Your view of the reptile hobby

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by StudentoReptile

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).

I'm not talking about snakes that need support such as being assist fed, nor am I talking about snakes with noticeable handi-caps. How weak do you want to go?

So would you say that owning dogs is also morally reprehensible since they are genetically weaker than wolves? Dogs seem to do well under the right care, and so do reptiles.

[Mikoh4792]

By the way my question on humans was not part of the argument. I was just interested in her opinion on the separate subject of humans. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was using that question as a part of my argument.

[StudentoReptile]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

I'm not talking about snakes that need support such as being assist fed, nor am I talking about snakes with noticeable handi-caps. How weak do you want to go?

So would you say that owning dogs is also morally reprehensible since they are genetically weaker than wolves? Dogs seem to do well under the right care, and so do reptiles.

Its somewhat of a loaded question.

I think it is morally reprehensible to continue breeding animals when A) we are aware of the genetic issues and/or B) do it anyway for monetary gain.

I do not think it is morally reprehensible to care for such animals. Ex: adopting said animal from someone else as a pet, or from a rescue, with no intention of breeding.

I replied the way I did, because you asked the question:

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?

The answer is no. They are weak in whatever environment they are. The environment is what is changes. Now, one could make the argument that if husbandry changes for the better, the individual animal improves to a state which makes it stronger.

[Mikoh4792]

So I don't understand, are we not on the same page?

I too believe it's wrong to breed/support the breeding of obviously genetically weak animals such as jaguar carpets, ball pythons with wobble issues...etc.

But I was originally asking Lady_bug why it was morally reprehensible to keep reptiles, nothing more than that.

[Mikoh4792]

So again, why is it morally reprehensible to keep reptiles if they seem to be able to live long lives and are "properly" cared for so long as husbandry keeps progressing as our knowledge on these animals grow?

[StudentoReptile]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

So again, why is it morally reprehensible to keep reptiles if they seem to be able to live long lives and are "properly" cared for so long as husbandry keeps progressing as our knowledge on these animals grow?

If that is in fact the truth, then it is not reprehensible (can we just use the word "wrong" - I'm tired of typing out reprehensible!).

But here's a question for you....how many hobbyists keep their animals the entire duration of their lives? I know very few. We all have noble intentions, but interests wane, finances drain, our human lives change, etc....how many of us can say that we have kept __ animal its entire life?

Why is that question relevant? We say all these genetic mutations live long, healthy lives, but how many times do they change hands? I'm not saying there aren't some long-lived morphs out there, but...I've had my normal BP for 22 yrs and counting. I'm not asking for a show of hands (that can be a different thread) but just ask yourselves (especially those who breed).

[Mikoh4792]

I do not disagree with anything you just said and we are on the same page.

Just wanted lady_bug to tell me why keeping a reptile is morally reprehensible, without extra assumptions(of breeding genetically weak animals, assist feeding the weak, and in the case of your post, being passed around a lot..etc). It's a pure question " Why is keeping reptiles morally reprehensible?"

[CosmicOwl]

The comparison to killer whales is really silly. They're extremely intelligent and they also have deep emotional bonds with their family members that are often violently shattered when these parks move whales around. They also naturally roam over thousands of square miles of ocean, and the tanks most parks keep them in are the equivalent of snake rack systems[in terms of size]. Often times the parks will store multiple unrelated whales in the same small holding tanks at night, which causes stress and fighting.

There are just no valid parallels between keeping killer whales and reptiles.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by CosmicOwl

The comparison to killer whales is really silly. They're extremely intelligent and they also have deep emotional bonds with their family members that are often violently shattered when these parks move whales around. They also naturally roam over thousands of square miles of ocean, and the tanks most parks keep them in are the equivalent of snake rack systems. Often times the parks will store multiple unrelated whales in the same small holding tanks at night, which causes stress and fighting.

There are just no valid parallels between keeping killer whales and reptiles.

Don't meant to degrade your post, but I would say snake racks are not even comparable to keeping killer whales in those parks. Keeping snakes in racks has no where near the negative impact on the animal as keeping killer whales in those parks. Just want to exaggerate that point.

[CosmicOwl]

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

Don't meant to degrade your post, but I would say snake racks are not even comparable to keeping killer whales in those parks. Keeping snakes in racks has no where near the negative impact on the animal as keeping killer whales in those parks. Just want to exaggerate that point.

I meant that they were similar in size. It's obviously much more traumatic for killer whales.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by CosmicOwl

I meant that they were similar in size. It's obviously much more traumatic for killer whales.

Yes I know what you meant, I just wanted to exaggerate the difference between the two.

[lady_bug87]

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)?

Genetic weakness is determined by physical attributes that affect the way they live and reproduce. Each generation that gets produced becomes weaker unless outcrossed properly. Clutch sizes drop, hatch rate suffers, birth defects increase etc. You may not see it in F2- F4 but it does happen, its a proven fact that once genetic variation decreases so does the genetic stability. In fact there are pieds that do not produce viable clutches since they have been so imbed. I would consider them genetically weak. No matter the environment.

I find the human question insulting.

Originally Posted by Mikoh4792

By the way my question on humans was not part of the argument. I was just interested in her opinion on the separate subject of humans. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was using that question as a part of my argument.

I'm a caregiver to elderly grandparents and before my son came along I worked as a social worker in geriatrics and palliative care..

Apologize when ready.

Originally Posted by CosmicOwl

The comparison to killer whales is really silly. They're extremely intelligent and they also have deep emotional bonds with their family members that are often violently shattered when these parks move whales around. They also naturally roam over thousands of square miles of ocean, and the tanks most parks keep them in are the equivalent of snake rack systems. Often times the parks will store multiple unrelated whales in the same small holding tanks at night, which causes stress and fighting.

There are just no valid parallels between keeping killer whales and reptiles.

The point was on exotics in general.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

Genetic weakness is determined by physical attributes that affect the way they live and reproduce. Each generation that gets produced becomes weaker unless outcrossed properly. Clutch sizes drop, hatch rate suffers, birth defects increase etc. You may not see it in F2- F4 but it does happen, its a proven fact that once genetic variation decreases so does the genetic stability. In fact there are pieds that do not produce viable clutches since they have been so imbed. I would consider them genetically weak. No matter the environment.

I find the human question insulting.



I'm a caregiver to elderly grandparents and before my son came along I worked as a social worker in geriatrics and palliative care..

Apologize when ready.

I guess you're not getting my point. Why do you keep bringing inbreeding into this?

The only thing I am asking is why is it morally reprehensible to keep reptiles...just go over my last few posts. I clearly state I'm not talking about inbreeding, assist feeding...etc. I'm only talking about keeping reptiles and why it's wrong to do so.

And you miss my point again on the human part. It wasn't asked to be part of my argument. It was a side question to see where your head is at when using the same logic(nurturing the weak) with humans. It had no hidden agenda...something I also clarified.

Apologize when ready... =[

[lady_bug87]

Either I'm not being clear or you're not listening.

Its wrong because its selfish. Because we keep them for no reason than because we like them. No matter HOW you keep them you're selfish, if you really care about the animals you would be fighting for the hobby to stop collecting from wild sources, you wouldn't keep them in your home, you would go out and visit them in theirs.

[CosmicOwl]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

The point was on exotics in general.

That's the problem. Generalizing all exotics is absurd. There are some that do extremely poorly in captivity(like killer whales) and some that thrive(like corn snakes). The same rules do not apply to all exotics, they don't even apply to all reptiles.