The term captivity

Sarkhan42

Arachnodemon
Active Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
701
I’ll admit I’ve really only briefly skimmed this thread, but I’ve known many people including those in zoo work that say “in culture” rather than captivity. I suppose likely because the ultimate goal for many of them is to reproduce the animals in captivity, which imo definitely takes on a more positive connotation that “in captivity” does not. I’ve begun to adopt this phrasing and I have to say I like it myself, especially because I do tend towards trying to reproduce all the animals I’m privileged enough to keep.
 

Feral

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
408
But the question wasnt that. It was if they becoming depressed of being inside an enclosure in the same ways that mammals do
I say they dont!
I stated previously that science, to this point, has not proven or disproven arachnid's ability to experience emotion. But as I stated above, they don't need to experience emotion to experience stress. A more realistic and fruitful question would be "Does captivity stress tarantulas and, if so, to what degree?". This is a line of inquiry that would not only be more pertinent (and, IMO, more interesting), but exploring the physiological and behavioral consequences of various methods of husbandry, from a science-based stance, could have practical implications such as helping all of us become better keepers and helping our animals live better lives!
 

Vanisher

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
2,173
You're the one who brought up torment and depression and incorrectly made it synonymous with the term 'captivity'. If those are things that you associate with a word that doesn't mean that, then it isn't the word that is the problem.
My initial post was that i assosiate Captivety with tigers and bears sitting in a cage and feeling depressed about the fact that they where trapped, and that i do not think that tarantulas can have those feeling about being "inside a enclosure and could not escape" that the stress they maybe feel is assosiated with the fact that the conditions inside the enclosure are wrong, not that there are 4 walls and a lid keeping them from getting pass those?
I gonna talk to Swedens most skilled arachnolog which i may happen to know and hear what she has to say about this. Then i hope we can leave this subject!
 

Vanessa

Grammostola Groupie
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
1,955
My initial post was that i assosiate Captivety with tigers and bears sitting in a cage and feeling depressed about the fact that they where trapped, and that i do not think that tarantulas can have those feeling about being "inside a enclosure and could not escape" that the stress they maybe feel is assosiated with the fact that the conditions inside the enclosure are wrong, not that there are 4 walls and a lid keeping them from getting pass those?
I gonna talk to Swedens most skilled arachnolog which i may happen to know and hear what she has to say about this. Then i hope we can leave this subject!
You can call it whatever you want. Just don't expect other people to call it anything other than captivity.
 

Vanisher

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
2,173
You can call it whatever you want. Just don't expect other people to call it anything other than captivity.
Well atleast FrDOC agreed with me? I dont really understand your defenssivness? Ohh well, never mind this thread

I have got an answer from my friend, the arachnolog. She works professenally with spiders, and there behaviours. She wrote a ling answer to me in swedish and i will translate the substancial part
She said, and i quote!
There have been very little reaserch in how spiders react to captivety, but my personal belief is this. Juvenile tarantulas no matter sex i dont think they get stressed by the captivety per say. If the set up and conditions meets their demand. Adult males on the other hand is a diffrent point, they may get stressed because in the wild they roam around looking for mates. (Good point there!)
Also spider speicies that in the wild roam around as a lifestyle may be stressed by the confined space, and also spiders that web large webs, and couldnt do this cos of the confined space. They would also get stressed by not be able to do so

But females and juvenile tarantulas that mostly sits still or living in a burrow i dont think they get stressed as long as their needs are met!

Now i will drop this subject, but i also will say that i have a Arachnolog that is partly backing me up. Now, as she wrote there have been very litle research on the matter, but she is a Arschnolog and what she "believ" i taje more seriously than any persons who is sarcastic to me believ!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vanessa

Grammostola Groupie
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
1,955
I have got an answer from my friend, the arachnolog. She works professenally with spiders, and there behaviours. She wrote a ling answer to me in swedish and i will translate the substancial part
She said, and i quote!
There have been very little reaserch in how spiders react to captivety, but my personal belief is this. Juvenile tarantulas no matter sex i dont think they get stressed by the captivety per say. If the set up and conditions meets their demand. Adult males on the other hand is a diffrent point, they may get stressed because in the wild they roam around looking for mates. (Good point there!)
Also spider speicies that in the wild roam around as a lifestyle may be stressed by the confined space, and also spiders that web large webs, and couldnt do this cos of the confined space. They would also get stressed by not be able to do so
But females and juvenile tarantulas that mostly sits still or living in a burrow i dont think they get stressed as long as their needs are met!
Call it whatever you want - call it "Spider Spa Package", "Resort Living for Arachnids", "I Want Desperately to Believe I'm Preventing Extinction Ranch", "My PseudoScience Condo" - nobody is going to stop you. Just don't expect other people, who have come to grips with captivity, to stop referring to it as such.
 

Vanisher

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
2,173
What the hell is wrong with you missus? If you though i wondered about those thind because i think i creating "spider spa" or prevent "arachnid extinction" you are gravely missreading me! I dont understand your sarcasm or defenssiveness really? Have i done something to you???
 

Vanessa

Grammostola Groupie
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
1,955
What the hell is wrong with you missus? If you though i wondered about those thind because i think i creating "spider spa" or prevent "arachnid extinction" you are gravely missreading me! I dont understand your sarcasm or defenssiveness really? Have i done something to you???
How about this - how about we turn the tables a bit and see how you react?
I absolutely despise the term 'specimen'. Why? Well, because I have read countless first hand reports by vivisectors - you know, those scientists who perform the most horrific animal tests that you can imagine - that refer to the animals that they tortured as 'specimens' and I would not be caught dead mimicking someone who does something like that. So, until the day I die, I will not refer to any living creature as a 'specimen', but will use the term 'individual' instead. Dead animals, maybe, but I will never use the term for live ones.
Every single time I see that word - I cringe, because of the negative connotation that it holds for me personally. The word itself is fairly innocuous, but the relationship I have with it is anything but. I don't just get a bit put off - I mean I have images of animals with their skin flayed off laying in the bottom of cages crying and hyperventilating from the pain and suffering, while the scientist goes on and on about the behaviour that the 'specimen' is exhibiting. THAT kind of cringing. Plus, hobbyists using that word all the time just comes off as being pretentious to me.
Now, let's say I started a thread explaining why I dislike the word so much and proposing that we should use another term that does not make me feel the same way that specimen does. What kind of response do you think I would get? Do you think people would accommodate me and change the way they refer to these animals based upon MY personal feelings, or do you think that people would tell me that I was being ridiculous, irrational, illogical, and that I should get over it and move on? Good grief, we have members here who get triggered by people who name their tarantulas, so I can only imagine the triggering that would go on if I said we should stop using specimen.
 
Last edited:

Vanisher

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
2,173
I dont understand what your post has anything to do with what i have written so far. I think you misunderstood what i ment and what my intention with my post was from the get go. I get little annoyed that yiu are this defenssive. My post was ment to be a scientific speculation. But nothing constructive gets out of this argumentationfrom my side or from your side, so i hope this thread gets closed
 

Brachyfan

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Messages
317
Here are some definitions of captivity:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/captivity
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/captivity
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/captivity

Not seeing anything neutral in this word. It has a negative connotation. It IS a synonym for imprisonment not a connotation or assumption made by humans.

Some people have the urge to usurp language and come up with polite terms for negative ones. Ministry of truth style. Here are some examples:

Inhanced interrogation = torture
Collateral damage = civillian casualties
Dept of Defense = dept of war
Captivity = in humans care
In culture
Toilet paper = bathroom tissue

I have seen this becoming more prevalent in culture today. And I think it's funny how people cherry pick science. Respect biology but not etymology lol!

An animal that is born in captivity knows nothing else so even the most deplorable conditions would be normal. A wild caught animal probably would be more unsettled by the same thing. With tarantulas I doubt they would be that bothered except mature males.
 

Feral

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
408
Here are some definitions of captivity:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/captivity
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/captivity
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/captivity

Not seeing anything neutral in this word. It has a negative connotation. It IS a synonym for imprisonment not a connotation or assumption made by humans.

Some people have the urge to usurp language and come up with polite terms for negative ones. Ministry of truth style. Here are some examples:

Inhanced interrogation = torture
Collateral damage = civillian casualties
Dept of Defense = dept of war
Captivity = in humans care
In culture
Toilet paper = bathroom tissue

I have seen this becoming more prevalent in culture today. And I think it's funny how people cherry pick science. Respect biology but not etymology lol!
That's where connotations get tricky. And it depends on if you're using "imprisonment" figuratively, as a colorful way to describe simple confinement, or by its actual literal meaning.

"Imprisonment" can be used figuratively in casual popular language to mean either simple confinement, which is neutral, or used literally by the actual legal and intended definition of the word, being in actual prison (which carries thoughts of negativity). We tend to throw "imprisonment" around nonchalantly and figuratively, but it's actual definition is the state of being in a prison. The definition of the would captivity is simply the state of being captive, the state of (neutral, connotation-less) confinement, whether in a prison or in an South African game reserve or wherever the being's freedom is limited in whatever way. Or, as it was defined by The Cambridge Dictionary in the link you provided yourself, simply: "the situation in which a person or animal is kept somewhere and is not allowed to leave". Or as Merriam-Webster says, simply: "the state of being captive".
There can be some overlap of the meaning of "imprisonment" and "captivity", and they could be synonymous in some situations (a inmate in supermax is in a state of both imprisonment and captivity, for example), but they aren't fully interchangeable. Even when "imprisonment" is used figuratively, they're still not fully interchangeable- A hyena on a fenced one million hectare game reserve in is captivity, but no one can say he's imprisoned.

As far as your thoughts on euphemistic language- I fully agree!

An animal that is born in captivity knows nothing else so even the most deplorable conditions would be normal. A wild caught animal probably would be more unsettled by the same thing. With tarantulas I doubt they would be that bothered except mature males.
This is illogical, and where science disagrees. So you're saying animals don't have innate instincts? If an animal were born into deplorable conditions where his needs were not fully met, those conditions would not become fully normalized... because every creature is not entirely a product of their environment, they are born with innate instincts. Animals will try to express their instincts no matter what, and if they are in an substandard environment where they can't, they will experience stress and the consequences of stress. To illustrate practically in a way you may relate to- a captive bred (or wild,whatever) fossorial tarantula will always have the instinct to burrow, no matter what conditions she is in. It's a deep-seated instinct. If she doesn't have the opportunity to burrow, it will cause her stress. Keeping her without substrate doesn't somehow erase that instinct.
 

Brachyfan

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Messages
317
That's where connotations get tricky. And it depends on if you're using "imprisonment" figuratively, as a colorful way to describe simple confinement, or by its actual literal meaning.

"Imprisonment" can be used figuratively in casual popular language to mean either simple confinement, which is neutral, or used literally by the actual legal and intended definition of the word, being in actual prison (which carries thoughts of negativity). We tend to throw "imprisonment" around nonchalantly and figuratively, but it's actual definition is the state of being in a prison. The definition of the would captivity is simply the state of being captive, the state of (neutral, connotation-less) confinement, whether in a prison or in an South African game reserve or wherever the being's freedom is limited in whatever way. Or, as it was defined by The Cambridge Dictionary in the link you provided yourself, simply: "the situation in which a person or animal is kept somewhere and is not allowed to leave". Or as Merriam-Webster says, simply: "the state of being captive".
There can be some overlap of the meaning of "imprisonment" and "captivity", and they could be synonymous in some situations (a inmate in supermax is in a state of both imprisonment and captivity, for example), but they aren't fully interchangeable. Even when "imprisonment" is used figuratively, they're still not fully interchangeable- A hyena on a fenced one million hectare game reserve in is captivity, but no one can say he's imprisoned.

As far as your thoughts on euphemistic language- I fully agree!



This is illogical, and where science disagrees. So you're saying animals don't have innate instincts? If an animal were born into deplorable conditions where his needs were not fully met, those conditions would not become fully normalized... because every creature is not entirely a product of their environment, they are born with innate instincts. Animals will try to express their instincts no matter what, and if they are in an substandard environment where they can't, they will experience stress and the consequences of stress. To illustrate practically in a way you may relate to- a captive bred (or wild,whatever) fossorial tarantula will always have the instinct to burrow, no matter what conditions she is in. It's a deep-seated instinct. If she doesn't have the opportunity to burrow, it will cause her stress. Keeping her without substrate doesn't somehow erase that instinct.
How am I supposed to relate to a fossorial tarantula? Lol

Lets actually use an intelligent animal like a cat or dog for instance. My friend has 2 toy pomeranian dogs. They have been kenneled at night their whole lives. That is their little bed and they know no different. Take a dog that has never been kenneled and put them in the same situation and they would feel imprisoned. The difference? One knows the other side while one does not?

I have raised 2 feral cats and 4 captive bred cats. My house cats don't know what freedom is. They would go into my yard and stay there. In fact they did that for 18 years (rip) and never even thought about jumping the fence. My ferals and working cats would take off without even thinking about it. What's the difference? The ferals know what life outside the boundries is. I have also noticed this in conflict between cats too. House cats tend to be really prissy and a conflict is a minor annoyance. The ferals play for keeps. Because they have fought other animals for survival and territories.

If a human was born in a cell and had their meals pushed through a slit everyday do you think they would be pining for freedom? They wouldn't have that thought. They wouldn't know any different.

Using game reserves is just a bad example. The hyena on a million acre reserve would have no concept of captivity. Their home ranges are 30 square miles tops. And game reserves are really there to keep poachers out as opposed to trapping animals in. A zoo would be a better argument. A wild animal brought to a zoo would have a harder time adapting to life in captivity than an animal born at a zoo.

If you agree with my point about euphemisms then why do you do that in this thread all the time? It's as dumb as anthropomorphizing a spider. Captive means imprisoned period. You can sugar coat it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that that is what that term means.
 

Feral

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
408
How am I supposed to relate to a fossorial tarantula? Lol

Lets actually use an intelligent animal like a cat or dog for instance. My friend has 2 toy pomeranian dogs. They have been kenneled at night their whole lives. That is their little bed and they know no different. Take a dog that has never been kenneled and put them in the same situation and they would feel imprisoned. The difference? One knows the other side while one does not?

I have raised 2 feral cats and 4 captive bred cats. My house cats don't know what freedom is. They would go into my yard and stay there. In fact they did that for 18 years (rip) and never even thought about jumping the fence. My ferals and working cats would take off without even thinking about it. What's the difference? The ferals know what life outside the boundries is. I have also noticed this in conflict between cats too. House cats tend to be really prissy and a conflict is a minor annoyance. The ferals play for keeps. Because they have fought other animals for survival and territories.
Beside your lack of understanding regarding dog and cat behavior, which I'm not addressing here, you basic logic is flawed- Dogs and cats are domesticated animals, and as such their experience with captivity is not pertinent to this discussion. Domestication is, by definition, selective breeding over many generations with the purpose of creating animals ideally suited to captivity. So an animal that has been intentionally created to adapt to captivity will have a vastly different experience than a wild (meaning undomesticated) animal in captivity.
There just is no comparison.

Like, dogs and wolves are the same species. But dogs have been domesticated (i.e. intentionally bred to be best adapted to captivity) and wolves are wild/undomesticated. They are the same species, but their experiences of captivity are going to be wildly different and absolutely incomparable.

We're talking about wild animals in captivity in this discussion.

If a human was born in a cell and had their meals pushed through a slit everyday do you think they would be pining for freedom? They wouldn't have that thought. They wouldn't know any different.
I can't say if they would or would not be "pining for their freedom". But I am quite sure that their basic instincts would still be intact. For example, they would still crave and need human interaction; That's an innate human instinct. In fact, when children are born into and grow up in situations where they don't get proper human interaction and don't form healthy bonds, it's been well established that devastating behavioral and mental disorders will develop. Like Google "Reactive Attachment Disorder". It's heartbreaking. And that's just one outcome of denying one instinct, for illustrative purposes. I could go on and on.

Using game reserves is just a bad example. The hyena on a million acre reserve would have no concept of captivity. Their home ranges are 30 square miles tops. And game reserves are really there to keep poachers out as opposed to trapping animals in. A zoo would be a better argument. A wild animal brought to a zoo would have a harder time adapting to life in captivity than an animal born at a zoo.
That doesn't make any sense. I mentioned the hyena in the fenced reserve as an example of the dictionary definition of "captivity". That hyena is in captivity, by definition, full stop. I didn't say anything about the hyenas perception or experience with captivity. I was defining a word, "captivity", by example. The hyena doesn't need to know he's in captivity for it to be a fact that he is, definitively, captive.

If you agree with my point about euphemisms then why do you do that in this thread all the time? It's as dumb as anthropomorphizing a spider. Captive means imprisoned period. You can sugar coat it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that that is what that term means.
"Captivity" doesn't necessarily mean "imprisonment". Using the term "captivity" in reference to an animal that is, in actuality, in captivity isn't euphemistic... it's just accurate. "In human care" is euphemistic because it intentionally tries to re-brand/mitigate/spin a term/practice that has gotten a bad public image. More importantly, it's also inaccurate.

"In human care" is euphemistic and inaccurate, "in captivity" is accurate, and "imprisoned" might be accurate but is probably hyperbolic.

Maybe re-read what I wrote in my previous post about the definitions of "captivity" and "imprisonment", their similarities and differences, especially the differences in the literal and figurative uses of "imprisonment". "Captivity" and "imprisonment" are not entirely interchangeable. ("Confinement" and "captivity" are totally interchangeable.) For instance, saying that a tiger is "imprisoned" in a spacious, well-appointed habitat in a zoo is hyperbole. The tiger is in a nice habitat, not a prison or prison-like situation. It is accurate to say the tiger is "captive" in an enclosure of any size (a fenced million-hectare game reserve, a spacious zoo habitat, or a cage he can barely stand up in- size is irrelevant to the usage of the word). It's euphemistic and inaccurate to say that tiger is "in human care". Now, if the tiger were in a very small 20'x20' barren enclosure twenty-three hours of the day then, yes, that's very prison-like and so I think using the term "imprisonment" would be appropriate, as well as "captivity".

Sometimes "captivity" and "imprisonment" are synonyms. But not always, at least not without some serious exaggeration.

The abundant overuse of the word "imprisonment" in a figurative context seems to have watered it down and confused some people about its actual intended meaning.

Keep in mind, the same person who is saying that "imprisonment" is inaccurate and hyperbolic in most situations (me) is also avidly concerned with animal welfare (also me). I would LOVE to say that most captive situations are "imprisonment" because I believe most captive situations are really bad for wild animals. I would love to utilize the negative connotations that "imprisonment" has to help express my dislike for those situations.
But... it would be somewhere between hyperbole and inaccuracy on my part in many situations.
 

cheetah13mo

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
2,153
It’s a none cognitive choice or simply instinctual will to continually move to more favorable living conditions. It’s simply a drive to survive. It is a choice they make but I’m certain there’s no reasoning or listing the pros and cons of said choices to decide. The specimens instinctual drive to survive and procreate is the driving factor for decision making. i hate humanizing animals. No other creatures are as stupid as we are. Lol
 

Brachyfan

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Messages
317
Beside your lack of understanding regarding dog and cat behavior, which I'm not addressing here, you basic logic is flawed- Dogs and cats are domesticated animals, and as such their experience with captivity is not pertinent to this discussion. Domestication is, by definition, selective breeding over many generations with the purpose of creating animals ideally suited to captivity. So an animal that has been intentionally created to adapt to captivity will have a vastly different experience than a wild (meaning undomesticated) animal in captivity.
There just is no comparison.

Like, dogs and wolves are the same species. But dogs have been domesticated (i.e. intentionally bred to be best adapted to captivity) and wolves are wild/undomesticated. They are the same species, but their experiences of captivity are going to be wildly different and absolutely incomparable.

We're talking about wild animals in captivity in this discussion.



I can't say if they would or would not be "pining for their freedom". But I am quite sure that their basic instincts would still be intact. For example, they would still crave and need human interaction; That's an innate human instinct. In fact, when children are born into and grow up in situations where they don't get proper human interaction and don't form healthy bonds, it's been well established that devastating behavioral and mental disorders will develop. Like Google "Reactive Attachment Disorder". It's heartbreaking. And that's just one outcome of denying one instinct, for illustrative purposes. I could go on and on.



That doesn't make any sense. I mentioned the hyena in the fenced reserve as an example of the dictionary definition of "captivity". That hyena is in captivity, by definition, full stop. I didn't say anything about the hyenas perception or experience with captivity. I was defining a word, "captivity", by example. The hyena doesn't need to know he's in captivity for it to be a fact that he is, definitively, captive.



"Captivity" doesn't necessarily mean "imprisonment". Using the term "captivity" in reference to an animal that is, in actuality, in captivity isn't euphemistic... it's just accurate. "In human care" is euphemistic because it intentionally tries to re-brand/mitigate/spin a term/practice that has gotten a bad public image. More importantly, it's also inaccurate.

"In human care" is euphemistic and inaccurate, "in captivity" is accurate, and "imprisoned" might be accurate but is probably hyperbolic.

Maybe re-read what I wrote in my previous post about the definitions of "captivity" and "imprisonment", their similarities and differences, especially the differences in the literal and figurative uses of "imprisonment". "Captivity" and "imprisonment" are not entirely interchangeable. ("Confinement" and "captivity" are totally interchangeable.) For instance, saying that a tiger is "imprisoned" in a spacious, well-appointed habitat in a zoo is hyperbole. The tiger is in a nice habitat, not a prison or prison-like situation. It is accurate to say the tiger is "captive" in an enclosure of any size (a fenced million-hectare game reserve, a spacious zoo habitat, or a cage he can barely stand up in- size is irrelevant to the usage of the word). It's euphemistic and inaccurate to say that tiger is "in human care". Now, if the tiger were in a very small 20'x20' barren enclosure twenty-three hours of the day then, yes, that's very prison-like and so I think using the term "imprisonment" would be appropriate, as well as "captivity".

Sometimes "captivity" and "imprisonment" are synonyms. But not always, at least not without some serious exaggeration.

The abundant overuse of the word "imprisonment" in a figurative context seems to have watered it down and confused some people about its actual intended meaning.

Keep in mind, the same person who is saying that "imprisonment" is inaccurate and hyperbolic in most situations (me) is also avidly concerned with animal welfare (also me). I would LOVE to say that most captive situations are "imprisonment" because I believe most captive situations are really bad for wild animals. I would love to utilize the negative connotations that "imprisonment" has to help express my dislike for those situations.
But... it would be somewhere between hyperbole and inaccuracy on my part in many situations.
What lack of understanding about cat and dog behavior? A 2 year old could tell what I was saying? My post dealt with comparing an animal born into a situation vs one put in a situation.

This thread is dealing with the term captivity hence the title??? Which you seem to have difficulty grasping.

A dog or cat can be feral. Do you even know the definition of your own screen name? 2 of my cats have grandparents that were wild. 2 generations of that and they are considered feral. They have reverted back to the wild. Therefore no longer domesticated. To say I don't understand cat behavior when I am the one who adopts cats with behavioral issue (when compared to domestic) is absurd and laughable.

And to imply that I am not concerned for animal welfare is extremely dumb. And insulting. Maybe shake off that condescending tone. I could have reported you long ago too but didn't.

At least I understand english lol.
 

Feral

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
408
I'll reply more later, but I just wanted to quickly say that I never implied that you didn't care for animal welfare. I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I never meant to imply that, and I certainly never meant to be condescending or insulting. This is an emotion-less, fact-based discussion from my perspective. I'm sorry for any unintended offense. Please re-read my content knowing this.
 

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,229
No matter what terminology one wants to use to make themselves sleep better at night, when a person takes a wild animal, such as a tarantula, and removes its ability to choose the environment it finds most suitable, that is called captivity.

What your average pet tarantula keeper, and what most of the literature on tarantulas doesn't convey, is that immature and female tarantulas don't usually stay in the same place its entire life. When the location a tarantula settles in no longer becomes suitable, it will leave its hiding place then walk to another location. In extreme conditions (as in abnormal) such as high heat, cold, drought, and low food availability, fossorial tarantulas will adapt to those extremes by plugging up the burrow, lower their metabolism, then wait it out.

In captivity, these behaviors don't occur in obvious ways to someone who has never seen tarantulas in nature and thus have nothing to compare to. With four walls and a roof restricting their movement, discontentment is manifested by chronic digging, chronic climbing (in boreal species), resting on the floor (in arboreal species), plugging up their hides with substrate, webbing up their entire container, etc. A lot of those behaviors are ignored by many pet keepers as "that is a tarantula being a tarantula" which is correct to some degree. It is a tarantula making every attempt to adapt to an unsuitable environment provided by a person who doesn't know better.

All of that being said though, tarantulas make good terrarium pets because even in nature their whole world is only a few cubic feet or less. So being housed in a box with some dirt is perfectly normal for them. But make no mistake about it, even if a tarantula is perfectly content in said box with dirt, their ability to choose their own habitat has been removed. And that would be called captivity.
 

Brachyfan

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Messages
317
I'll reply more later, but I just wanted to quickly say that I never implied that you didn't care for animal welfare. I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I never meant to imply that, and I certainly never meant to be condescending or insulting. This is an emotion-less, fact-based discussion from my perspective. I'm sorry for any unintended offense. Please re-read my content knowing this.
Passive agressive doesn't work on me lol

No matter what terminology one wants to use to make themselves sleep better at night, when a person takes a wild animal, such as a tarantula, and removes its ability to choose the environment it finds most suitable, that is called captivity.

What your average pet tarantula keeper, and what most of the literature on tarantulas doesn't convey, is that immature and female tarantulas don't usually stay in the same place its entire life. When the location a tarantula settles in no longer becomes suitable, it will leave its hiding place then walk to another location. In extreme conditions (as in abnormal) such as high heat, cold, drought, and low food availability, fossorial tarantulas will adapt to those extremes by plugging up the burrow, lower their metabolism, then wait it out.

In captivity, these behaviors don't occur in obvious ways to someone who has never seen tarantulas in nature and thus have nothing to compare to. With four walls and a roof restricting their movement, discontentment is manifested by chronic digging, chronic climbing (in boreal species), resting on the floor (in arboreal species), plugging up their hides with substrate, webbing up their entire container, etc. A lot of those behaviors are ignored by many pet keepers as "that is a tarantula being a tarantula" which is correct to some degree. It is a tarantula making every attempt to adapt to an unsuitable environment provided by a person who doesn't know better.

All of that being said though, tarantulas make good terrarium pets because even in nature their whole world is only a few cubic feet or less. So being housed in a box with some dirt is perfectly normal for them. But make no mistake about it, even if a tarantula is perfectly content in said box with dirt, their ability to choose their own habitat has been removed. And that would be called captivity.
Hence the synonym imprisonment. And great point about behaviors in captive spiders. This pet store that gets all wild caught Ts always have lots of "pink toes". I can't go in there anymore because they obsessively pace. I have seen one spider do 100 laps a minute. Not normal behavior.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Feral

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
408
What lack of understanding about cat and dog behavior? A 2 year old could tell what I was saying? My post dealt with comparing an animal born into a situation vs one put in a situation.

This thread is dealing with the term captivity hence the title??? Which you seem to have difficulty grasping.

A dog or cat can be feral. Do you even know the definition of your own screen name? 2 of my cats have grandparents that were wild. 2 generations of that and they are considered feral. They have reverted back to the wild. Therefore no longer domesticated. To say I don't understand cat behavior when I am the one who adopts cats with behavioral issue (when compared to domestic) is absurd and laughable.

And to imply that I am not concerned for animal welfare is extremely dumb. And insulting. Maybe shake off that condescending tone. I could have reported you long ago too but didn't.

At least I understand english lol.
Your insults aside...

I don't know how to respond to this. I think, perhaps, it might benefit you to look up the definitions of wild, domesticated, feral, tame, untame, etc. All of them different, none of them are synonymous with each other. It seems you're confusing terms.

Feral animals are, by definition, domesticated.
Feral animals are domesticated animals, like dogs or cats, who then leave captivity to live IN the wild, but are not wild animals themselves. Feral animals can be either tame or untame. But being untame does not make them wild again.

It takes way more than just a couple generations for feral animals to become wild again. Terms like "feral" and "wild" and "domesticated" aren't just about how the animals' behavior, there are many changes that happen on a genetic level. (That's why, for example, the wolf is Canis lupus and the dog is Canis lupus familiaris- the dog became a subspecies because it went though actual genetic changes during domestication.) Sure, a feral cat may become untame in a couple of generations, that's to be expected and that's exactly what you were seeing, but it's not a wild cat. It's an untame feral cat. It's a long, long way from being wild.

Besides saying that, I don't know how to handle this. Please see my apology above for any unintended offense I may have caused. But this situation has become unreasonable, and I feel like I have to disengage with you.

Passive agressive doesn't work on me lol
I apologize, even though I meant no offense and have done nothing wrong... and your response to my apology post is to call me passive-aggressive ? On top of the insults in the other post?
No.



I am only interesting in engaging with people in a polite and civil way. I prefer to be on friendly terms, but I'll accept impersonal but considerate. I don't want to make it negative or "personal" or involve emotions. If you (or anyone) would like to have a polite and civil conversation in the manner described, then good. Otherwise, no.

In captivity, these behaviors don't occur in obvious ways to someone who has never seen tarantulas in nature and thus have nothing to compare to. With four walls and a roof restricting their movement, discontentment is manifested by chronic digging, chronic climbing (in boreal species), resting on the floor (in arboreal species), plugging up their hides with substrate, webbing up their entire container, etc. A lot of those behaviors are ignored by many pet keepers as "that is a tarantula being a tarantula" which is correct to some degree. It is a tarantula making every attempt to adapt to an unsuitable environment provided by a person who doesn't know better.
Thank you for an interesting and insightful post! Being a person who doesn't have any native tarantulas locally, I don't really have opportunity to observe them in the wild. So I have a question about the section quoted above, specifically about plugging up hides as a sign of discontentment. (She says, eyeballing all the burrows around her plugged up for winter torpor.) I also see it before molting. So I'd like to hear more about your thoughts hide plugging*.

*Get your mind out of the gutter, everybody! :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top