicked, bitten, thrown off, fall off, bucked off, stepped on, broken bones, or a few other things is not a generalization of stupidity. ( I've had them all in the last 54 years)

If people (like myself) want to hold their Tarantula's, let's teach them the safe way to do it like "Windchaser" is stating, instead of debating over "Do or Don't"

Why does this question "generally" always end up in great heated debate:?

 

[cacoseraph]

Why does this question "generally" always end up in great heated debate:?

that would be roughly because some people speak english and others just sort of poke it with a stick

 

[demicheru]

OK, the point I was making a few days ago and no one seemed to pick up on is that generalizations are only good to a certain degree. It might give you some background information, maybe give you an "expected" range of responses, but when you have the bleeding spider *right there* in front of you, does it make more sense to say "so and so's spider did this, so thats what mine is going to do" or "wow, my spider just tried to bite the water dish, maybe i'll hold it"?

Its a difference between descriptive statistics and prescriptive. Take a regular, normal, good old six-sided die. You can imagine a universe where, if you rolled it nine times, it came up a one every single time. It is not likely, but certainly plausible. Now, you can make the argument that in general, the die comes up one most of the time. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what happens next. It doesn't make that generalization any less correct, though.

Now, tarantulas are somewhat different. Because they are alive and share genetic material, there will likely be some variables and whatnot, but considering the extremely wide range of observed behaviors, it is ridiculous to rely solely on those generalizations that have been listed out time and time again.

I'll say it again just for clarification. Generalizations might be true. They might even be right a lot of the time. However, the *best* way to tell if it is a good idea to pick up your spider is to observe that spider for a while.

 

[demicheru]

Not to sound like a jerk but how does this relate to this thread?

I've got a breeding pair of A.seemani and I've only handled the male to help him into the females enclosure. He's a little skittish but not too bad. I'm not one to handle my spiders personally.

demicheru I don't recall ever reading where anyone has ever said not to handle an A.seemani due to their temperament. Until you yourself has handled "every" A.seemani as you so eloquently put it how can you recommend handling or not ? So far you've handled two.

<edit>Apparently reading is not something you're good at...look at posts #2, 4, 5, etc ON THIS THREAD for people arguing not to handle an A. seemani due to its temperament. I'm sure if you did a little detective work, you could find more</edit>

My argument was that other people were basing their recommendation on experiences which were completely irrelevant. As I said, generalizations only go so far. The spider you plan on picking up is a much better gauge of how it will react that joe moron's spider. Maybe his hell spider bit him because he had just picked up a roach or something? Maybe it really was a demon in a spiders body. Who knows? I recommended observing the spider in question to make that decision. That is the only spider that matters when you are considering handling or not handling.

 

[Hedorah99]

Considering none of us have met this particular spider or had the opportunity to take it out for dinner, dancing, and maybe a few cocktails afterwards, all we can do is offer advice on generalizations of this particular sp.

 

[becca81]

*sigh*

It might give you some background information, maybe give you an "expected" range of responses, but when you have the bleeding spider *right there* in front of you, does it make more sense to say "so and so's spider did this, so thats what mine is going to do" or "wow, my spider just tried to bite the water dish, maybe i'll hold it"?

It gives you an idea of what is LIKELY to happen - not what WILL happen.

Your little dice example makes no sense here. On a 6-sided die, we know that the chance of getting a 1 is 1/6. Even if you roll a 1 a hundred times in a row, a generalization can not be made that you will typically get a 1 since we know all the possible outcomes and the likelihood of them happening.

Of course, believing that every P. murinus you encounter will be highly defensive and always try to bite you isn't accurate. However, realizing that the typical temperament of these spiders is rather defensive can help you be prepared to own one, handle one, etc.

Generalizations are made in this context in order to allow preparedness and decision-making.

Until the spider in question has been held, all we can do is give examples of the typical behavior of the species. No one ever said that that particular spider would exhibit those characteristics, but there is a likely chance that it will.

 

[Binky/Carol]

LOL, You, for hating generalizations, you use them when you find a place they suit your need!

Lets see, I have 9 horses standing in my corrals. and for me to say "In General" If you are around a horse long enough, you will get Kicked, bitten, thrown off, fall off, bucked off, stepped on, broken bones, or a few other things is not a generalization of stupidity. ( I've had them all in the last 54 years)

Oddly enough I have a horse and have been kicked, thrown off, fallen off, gotten bucked off, stepped on (Tuesday), had some broken bones...I still ride and still work with horses.

No it does appear that I am either having a very bad reaction to the urticating hairs ( allergic) OR the timing simply sucks and I started with some sensitivity to the hairs, and am also having a viral reaction from a cold. OR from some hand lotion I have been using.
I have the normally prescribed small red dots, with the bit of white on them, plus a rash and pustules and medium blister like things.. On my hands, feet, tops of knees/legs, and starting up my arms.
I went to the doctor today and I feel like I was the subject in one of those CSI episodes, they took pictures, and swabs and a biopsy...wheeeee .
I did get some great topical ointment that has made a huge difference.
And an appointment to go back in three weeks...
Edited to add- The pharmacy guy asked me if I was afraid of T's I said heck no.. I have 10 .. he gave me a rubber spider/T... when he handed me my ointment.. LOL
weeeeeeeee.
Carol