Your view of the reptile hobby

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

The idea of captive bred is a novelty. Just because it comes from a breeder and not the wild doesn't morally neutralize the act of keeping it. Its still an exotic animal.

So yes its a justification. Its using semantics to make a morally reprehensible act acceptable.

Why is keeping reptiles morally reprehensible? They are exotic animals, they aren't puppies and kittens, but why is it bad to keep them in captivity if it doesn't harm them?(by them i mean for an individual reptile being cared for "properly")

And also why do you keep them if it is morally reprehensible?

[CosmicOwl]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

And here we have a justification.

Its the opposite, actually. I'm saying that I don't believe there are moral grounds to justify us all getting rid of our reptiles. For that to be true,the simple act of being in captivity would have to be harmful to the majority of reptiles. I don't believe that is the case. There are exceptions for some species that simply cannot be kept in captivity. They're too shy, get stressed too easily or required specialized diets. Either way, they end up dying. I think it is immoral to keep these species in captivity, because the owner is condemning the animal to die a slow and agonizing death.

I also mentioned captive bred animals for a reason. It's not that I think keeping CB animals somehow makes it better. In my opinion, it's immoral to remove animals from the wild because of the impact to the wild populations and to the environment. Not to mention, WC animals often endure a lot of stress in the process of being brought into captivity. By owning a captive bred animal, you aren't putting a strain on wild populations. It's really that simple.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by athms

You need to start somewhere meaning they didn't just find a pied ball python or a anery kenyan sand boa.

Uhh you have NO clue on the history of this hobby.

That's EXACTLY how it happened and how it still happens today for the most part. Go read about the original albino ball python Bob Clark brought in. You can also read about the original pinstripe that BHB brought in, he talks about it on snakebytes too. Ralph Davis has his platinum ball python story up as well.

This isn't exclusive to balls either. Bob Clark talks about his original albino retic import too.

Very few instances of morphs popping up randomly in captivity.

Now go play in the kiddie pool while the adults converse.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

Why is keeping reptiles morally reprehensible? They are exotic animals, they aren't puppies and kittens, but why is it bad to keep them in captivity if it doesn't harm them?(by them i mean for an individual reptile being cared for "properly")

And also why do you keep them if it is morally reprehensible?

I want to respond to this too.

For me, I keep them because I want to. I know I'm selfish when I do it but I don't have a problem with that at all. I think that was kind of her point.

I don't want to put words into Lori's mouth but I think her point wasn't if keeping them was good or bad it's just that we're all the same so no one should have feeling of a higher status based on what they keep their animal in.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by StudentoReptile

Perhaps a lot of people aren't in it for the money, but they are not in it for "love of the animal" either. They just want a cool pet to show off. They are not interested in learning anything interesting about the animals they keep, or educating others or themselves. They are just interested in having a pet that scares in-laws or is fun to watch eat live prey.

So I will concur that not everyone is a breeder, and not everyone is in it for the money. But I will maintain that the majority of so-called "hobbyists" are more part of the problem than they are part of the solution.

I agree with this statement.

Why? There's a lot of people in this forum that will be gone from the hobby within the next 3 years. It happens time and time again.

I have seen the same type of people come tell the world how they love the animals and how they are in it for them and how they will keep them for life. Low and behold a few short years later and for one reason or another they no longer have all or any of the animals.

Sometimes it's a good reason but often it's not. They certainly didn't put the animals first or a priority.

I also know this because this hobby isn't too big and I can track some rarer animals through the shows and who has what. I have seen the same pair of geckos passed around a few times. Doesn't matter how rare or different....people change and go through it all.

Michael, this isn't aimed at you by the way I just thought your post was a good jump for my tangent lol.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by psychocircus

I agree, but it is definitely more prevalent than it used to be. Unfortunately this is what the public and often beginners see.

Yeah I'm attempting to carry 4 conversations within a thread at once apparently....

I agree it's more prevalent but let's look at a different angle.

The hobby has to evolve somehow. It's how we as humans are. We are egomaniacs. This hobby started out as how to properly keep the critters we choose. Once we got a really good handle on that we then said "hmm let's attempt to breed them!! That will prove how awesome I am at this."

So we did.

As time has gone on we literally have seen the landscape of the hobby change from people using rain chambers and entire room set ups to captive breed ball pythons (true story) all the way to bins and no temperature drop at all.
Does anyone believe that at one point ball pythons were considered an advanced species due to the problems people had acclimating them to captivity? Nobody thought they were remotely as easy to breed as they are today.

Things evolve and change. We're passed the stage of simply trying to figure out how to keep them alive and we're on to the next phase. I believe this plays a part in the prevalence of seeing more breeding take place. It isn't thought to be as difficult as it once was.

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

Why is keeping reptiles morally reprehensible? They are exotic animals, they aren't puppies and kittens, but why is it bad to keep them in captivity if it doesn't harm them?(by them i mean for an individual reptile being cared for "properly")

And also why do you keep them if it is morally reprehensible?

Its morally reprehensible to keep any exotic. That includes zoos. Captivity has the propensity to harm exotics. Take for example Orca whales: in a documentary investigating the deaths of orca trainers at SeaWorld they proved that for these animals captivity is causing major issues. There is aggressive behavior, social anxiety etc, which is leading to human death. Perfect example of the lies we tell ourselves about captivity is that they went to a SeaWorld employees and asked basic questions and compared her answers with experts and the results were staggering. For example the employee was asked about life expectancy and she answered 25yrs (in the wild these animals easily hit 50). The other shocking question was about the collapsed dorsal fin. The employee was asked how prevalent dorsal fin collapse was she quoted 85-95% (in the wild dorsal fin collapse occurs less than 10%).

I keep reptiles because I legitimately love it, and I do it well. I'm selfish in doing so but its (as Aaron said) a selfish I can live with. I said it was morally reprehensible. I didn't say I didnt enjoy it.

Lots of things we do are morally reprehensible, its all about what you can live with.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

Its morally reprehensible to keep any exotic. That includes zoos. Captivity has the propensity to harm exotics. Take for example Orca whales: in a documentary investigating the deaths of orca trainers at SeaWorld they proved that for these animals captivity is causing major issues. There is aggressive behavior, social anxiety etc, which is leading to human death. Perfect example of the lies we tell ourselves about captivity is that they went to a SeaWorld employees and asked basic questions and compared her answers with experts and the results were staggering. For example the employee was asked about life expectancy and she answered 25yrs (in the wild these animals easily hit 50). The other shocking question was about the collapsed dorsal fin. The employee was asked how prevalent dorsal fin collapse was she quoted 85-95% (in the wild dorsal fin collapse occurs less than 10%).

I keep reptiles because I legitimately love it, and I do it well. I'm selfish in doing so but its (as Aaron said) a selfish I can live with. I said it was morally reprehensible. I didn't say I didnt enjoy it.

Lots of things we do are morally reprehensible, its all about what you can live with.

Okay I see the point you are making, but what do you have to say about exotic animals that have longevity in captivity comparable to their wild counterparts?(ie. certain species of snakes, lizards...etc). I just ask this since you made a point about longevity.

Also if an animal is healthy and does not suffer in captivity, why is it morally reprehensible?

[kwhitlock]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

Its morally reprehensible to keep any exotic. That includes zoos. Captivity has the propensity to harm exotics. Take for example Orca whales: in a documentary investigating the deaths of orca trainers at SeaWorld they proved that for these animals captivity is causing major issues. There is aggressive behavior, social anxiety etc, which is leading to human death. Perfect example of the lies we tell ourselves about captivity is that they went to a SeaWorld employees and asked basic questions and compared her answers with experts and the results were staggering. For example the employee was asked about life expectancy and she answered 25yrs (in the wild these animals easily hit 50). The other shocking question was about the collapsed dorsal fin. The employee was asked how prevalent dorsal fin collapse was she quoted 85-95% (in the wild dorsal fin collapse occurs less than 10%).

That is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen, and a great point about exotics. To me, an animal that size so should never be kept captive. But as a point about that. One of the main reasons that the pschyological issues occurred is because of cultural differences in the orca communication.

The part when the mom had the baby, and when they shipped it and the mother cried for her to come back, finding out that it was a search call she was making, tore me up.

Sorry to de-rail but I just needed to comment on that.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by kwhitlock

That is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen, and a great point about exotics. To me, an animal that size so should never be kept captive. But as a point about that. One of the main reasons that the pschyological issues occurred is because of cultural differences in the orca communication.

The part when the mom had the baby, and when they shipped it and the mother cried for her to come back, finding out that it was a search call she was making, tore me up.

Sorry to de-rail but I just needed to comment on that.

its a public thread! no such thing as derailing as long as you're sincere lol. I'll take a look at that documentary as well.

[kwhitlock]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

its a public thread! no such thing as derailing as long as you're sincere lol. I'll take a look at that documentary as well.

If you have Netflix mikoh, it's on there. I believe it's called blackfish or dark fish. It's one of the two! You can't miss it, only thing I've seen on Netflix with the cover just being an orca.

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

Okay I see the point you are making, but what do you have to say about exotic animals that have longevity in captivity comparable to their wild counterparts?(ie. certain species of snakes, lizards...etc). I just ask this since you made a point about longevity.

Also if an animal is healthy and does not suffer in captivity, why is it morally reprehensible?

Because longevity as a species is subjective. In the case of snakes and lizards, Nature weeds out the population. There are predators, parasites, harsh conditions, drought etc. Animals travel genetic variability is ensured in healthy populations. Weaker, less genetically sound specimens don't make it to breed.

In captivity we inbreed, we assist feed, we eliminate the natural weed-out process. What's left are animals that may live longer than they would in the wild but as a species they're weaker.

[TheFrogman]

My thoughts are short and simple, I always had Frogs, 10 or so different species. I never wanted a snake or thought about it.

I saw a baby High White Reverse Okeetee in a Mom n Pop store and thought it was pretyy so I bought it.

Now 5 1/2 months later, Im addicted, I have 4 and shopping for more.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

Because longevity as a species is subjective. In the case of snakes and lizards, Nature weeds out the population. There are predators, parasites, harsh conditions, drought etc. Animals travel genetic variability is ensured in healthy populations. Weaker, less genetically sound specimens don't make it to breed.

In captivity we inbreed, we assist feed, we eliminate the natural weed-out process. What's left are animals that may live longer than they would in the wild but as a species they're weaker.

Weakness is also subjective. They may be weak to their native environment, but if they can live long in captivity(captivity being the new environment) then are they still weak? And if they are able to live long and healthy lives in captivity, is it still morally reprehensible and if so why?

How do you feel about humans nurturing the weak(handi-caps, disabled...etc)?

[StudentoReptile]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

Weakness is also subjective. They may be weak to their native environment, but if they can live long in captivity(captivity being the new environment) then are they still weak? And if they are able to live long and healthy lives in captivity, is it still morally reprehensible and if so why?

How do you feel about humans nurturing the weak(handi-caps, disabled...etc)?

We're not talking about humans, we're talking about snakes. But since you brought it up....

Say you use the argument, a person with a terminal genetic condition since they were say, 60 was put on life support and lived to be 90. They are still weak. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense or insulting, just simple fact. That someone stepped in and hooked them to a life support machine, comes helps them use the restroom and brings them their food, etc, is irrelevant. That person is still weak compared to a "normal" person with normal health parameters.

Same with snakes. Sure a super-duper high-white abino cinnammin neon nut-crunch ball python can live for decades in a plastic tub being assist-fed every week, because of its head wobble....but you plop it in the African savannah and I'm telling you it is genetically weaker than a normal BP.

Same with dogs. You plop a healthy Golden retriever in the Pacific Northwest, and in a few months, you will have a thin, malnourished canine barely etching out an existence if it has not already succumbed to predators, disease, parasites or starvation. It is a domesticated animal that has become too dependent on human intervention. That is why wolves shun human contact (usually) and dogs thrive upon it (even stray/feral ones).