Are snakes ever really pets?

[AlexCrazy]

Originally Posted by eminart

I think it's just semantics. I call any animal I keep for my own enjoyment a "pet", although I probably rarely use that word. It doesn't matter if they're domesticated, or if they enjoy my company. It's just a word to describe the animals at my house. The only animals I keep that I don't refer to as "pets" are my falconry birds. They're used more as tools for hunting. But the main reason I don't call them pets is to discourage the constant stream of people who want to get into falconry because they think it would be cool to have a "pet" hawk.

That exact thing hapend to me.. mi friend wanted a snake because she thought it would be cool to have a pet snake.. to me my snake would be more than a pet... a loved one.. a beeing i care for and nourish... living artwork like some would say... so a think i should give it another name than pet.. but i cant call it a hunting tool.. ha ha ideas anyone?

[prairiepanda]

Originally Posted by sirtalis

I think it's dependent on the keeper. I keep my reptiles in display enclosures, never handle them, the only interaction I get is when I feed them, and that's only me putting their meal into the cage. However, I know many people keep their reptiles in a way that I would keep a dog. They hand feed it, they pet it, they hold it, they would call it a pet, and I see nothing wrong with that. To me, I enjoy my reptiles like a rare piece of art work, look but don't touch, they'll never be a pet to me, but they are pets to other people. (I hope someone understands what I'm saying )

Indeed, there are merits to keeping reptiles even if you don't consider them to be pets. Just like keeping plants or fish; they are a great thing to behold, but will only be beautiful if taken care of well. Some people might see this as treating animals like objects, but I would disagree. They are respected as living creatures. The interactive part of reptile keeping is purely for the owner's enjoyment, and not for the animal's, so it should not be a prerequisite for reptile ownership.

Some of my tarantulas certainly fit the "living art" category more so than the "pet" category. While I do appreciate a docile nature when choosing my animals, I will sometimes forgo that condition for a truly stunning display animal.

[reptiledude987]

This makes me wonder about some of the keepers here who have hots and non hots in their collection. You cant handle your crolatus like you can your colubrid. Would you consider one more or less of a pet than another?

For me I consider mine pets for many of the reasons already stated. They're just a different kind of pet than my dog.

[SnoopySnake]

Originally Posted by reptiledude987

This makes me wonder about some of the keepers here who have hots and non hots in their collection. You cant handle your crolatus like you can your colubrid. Would you consider one more or less of a pet than another?

For me I consider mine pets for many of the reasons already stated. They're just a different kind of pet than my dog.

I don't have hots... But I do have a snake that I've only held 2-3 times in the 3 months I've had it. And don't really plan on handling it much. I still consider it a pet just the same as my other snakes.

To me a pet is simply an animal that you keep and take care of, not really something that you cuddle with or pet and play with. So if I did have hots I guess I would still consider it as much of a pet as my non-hots.

[prairiepanda]

Originally Posted by reptiledude987

This makes me wonder about some of the keepers here who have hots and non hots in their collection. You cant handle your crolatus like you can your colubrid. Would you consider one more or less of a pet than another?

I don't have hots, but I can relate to this question with my tarantula collection. Just like with my reptiles, I tend to choose species that are docile in nature and therefore easy to interact with. But as I mentioned I do have a couple "display only" species. I do still consider them to be pets, but I confess I have less emotional attachment to them than to my more interactive species. For example, when I wanted to upgrade my PC's graphic card, I didn't hesitate much before selling my X immanis; a huge, beautiful, and very rare female which was my most valuable(money-wise) tarantula. She was a great display animal, but was extremely defensive. The slightest movement near her had her going in a mad dash to escape, or turning around to bare her fangs, or flicking a massive cloud of urticating hairs all around. I dreaded every time I had to upgrade her to a larger enclosure; it always meant loads of frustration and terribly itchy arms for days. I was very proud of her, and she always got the fanciest display enclosure and was a big hit with guests, but I valued her just as much as I valued a new graphic card($500). On the other hand, I have other tarantulas worth much less which I would not part with for the sake of a hardware upgrade(no, not even a $500 upgrade) because I have greater emotional attachment to them. And those aren't necessarily ones that I can touch normally, either. Like my C cyaneopubescens, who is not a handleable individual but still has a personality that pulls me in emotionally.

Of course, I have a similar attachment to some of my action figures(RAH Link dipped into my grocery budget in order to join my collection), so maybe I'm just a crazy person. But my action figures offer me some of the same rewards that pets do, honestly, so I guess the return I get from owning pets isn't always something directly given by the animal itself.

[sophiedufort]

There are, as expected, a lot of divided opinions in this thread. I believe that it all comes down to the owner's interaction, or the lack thereof, with the snakes. Some keep snakes for breeding, and when they have to take care of a bunch of crawlies, they would rather focus on cleaning enclosures, providing mice/rats and fresh water, removing poop and so on. Other snake owners follow the 'rules' that they learned in forums, and avoid touching their snakes, thinking that it could do harm. Therefore, their pets are display animals. I now have eight snakes, and they all are adorable. None ever bit me, and they seem to like my company and that of my husband. A lot. We take them out of their enclosures every day, put them on our bed, place hides for them all over the place, yet they still come to wrap around us. Our het ghost boa is a little grumpy when he wakes up, but then, just like the others, seeks our attention.
My answer is that yes, snakes are pets. Not only because we consider them so, but because of that primitive interaction they choose to have with us. An interaction that we cannot understand, nor properly define, for it is so different from that with other pets. One thing is clear to me: if any of my snakes didn't like my company, I would be the first to find out.

[KyleKennedy]

Snakes are no different than fish. I love my snakes and take care of them, but they are more of a novelty piece (for me, anyway). Snakes don't love you, they tolerate you.