# Your thoughts on 2 tortoise owners.



## @ndrew (Feb 10, 2015)

One of these tortoise owners houses a red foot and a russian.
The other owner paints his tortoise.

What are your thoughts on these keepers?


----------



## russian/sulcata/tortoise (Feb 10, 2015)

A tortoise should not be painted, lots of bad chemical in paint that can harm the tort!
Two different species should have no contact with sac other, the spread of disease and bacteria can kill both tortoises! This stuff makes me mad.


----------



## @ndrew (Feb 10, 2015)

russian/sulcata/tortoise said:


> A tortoise should not be painted, lots of bad chemical in paint that can harm the tort!
> Two different species should have no contact with sac other, the spread of disease and bacteria can kill both tortoises! This stuff makes me mad.


Exactly we have tried to tell these owners not to do this but they are so ignorant.


----------



## stojanovski92113 (Feb 10, 2015)

Then they should seriously not own tortoises!! What neglect!! Well you mine as well tell these individuals that "Enjoy their tortoises because they may not have them much longer" because they are slowly killing them!!! This stuff makes me insanely mad as well!!


----------



## ascott (Feb 10, 2015)

@ndrew said:


> One of these tortoise owners houses a red foot and a russian.
> The other owner paints his tortoise.
> 
> What are your thoughts on these keepers?




Okay, so at first reaction, painting a tortoise is not great---if the person insist on painting the tort lets hope it is with some type of kids non toxic mix....and lots of folks mix species--while I would not promote this, there are those that are aok with it....


----------



## Tom (Feb 10, 2015)

@ndrew said:


> One of these tortoise owners houses a red foot and a russian.
> The other owner paints his tortoise.
> 
> What are your thoughts on these keepers?



What is the point of this post? Surely you know that most of us here will frown on both of these practices. It sounds like you are looking for someone to say something bad about the people doing these things.


----------



## @ndrew (Feb 10, 2015)

Tom said:


> What is the point of this post? Surely you know that most of us here will frown on both of these practices. It sounds like you are looking for someone to say something bad about the people doing these things.


I didn't want anything bad to be said about these owners. Maybe since I am not that knowledgeable about all species of tortoises I might learn something new about housing two different species of tortoise. Yes I can admit I didn't like the tortoise being treated like a canvas but maybe I can be overreacting. My intentions might look wrong but we all have something in common. We love tortoises. And learning how to care for our tortoises are a priority and there is always something new to learn and maybe we can all learn something new about these conditions.


----------



## @ndrew (Feb 10, 2015)

And the person who painted his tortoise said he is using non toxic paint.


----------



## naturalman91 (Feb 11, 2015)

i wouldn't paint my tort with any kind of paint and as for a russian and a red foot together that's a big no no mixing species can be dangerous for those involved but i'm also a purist nut that doesn't even think redfoots and cherry head's should be kept together

the red foot and the russian have totally different habitat's i feel bad for the torts honestly.


----------



## tortdad (Feb 11, 2015)

@ndrew said:


> And the person who painted his tortoise said he is using non toxic paint.



Doesn't matter if it's none toxic. The paint will still be absorbed and it will create a seal which will no longer allow the shell to breath. That shell will not grow right now. It's animal abuse, plain and simple.


----------



## WithLisa (Feb 11, 2015)

tortdad said:


> Doesn't matter if it's none toxic. The paint will still be absorbed and it will create a seal which will no longer allow the shell to breath. That shell will not grow right now. It's animal abuse, plain and simple.


Well, some owners apply oil on the shell (it's even recommended in the forum), others use paint.
I guess watercolours allow for more breath and are easier to remove than oil.

In my opinion, it's far worse to keep different species with different body language together.


----------



## Yvonne G (Feb 11, 2015)

Well, I think tortoises are beautiful in their natural state, and look quite ugly when painted. If I knew these two folks I might try to offer some constructive criticism, maybe pull a couple of 'scientific' articles off the net to help educate them. But it really all boils down to the fact that these tortoises belong to these people, and they can do with or to them anything they want to.


----------



## SlowMcClouskey (Feb 11, 2015)

Wow I'm glad I read this because I was wondering if one tort could get another one sick easily :0 in my town'a pet store there's a tank of tortoiaes, 2 box and 2 red footed. Is that bad, or is it bad when they get in direct contact with each other?


----------



## Yvonne G (Feb 11, 2015)

From the Tortoise Trust article on Evaluating indoor tortoise housing for compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (2006):

"Mixing species and keeping with other tortoises Mixed species groups should be avoided. Different species may have very different temperature and humidity requirements, for example. They may also have mutually antagonistic behaviour patterns than can result in stress or physical injury. Different species may also have completely different and entirely incompatible dietary requirements. It is almost impossible to keep species from different habitats together as the environment and diet will invariably prove sub-optimal for both. Different species from different origins may also carry diseases to which the other has no acquired immunity. *There are high levels of reported disease and death among mixed species groups (McArthur, op. cit.)
*
I tried to find the referenced article "McArthur, op. cit." but not enough info is given about it for a search.


----------



## Yvonne G (Feb 11, 2015)

Here's an article by someone named McArthur about mixing species. I don't know if it's the guy referred to above:

http://www.britishcheloniagroup.org.uk/testudo/v4/v4n5mc


----------



## Robber (Feb 11, 2015)

naturalman91 said:


> *the red foot and the russian have totally different habitats*



^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^


----------



## stojanovski92113 (Feb 11, 2015)

Yvonne G said:


> Here's an article by someone named McArthur about mixing species. I don't know if it's the guy referred to above:
> 
> http://www.britishcheloniagroup.org.uk/testudo/v4/v4n5mc


Thanks @Yvonne G for sharing this. Very informative.


----------



## Anyfoot (Feb 11, 2015)

@ndrew said:


> One of these tortoise owners houses a red foot and a russian.
> The other owner paints his tortoise.
> 
> What are your thoughts on these keepers?
> ...


If I new the owner of this tort. It would be mine, period. I would not stand aside and watch a tort be neglected like that. Its disgusting. No if but or maybe's. Over here it would be sorted one way or another. Threaten to report him/her, see what they say. What next are we going to start to create new royal pythons with paint.


----------



## HLogic (Feb 11, 2015)

Anyfoot said:


> What next are we going to start to create new royal pythons with paint.



Do you mean they haven't already?? It seems they've tried everything else!

For the unfamiliar... Royal Python = P. regius = Ball Python -- need I say more?


----------



## Anyfoot (Feb 11, 2015)

Ask the owner what happens to the paint when the tort is bathed. Surely the paint is diluted into the water, then absorbed through the torts skin and even worse, is drunk.


----------



## HLogic (Feb 11, 2015)

Anyfoot said:


> Ask the owner what happens to the paint when the tort is bathed. Surely the paint is diluted into the water, then absorbed through the torts skin and even worse, is drunk.



What makes you think they bathe the tort?


----------



## stojanovski92113 (Feb 11, 2015)

HLogic said:


> What makes you think they bathe the tort?


Yeah...good point!!


----------



## WithLisa (Feb 11, 2015)

Anyfoot said:


> Ask the owner what happens to the paint when the tort is bathed. Surely the paint is diluted into the water, then absorbed through the torts skin and even worse, is drunk.


Most likely nothing will happen. I'm sure I have drunk many glasses of water colour and got a lot of paint on my skin and was bathed afterwards, like every other child, and it was not harmful. I'm sure most tortoises have contact with worse chemicals...

I don't like owners painting their tortoises, but at least this tort looks healthy and well grown and seems to spend a lot of time outside in the sun. I think it's better to get painted from time to time than to spend the whole life in a small indoor enclosure (like many tortoises in this forum).


----------



## Jacqui (Feb 11, 2015)

ascott said:


> Okay, so at first reaction, painting a tortoise is not great---if the person insist on painting the tort lets hope it is with some type of kids non toxic mix....and lots of folks mix species--while I would not promote this, there are those that are aok with it....



I am agreeing with her on both points.


----------



## ascott (Feb 11, 2015)

Anyfoot said:


> If I new the owner of this tort. It would be mine, period. I would not stand aside and watch a tort be neglected like that. Its disgusting. No if but or maybe's. Over here it would be sorted one way or another. Threaten to report him/her, see what they say. What next are we going to start to create new royal pythons with paint.




See now, this type of knee jerk reaction can escalate a situation into something that is just not necessary....that painted tortoise is beautiful (under all of that paint and color)...and as Yvonne mentioned, the tortoise is under that persons care, period. Also, to threaten to report him/her? Exactly to whom will a report filed with? Animal Control? Do you realize the outcome that will present for this tortoise --who is simply adorned by some color? If someone told me that I had a choice, to either 1) paint the tort or 2) have animal control come out and "handle" the situation, I would be a painting fool, guaranteed.

As for mixing species, if the two torts shown here were tested/cleared for obvious parasites and such----then a large enough enclosure outdoors set up that had a variety of micro climates, they each could and would seek out their needs ....again, I personally would not promote this for me---but for many years and many geographic locations--it is done and can be done with great work in a successful manner---that also carries great risk, but has worked...


----------



## leigti (Feb 11, 2015)

Tom said:


> What is the point of this post? Surely you know that most of us here will frown on both of these practices. It sounds like you are looking for someone to say something bad about the people doing these things.


I kind of like Tom's question. What exactly is the point of this? I think many of us agree that it is not the proper way to take care of tortoises. Are these pictures from another forum or Facebook or something? Have the owners been told that it is not proper care and they refused to listen and you are looking for more fuel to try to convince them? we can certainly do that but just sitting here and bashing them doesn't really help, there needs to be a conversation to discuss things. Not just a bunch of us moaning and groaning and criticizing. Education will get you farther than ridicule in most cases. I realize that some people will never listen but I'm not sure this way will help any.


----------



## Anyfoot (Feb 11, 2015)

Ok I apologies for the reaction. Wound me up a bit, and @leigti you are right. Education is the key. Still think its outrages that someone would paint any animal. Years ago over here people used to pain't names on torts and that is frowned on now. We don't even have circus animals anymore due to the cruelty it involves training animals. I'll observe the thread and see the outcome, if any.


----------



## Tom (Feb 12, 2015)

Anyfoot said:


> We don't even have circus animals anymore due to the cruelty it involves training animals.



Well now you've opened up a whole new can of worms with this. We do, in fact, still have lots of circus animals, and their training does NOT involve cruelty. You, like so many others, have been misled by the media, the animal rightists and their agendas. Abused animals don't work very well. I am under constant daily scrutiny because of statements and attitudes like the one you asserted above. Don't believe everything you see on TV or read from an animal rights group. Please understand that animal rights groups are the enemy of everyone who keeps pets, domestic or otherwise.


----------



## Anyfoot (Feb 12, 2015)

Tom said:


> Well now you've opened up a whole new can of worms with this. We do, in fact, still have lots of circus animals, and their training does NOT involve cruelty. You, like so many others, have been misled by the media, the animal rightists and their agendas. Abused animals don't work very well. I am under constant daily scrutiny because of statements and attitudes like the one you asserted above. Don't believe everything you see on TV or read from an animal rights group. Please understand that animal rights groups are the enemy of everyone who keeps pets, domestic or otherwise.


Point taken. When I get time i'll read into that.


----------



## WithLisa (Feb 12, 2015)

I don't know the laws in UK, but in Austria we still have domestic circus animals like dogs and horses, only wild circus animals are prohibited. 
Not because their training involves cruelty (training is very good for captive animals!), but because a travelling circus can't keep them in big enclosures similar to their habitat like a zoo.


----------



## puffy137 (Feb 12, 2015)

Back in the beginning of the 20th century in England tortoises shells were drilled with a tiny hole & chained up in gardens so they wouldn't get lost. Sounds cruel , but then keeping them in tubs with everything surrounding them artificial seems to me as bad as a chain . Painting the shells is just silly , unless one scute for identification purposes.


----------



## naturalman91 (Feb 12, 2015)

Anyfoot said:


> We don't even have circus animals anymore due to the cruelty it involves training animals.



i was at the circus a few month's ago..... still had elephants and stuff......


----------



## puffy137 (Feb 12, 2015)

A lot is made of how cruel it is for battery hens to be kept all their lives shut up in cages. On youtube I've seen rabbits in barren cages with wire floors It seems to cruel to keep them that way , when they love to run & jump & play.


----------



## smarch (Feb 13, 2015)

Not going to lie I've painted my tortoise before... not like that, it was just a little symbol on a single scute avoiding the new growth areas, I used "non-toxic" watercolor paint so I could easily scrub it off with water and a toothbrush. I did it twice, but I no longer do it due to the concerns about it. But I mean it really is all up to the owner, and its not stopping me from sticking a heart sticker on his shell tomorrow, but he's a pet to me not a wild animal to me. 

Next are the Russian and redfoot actually being housed together or just together for the picture. While even contact isn't good if they at least have separate housings its not as bad. Becaue if they share an enclosure either the RF isn't getting enough humidity or the Russian is getting way too much. Needs alone is why i'd never mix species... and the fact that one day the RF could squish the Russian. 
I once knew someone who kept their male box turtle with their Russian female because he harassed the box turtle females and at the time there was no separate housing, but she wouldn't put up with his harassing. Now they're separate but I think I agreed with the decision because new box turtles that had been abused and over-bred and actually had bore holes came in and the male had to leave them alone.


----------



## smarch (Feb 13, 2015)

I know its not a debate, but I can keep this civil. Its not the training that's cruel in circus animals (although animal rights things make it appear so) I mean sometimes it is done and sometimes its caught, but the biggest reason animals aren't wanted in circuses are the travel. They all basically live in little cages and aren't given space like a zoo. Animals like dogs (@Tom ) like travel and are easier to give more space in transport. 
everyone who has an animal has some form of training, I mean you really can't keep large breed dogs if they're not trained (Marmaduke anyone?) good people train strict but kind, and if I know tom at all he's not whipping animals to train them! I mean some people don't like to admit it but we like pets as entertainment, so many people have pets that leaving them out of commercials involving families or cars would be unrealistic after a while. 

Heck even my cat knows the word "food" and comes running!


----------



## bouaboua (Feb 13, 2015)

Don't know what to say.............


----------



## tglazie (Feb 13, 2015)

Tom has raised one point I would like to address, and that's that animal rightsists are an enemy to everyone on this forum. These idiots will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed. They are a bunch of animal hating monsters who would rather see every animal on earth die a horrible and torturous death than spend one moment in the care of a human being. This is one of the reasons I automatically reject anything any of them say. Those people are despicable liars, shameless opportunists who would burn the bill of rights at the slightest opportunity. What these horrible human beings do is incredibly damaging, because every day they are working to bend the law to meet their sick and twisted view of humanity's relationship with the world and the laws that govern that relationship. 

I would have to agree with the majority opinion, as I see it, namely that "reporting" these two owners is quite possibly the worst thing for the tortoises. Let's face facts, animal control and publicly funded shelters aren't the best places, even for dogs. And these are animals whose care is common knowledge, a practice so common, dating deep into human prehistory, that I'm still amazed people purchase books on the subject. The relative popularity of tortoise keeping is a relatively new phenomenon, and the simple fact is that the wealth of disinformation is so overwhelming that you're as likely to see proper care of these animals in a shelter setting as you are in a pet store. If I were to place a tortoise in the best possible situation, I would choose the ownership of a private individual, hands down, no contest. Owners can be educated the right way to do things, and I feel that this is the key. 

When I was a young hothead (I'm still a hothead, but I'm just not as young as I once was), I would go off on people I thought were keeping tortoises incorrectly. What was ironic was that when I was that young, I was keeping tortoises incorrectly. Simple fact is that we, with our vast experience, must treat those who are treating their tortoises in what we perceive as a less than ideal fashion, we should let them know it in a manner that demonstrates the utmost courtesy and civility. And honestly, I feel we here on the forum, by and large, do approach these troubles this way. The problem is that often times, people aren't willing to listen to good advice. But impatience and frustration aren't the best response to this obstinance. I must admit, when I first read that tortoises can't subsist on grocery store bought veggies alone, back when Graecus was my one and only tort, I was mad. I didn't want to hear it. This was back in the mid nineties. I didn't know where to go in Alamogordo, NM to find dandelion seeds that were pesticide free. There was no tortoisesupply.com back in those days, no oustide pride. I felt like the authors of these books were judging me, telling me I was a lousy tortoise owner. And I was. But nobody wants to hear that. 

Ultimately, however, I came around. And that's what you've gotta hope against hope, that people who obsintately refuse advice, who commit tortoise keeping no-nos that we knew were risky back in 1992, yeah, it is frustrating talking to these people. But just realize that many of us on here are as stubborn as our tortoises, and that there was a time way back when, when we thought we knew everything there was to know, and then bam, we get hit with a revelation that turns our thinking upside down. Pyramiding is one of those. Heck, if you would've asked me, late nineties, early 2000s, what causes pyramiding? I would've said diet. I would've had no concept regarding microclimates, closed systems, the critical importance of humidity and water. I've said it before, but tortoise keeping isn't some intuitive thing. You have to learn, and sometimes, that comes with confronting some hard truths. But no good will come of government intervention in any of this. The only thing government has been able to succeed in doing is making the lives of turtle and tortoise keepers and breeders difficult. Because they don't care about the tortoises, or public health, or the people involved with these animals. They just care about their own power, and exercising that power like petty cowards, inconsistently, because they're a bunch of incompetent nincompoops (on top of being petty, spineless cowards) who don't even know the law and therefore enforce it arbitrarily. They don't do anything substantive. They don't produce anything, provide anything of value. They are parasites, living off the hard earned goods produced by the private sector. Private keepers have done a great deal for tortoises. I am impressed by the efforts of the good people on this forum everyday. All of that would be impossible if those spineless bureaucrats and brainless PETA pushers had their way. 

T.G.


----------



## leigti (Feb 13, 2015)

tglazie said:


> Tom has raised one point I would like to address, and that's that animal rightsists are an enemy to everyone on this forum. These idiots will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed. They are a bunch of animal hating monsters who would rather see every animal on earth die a horrible and torturous death than spend one moment in the care of a human being. This is one of the reasons I automatically reject anything any of them say. Those people are despicable liars, shameless opportunists who would burn the bill of rights at the slightest opportunity. What these horrible human beings do is incredibly damaging, because every day they are working to bend the law to meet their sick and twisted view of humanity's relationship with the world and the laws that govern that relationship.
> 
> I would have to agree with the majority opinion, as I see it, namely that "reporting" these two owners is quite possibly the worst thing for the tortoises. Let's face facts, animal control and publicly funded shelters aren't the best places, even for dogs. And these are animals whose care is common knowledge, a practice so common, dating deep into human prehistory, that I'm still amazed people purchase books on the subject. The relative popularity of tortoise keeping is a relatively new phenomenon, and the simple fact is that the wealth of disinformation is so overwhelming that you're as likely to see proper care of these animals in a shelter setting as you are in a pet store. If I were to place a tortoise in the best possible situation, I would choose the ownership of a private individual, hands down, no contest. Owners can be educated the right way to do things, and I feel that this is the key.
> 
> ...


I think you pretty much summed it up   I can't stand PETA and other groups like them. To me most of their thinking is backwards. My friends have guide dogs and many of them have been harassed and borderline assaulted by these "animal rights" idiots. Saying they abuse their dogs, saying they are "slaves". They go to extremes and give the public wrong ideas, and I agree that as bad as they are with dogs and cats they are even worse with lesser-known animals like tortoises. people nowadays don't want to do research and learn anything, they want to read the headline and MoveOn. These animal rights groups give them the headline but no substance in an article. I don't know where they get their ideas or how they can justify them. I usually try to see things from other points of view, even if I don't agree with them, but I literally just don't understand these extreme animal-rights people. I can't wrap my head around it at all. so no, I would not report these people, I would try to educate as much as I could. Like TJ said, sometimes it takes a while to learn the right way to do things. And the most experienced tortoise keepers on this forum did things "wrong" back in the day. That does not make them bad people. It makes them intelligent enough people to realize their mistakes and to keep learning andimprove the care for their animals.


----------



## ascott (Feb 13, 2015)

tglazie said:


> *animal rightsists are an enemy to everyone on this forum. *These idiots will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed. They are a bunch of animal hating monsters who would rather see every animal on earth die a horrible and torturous death than spend one moment in the care of a human being. This is one of the reasons* I automatically reject anything any of them say. Those people are despicable liars, shameless opportunists who would burn the bill of rights at the slightest opportunity.* What these horrible *human beings do is incredibly damaging, because every day they are working to bend the law to meet their sick and twisted view of humanity's relationship with the world and the laws that govern that relationship. *



This applies to most leftist ways of thinking....all animal "rightists" are not an enemy to everyone of this forum---nothing like a little fear mongering to get the masses stampeding....seriously?



> And the most experienced tortoise keepers on this forum *did things "wrong" back in the day.* That does not make them bad people. It makes them i*ntelligent enough people to realize their mistakes* and to keep learning andimprove the care for their animals.



I am so tired of seeing this BS statement...there is very little between 50 years ago and now...well, except people want to force captive tortoise into little cages/enclosures "for their own good"...when in actuality a free range tortoise cut loose in a secure back yard is old school and is still the best ....


----------



## leigti (Feb 13, 2015)

The extreme animal-rights people are definitely an enemy to people who take good care of their animals. And I agree that a tortoise that can free range in a Secure backyard in the proper climate etc. with the properset up is definitely the best also. You're not the first one to tell me I'm full of BS, but that's alright.


----------



## ascott (Feb 13, 2015)

leigti said:


> The extreme animal-rights people are definitely an enemy to people who take good care of their animals. And I agree that a tortoise that can free range in a Secure backyard in the proper climate etc. with the properset up is definitely the best also. You're not the first one to tell me I'm full of BS, but that's alright.



I believe there is confusion here....who exactly decides who qualifies as taking good care of their animals? What is that group? What is that universal scale for right? You see---there are very different ideas and therefore for all people who care about the well being of animals to be labeled "extreme animal-rights" or "rightists" is just as worrisome as the very people being accused...

Also, I never said you are full of BS, I said that sorely repeated statement is....all of this business of "new ways" vs "old ways" is silly...period.


----------



## ascott (Feb 13, 2015)

leigti said:


> The extreme animal-rights people are definitely an enemy to people who take good care of their animals. And I agree that a tortoise that can free range in a Secure backyard in the proper climate etc. with the properset up is definitely the best also. You're not the first one to tell me I'm full of BS, but that's alright.




In addition, there is NO ONE on this forum that should ever be considered a professional on the care of tortoise...there just is not..there is a collection of some very good pieces of information....some old some new and for all things "old school" to be dismissed--is truly an ignorant movement...in my opinion that is.


----------



## leigti (Feb 13, 2015)

Not all animal welfare groups are extreme, but I don't know how anybody can look at PETA and not say that they are extreme. There are some good animal-rights people out there that actually have common sense and brain cells. But I do not consider that group one of them. and no I guess you didn't say I was full of BS. and I don't think that all of the "old ways" were bad either. But I think some of the new Waze can be incorporated also. You don't have to throw out the old just to do the new, you can do a combination of both.but when somebody admits that they were not taking good care of their animals based on the knowledge they had previously then I think it is safe to say that some of the "always" were not the best.


----------



## ascott (Feb 13, 2015)

leigti said:


> Not all animal welfare groups are extreme, but I don't know how anybody can look at PETA and not say that they are extreme. There are some good animal-rights people out there that actually have common sense and brain cells. But I do not consider that group one of them. and no I guess you didn't say I was full of BS. and I don't think that all of the "old ways" were bad either. But I think some of the new Waze can be incorporated also. You don't have to throw out the old just to do the new, you can do a combination of both.but when somebody admits that they were not taking good care of their animals based on the knowledge they had previously then I think it is safe to say that some of the "always" were not the best.



I personally am not a big fan of PETA---but that is one group and not representative of all animal rights groups...



> .but when somebody admits that they were not taking good care of their animals based on the knowledge they had previously



This happens now, even with all of the "new" information shared on this very forum....this is the hazards in play whenever a wild animal is kept in a forced captive environment...just is, even if one does not like to admit that is true....again, my feelings and nothing more....


----------



## jeffjeff (Feb 14, 2015)

whether we agree or not the animals belong to the owners and it up to them what they do with them and we have no say in the matter. personally i would not paint a tort, i like to see animals the way they are naturally coloured shell, scares and all. you can try to educate people but if they don't want to learn then there's nothing you can do. 

i have to comment about the animal rightists they truly are the enemy of every one.
in my opinion they all want to go walk off a cliff. we get a few of them in cumbria as there's alot fox and pheasant hunters. a story that made the papers a while back tell you exactly what type of folk they are, it was a few years ago now. a gang of them where out looking to disrupt a hunt but couldn't find them. they happened up on a couple folk fishing for salmon and decided to pick on them, it was a pregnant lady and her dad or grandad i cant mind which now. when they refused to stop fishing the animal rightists stole the fishing tackle from them and threw them both in the river. the lady went in to premature labor and almost lost the baby due to them not being able to get hospital quickly as the scum had slashed the tires of their vehicle. it was a random dog walker that took them both to the hospital. thankfully they where caught and 2 were jailed the rest got various fines and community service.


----------



## WithLisa (Feb 14, 2015)

jeffjeff said:


> i have to comment about the animal rightists they truly are the enemy of every one.
> in my opinion they all want to go walk off a cliff. we get a few of them in cumbria as there's alot fox and pheasant hunters. a story that made the papers a while back tell you exactly what type of folk they are, it was a few years ago now. a gang of them where out looking to disrupt a hunt but couldn't find them. they happened up on a couple folk fishing for salmon and decided to pick on them, it was a pregnant lady and her dad or grandad i cant mind which now. when they refused to stop fishing the animal rightists stole the fishing tackle from them and threw them both in the river. the lady went in to premature labor and almost lost the baby due to them not being able to get hospital quickly as the scum had slashed the tires of their vehicle. it was a random dog walker that took them both to the hospital. thankfully they where caught and 2 were jailed the rest got various fines and community service.



Recently I was picked on by a group of drunk motorcar mechanics, fortunately I managed to run away. So are motorcar mechanics everyone's enemy too? 

I would call myself an animal rightist. I don't really like to see animals in captivity, I have taken in a lot of abused or stray pets, because they can't survive on their own, but I would never buy from a breeder. 
I stand by my opinion, but I have never insulted or hurt other people knowingly. Please explain, why am I your enemy?


----------



## keepergale (Feb 14, 2015)

WithLisa said:


> Recently I was picked on by a group of drunk motorcar mechanics, fortunately I managed to run away. So are motorcar mechanics everyone's enemy too?
> 
> I would call myself an animal rightist. I don't really like to see animals in captivity, I have taken in a lot of abused or stray pets, because they can't survive on their own, but I would never buy from a breeder.
> I stand by my opinion, but I have never insulted or hurt other people knowingly. Please explain, why am I your enemy?



Being picked on by a group of drunken mechanics is an unfortunate incident but they were not acting on their stated goals. Incidents of "violence" by activist is consistent with their stated ideology.
Of course you have a right to your opinion but even a peaceful opinion directly opposite of "our" own would still be an enemy. Votes, written opinion, swaying others to your side is certainly an opposing force more dangerous to our hobby/lifestyle than a couple thuggish acts.


----------



## keepergale (Feb 14, 2015)

I do not consider my self a animal rights activist. I do however consider my self a conservationist. Coming from my view point it seems to me the place to buy a tortoise or turtle is most definitely from a breeder.


----------



## Tom (Feb 14, 2015)

WithLisa said:


> Recently I was picked on by a group of drunk motorcar mechanics, fortunately I managed to run away. So are motorcar mechanics everyone's enemy too?
> 
> I would call myself an animal rightist. I don't really like to see animals in captivity, I have taken in a lot of abused or stray pets, because they can't survive on their own, but I would never buy from a breeder.
> I stand by my opinion, but I have never insulted or hurt other people knowingly. Please explain, why am I your enemy?



The publicly stated goals of the current crop of animal rights groups is in direct opposition to _YOUR_ goals and aspirations as a tortoise keeper. That is why they are _YOUR _enemy as well as mine. When jeffjeff referred to "everyone" I believe he was lumping all of us pet keepers together.

I don't know how you define "Animal Rightist", but if you truly were one, you would be going against your own views by keeping tortoises or any other pet. Or by eating chicken or fish. Or by wearing leather shoes, etc...

Further, PETA is listed as a terrorist organization by the FBI over here. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. I don't believe someone with a love of tortoises who wants to see them cared for properly is an animal rightist. I believe the you, like any decent human being, should be in favor of animal welfare (meaning being a responsible animal owner and taking care of animals in your care properly in every way), but not in favor of saying that every ant on the ground has all the same rights as every human being walking around today.

Do you wish to clarify your stance? I find that many people who claim to be in favor of animal rights don't really know what that means. I find that they want animals to be cared for and not abused, and that they have the best of intentions, but that they don't truly understand the group, or the intentions of the group, that they have aligned themselves with.


----------



## Yvonne G (Feb 14, 2015)

How on earth did a thread about a couple of mis-informed tortoise keepers and their painted and mixed-specie tortoises turn into an animal rights debate?

I'm watching you, soup people!


----------



## phebe121 (Feb 14, 2015)

I cant believe you wouldnt try to give them the best life.possible you chose them they didnt say they wanted to be owned why whould people do this


----------



## Yvonne G (Feb 14, 2015)

phebe121 said:


> I cant believe you wouldnt try to give them the best life.possible you chose them they didnt say they wanted to be owned why would people do this



I think that's the point. These people think they ARE giving their tortoises a good life.


----------



## phebe121 (Feb 14, 2015)

Yvonne Grese1042779 said:


> I think that's the point. These people think they ARE giving their tortoises a good life.



They need some research and to join here its not rocket science not to paint a tort.


----------



## WithLisa (Feb 14, 2015)

Tom said:


> I don't know how you define "Animal Rightist", but if you truly were one, you would be going against your own views by keeping tortoises or any other pet. Or by eating chicken or fish. Or by wearing leather shoes, etc...


I got my torts from acquaintances that bought them on a whim. I can't return them to the wild, so they'll have to live a life in captivity and I can only try to give them the best care. Of course I love all my pets, but I wish they could decide on their own if they want to live in captivity. 
I don't buy meat for myself and I don't own leather shoes (even though I don't think it's wrong to wear leather, as long as so many animals are slaughtered it's better to put the skin to use than throw it away).



Tom said:


> Further, PETA is listed as a terrorist organization by the FBI over here. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.


I don't know much about PETA, but I don't doubt that. 
In Austria we have the organization "VGT". Maybe they are a bit extreme (like running around in the nude to demonstrate against fur coats), but always peaceful and polite. Nonetheless some of the members were arrested as terrorists and imprisoned for years without any proof, they were accused of "being members of an organization", that was enough.
Since that I'm not sure anymore if Austria is really a state of law.


----------



## ascott (Feb 14, 2015)

jeffjeff said:


> whether we agree or not the animals belong to the owners and it up to them what they do with them and we have no say in the matter. personally i would not paint a tort, i like to see animals the way they are naturally coloured shell, scares and all. you can try to educate people but if they don't want to learn then there's nothing you can do.
> 
> i have to comment about the animal rightists they truly are the enemy of every one.
> in my opinion they all want to go walk off a cliff. we get a few of them in cumbria as there's alot fox and pheasant hunters. a story that made the papers a while back tell you exactly what type of folk they are, it was a few years ago now. a gang of them where out looking to disrupt a hunt but couldn't find them. they happened up on a couple folk fishing for salmon and decided to pick on them, it was a pregnant lady and her dad or grandad i cant mind which now. when they refused to stop fishing the animal rightists stole the fishing tackle from them and threw them both in the river. the lady went in to premature labor and almost lost the baby due to them not being able to get hospital quickly as the scum had slashed the tires of their vehicle. it was a random dog walker that took them both to the hospital. thankfully they where caught and 2 were jailed the rest got various fines and community service.




This is truly an unfortunate situation....as I teach my son, you will have aholes in every group of people and organizations (priests, teachers, police officers and the like) and to understand that the actions of a few do not define the whole....so, in this case I believe you had aggressive people who were first aholes and then put the cap of activists on ....not the other way around....there will always be people who are naturally bad that hide within the crowds waiting for a reason to act out....as good as we humans can be is equally as bad as we can be....in my opinion.


----------



## Tom (Feb 14, 2015)

WithLisa said:


> I got my torts from acquaintances that bought them on a whim. I can't return them to the wild, so they'll have to live a life in captivity and I can only try to give them the best care. Of course I love all my pets, but I wish they could decide on their own if they want to live in captivity.
> I don't buy meat for myself and I don't own leather shoes (even though I don't think it's wrong to wear leather, as long as so many animals are slaughtered it's better to put the skin to use than throw it away).



Its becoming clear that you and I don't define animal rights the same way. You seem like a nice person who conscientiously is trying to do the right thing, being kind to animals in need, and generally trying to not be a typical bad human. That is awesome. Still the animal rights groups that you seem to wish to align with would still consider your animals to be slaves for human enjoyment and you an evil slave owner. They don't care about how your tortoise came to you or what the situation is. Your tortoises are imprisoned by you and in their mind they would be better off dead than to be a plaything for you.

I don't know about you, but that view point seems completely ludicrous to me. From what I can tell your tortoises are well cared for and you tend to their needs. I don't find what you are doing to be torturous and I don't see you as a horrible slave owner... But they do.

Are you sure you are an animal rightist? You don't seem like one.


I have no knowledge at all about Austrian law or politics. However, human history is full of examples of governments overreaching and abusing power. If this is what happened in the case you mentioned I would not be surprised.


----------



## leigti (Feb 14, 2015)

Yvonne G said:


> How on earth did a thread about a couple of mis-informed tortoise keepers and their painted and mixed-specie tortoises turn into an animal rights debate?
> 
> I'm watching you, soup people!


Because it is a topic that brings on very strong feelings. it is not a black-and-white issue. Lots of different angles and viewpoints.


----------



## tglazie (Feb 14, 2015)

I was about to post some long thing describing and clarifying what an animal rightsist actually is after ascott scoffed at my assertion that they are the gravest enemy the herp community currently faces, but then Tom explained it as thoroughly as I could have, so no need. But I just can't help myself, so I'm going to say a few things anyway. Everything Tom said times a thousand. There is a big difference between an animal rights activist/supporter (someone who argues for community involvement in animal welfare) and an Animal Rightsist. My friend's wife is a personnel director for the Humane Society. Now, I think the president of The Humane Society is an idiot, given that he stands against the keeping of reptiles on the basis that they're dangerous, despite the fact that dogs kill a few hundred times more people per year than even the deadliest reptile, but regardless of the president's stupidity, my friend's wife is a nice, reasonable person who supports animal welfare. She doesn't contend that I'm a slave owner or that my animals should be taken from me and destroyed. 

Now, if you search for PETA, one of the first things that comes up is "PETA kills animals." That is because this is what they were doing as of 2013 (they're probably still doing it; I just have no information on that). PETA argues against "no kill" animal shelters. They kill animals that are dropped off at their facilities, in the back of a van, even if the animals could be readily adopted. The New York Times and the Washington Times ran articles on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. PETA is the face of animal rightsists, and animal rightsists are scum, and they are the ones most directly responsible for the asinine laws on the books today that plague turtle and tortoise keepers at every turn. They will not rest until we "slave owners" are forced to relinquish our animals so that they may murder our pets and burn their remains in a kiln. I'm not engaged in sensationalism when I say that these disgusting people would rather see every animal on earth perish than see them confined, even in a free range run. And I don't know if Tom's claim that they are a terrorist group is entirely accurate. I do know that the USDA lists them as a terrorist group, and the FBI chastised them for offering material support to actual terrorist organizations the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. But hey, ultimately, the effect is, in my opinion, the same. Saying PETA is a terrorist organization vs. saying PETA supports terrorist organizations makes little difference. 

T.G.


----------



## phebe121 (Feb 14, 2015)

Just last yr peta killed , o er 3000 animals and they jus put them in a big gian frezzer wile there alive


----------



## leigti (Feb 14, 2015)

I have my own issues with "no kill" animal shelters, however if PETA is killing animals then aren't they very hypocritical amongst everything else?


----------



## phebe121 (Feb 14, 2015)

Vary true there just big liers


----------



## ascott (Feb 15, 2015)

tglazie said:


> I was about to post some long thing describing and clarifying what an animal rightsist actually is after ascott scoffed at my assertion that they are the gravest enemy the herp community currently faces, but then Tom explained it as thoroughly as I could have, so no need. But I just can't help myself, so I'm going to say a few things anyway. Everything Tom said times a thousand. There is a big difference between an animal rights activist/supporter (someone who argues for community involvement in animal welfare) and an Animal Rightsist. My friend's wife is a personnel director for the Humane Society. Now, I think the president of The Humane Society is an idiot, given that he stands against the keeping of reptiles on the basis that they're dangerous, despite the fact that dogs kill a few hundred times more people per year than even the deadliest reptile, but regardless of the president's stupidity, my friend's wife is a nice, reasonable person who supports animal welfare. She doesn't contend that I'm a slave owner or that my animals should be taken from me and destroyed.
> 
> Now, if you search for PETA, one of the first things that comes up is "PETA kills animals." That is because this is what they were doing as of 2013 (they're probably still doing it; I just have no information on that). PETA argues against "no kill" animal shelters. They kill animals that are dropped off at their facilities, in the back of a van, even if the animals could be readily adopted. The New York Times and the Washington Times ran articles on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/u...-end-of-others-anger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. PETA is the face of animal rightsists, and animal rightsists are scum, and they are the ones most directly responsible for the asinine laws on the books today that plague turtle and tortoise keepers at every turn. They will not rest until we "slave owners" are forced to relinquish our animals so that they may murder our pets and burn their remains in a kiln. I'm not engaged in sensationalism when I say that these disgusting people would rather see every animal on earth perish than see them confined, even in a free range run. And I don't know if Tom's claim that they are a terrorist group is entirely accurate. I do know that the USDA lists them as a terrorist group, and the FBI chastised them for offering material support to actual terrorist organizations the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. But hey, ultimately, the effect is, in my opinion, the same. Saying PETA is a terrorist organization vs. saying PETA supports terrorist organizations makes little difference.
> 
> T.G.




Since it would appear that you are only looking for a fight.....I will save you the trouble....I won't use up any of my time to debate with those that are incapable of differentiating between "A" crazy extremist group and other groups acting on behalf of animals (domestic as well as wild)..so since there is not the ability to do so---one equates all groups to the extremist group and continues to bring the group of conversation back to the extreme one--so to further fear monger...that is fine--we will ABSOLUTELY not agree, I am alright with that-- I live in the world that is occupied by a variety of groups interested in the well being of animals--and let me assure you that the "humane society" is the worst killers, period...


----------



## jeffjeff (Feb 15, 2015)

WithLisa said:


> Recently I was picked on by a group of drunk motorcar mechanics, fortunately I managed to run away. So are motorcar mechanics everyone's enemy too?
> 
> I would call myself an animal rightist. I don't really like to see animals in captivity, I have taken in a lot of abused or stray pets, because they can't survive on their own, but I would never buy from a breeder.
> I stand by my opinion, but I have never insulted or hurt other people knowingly. Please explain, why am I your enemy?



i do apologize if i offended you or any one els that was not my intent, what i said came across wrong and i should have worded it better. what i meant to say was that no one (not even a pregnant woman in this case) is safe from the groups of extremists who think its ok to go that far. yes there are alot of activists out there doing good. but unfortunately there are also a lot of the extremists just lucking for an excuse to scare,bully and cause trouble. 
living the lake district there's alot of fox hunts so as you can imagine its like a magnet for groups of extremists and we hear about things they do all the time. one group thought it ok to spray the hounds with pepper spray so they couldn't see or smell the foxes. the same group broke in to a mink farm and released them all. the mink decimated the local wild life wild life. these are the ones who i class as idiotic scum. they give no thought to their actions and claim its ok because they are helping the animals.


----------



## FLINTUS (Feb 15, 2015)

Tom said:


> The publicly stated goals of the current crop of animal rights groups is in direct opposition to _YOUR_ goals and aspirations as a tortoise keeper. That is why they are _YOUR _enemy as well as mine. When jeffjeff referred to "everyone" I believe he was lumping all of us pet keepers together.
> 
> I don't know how you define "Animal Rightist", but if you truly were one, you would be going against your own views by keeping tortoises or any other pet. Or by eating chicken or fish. Or by wearing leather shoes, etc...
> 
> ...


Look, you know my opinion on undomesticated mammals in captivity, and I'm not prepared to have that debate now. @Anyfoot is correct that in the UK and possibly under EU rules-not sure about that one- we cannot have them in circuses anymore, which I personally agree with. 
However, by lumping all animal right groups into one, you are playing a very dangerous game. Sure, I don't agree with PETA for the most part, nor many others, but there are some good ones out there as well, mainly focusing on conservation on the species.
And kind of related to that, with regards to mixing species, while I would not promote it, there are a number of very successful long term keepers of mixed species. If they came on here as new members, they'd get slated by the whole forum. It can work, in the right circumstances, so while you shouldn't tell others to do so, don't immediately say 'you're going to kill the tortoises' when a new member joins with mixed species-ask them more. Using the TT's quote is very interesting as well, especially considering as a forum you generally don't seem to like their methods-one of which is that no red foots, pardalis or sulcatas should be bred in captivity. Make of that what you will for conservation...


----------



## Tom (Feb 15, 2015)

FLINTUS said:


> Look, you know my opinion on undomesticated mammals in captivity, and I'm not prepared to have that debate now. @Anyfoot is correct that in the UK and possibly under EU rules-not sure about that one- we cannot have them in circuses anymore, which I personally agree with.
> However, by lumping all animal right groups into one, you are playing a very dangerous game. Sure, I don't agree with PETA for the most part, nor many others, but there are some good ones out there as well, mainly focusing on conservation on the species.



There are cultural differences among people from different parts of the world. It seems some people in some places are okay with their government telling them what they can and can't do with their own property. They seem willing to give up their freedom of choice to prevent the few cases of people who might make the wrong choice. To me, this is the most "dangerous game".

About lumping all AR groups into one: If they define themselves as an AR group then their agenda and POV is well defined and I know what they are all about. A group that focuses on species conservation and is doing "good" work, is not an AR group by my definition.

FLINTUS, I have no idea what the state of things regarding AR groups over in the UK is, but over here AR groups are just one of the many groups that are attempting, successfully in some cases, to destroy all the things that make America what it is. Everyone is free to decide who they would like to make their choices for them. You've taken the stance that you are glad your government is restricting your freedoms and everyone else's. That is not what I would choose for myself or my countrymen. I believe the individual should have freedom of choice, even if that means we will have to deal with the consequences of some people making the wrong choice some of the time.


----------



## FLINTUS (Feb 15, 2015)

Tom said:


> There are cultural differences among people from different parts of the world. It seems some people in some places are okay with their government telling them what they can and can't do with their own property. They seem willing to give up their freedom of choice to prevent the few cases of people who might make the wrong choice. To me, this is the most "dangerous game".
> 
> About lumping all AR groups into one: If they define themselves as an AR group then their agenda and POV is well defined and I know what they are all about. A group that focuses on species conservation and is doing "good" work, is not an AR group by my definition.
> 
> FLINTUS, I have no idea what the state of things regarding AR groups over in the UK is, but over here AR groups are just one of the many groups that are attempting, successfully in some cases, to destroy all the things that make America what it is. Everyone is free to decide who they would like to make their choices for them. You've taken the stance that you are glad your government is restricting your freedoms and everyone else's. That is not what I would choose for myself or my countrymen. I believe the individual should have freedom of choice, even if that means we will have to deal with the consequences of some people making the wrong choice some of the time.


I'm glad about circus animals not being allowed yes, and I guess that is a restriction of liberty, but how 'free' are we to actually choose what we want? I'll try to avoid talking about Charlie Hebdo atm. Same thing goes for kids having guns etc... 
We have bad AR groups here as well-the APA is the main problem for the reptile community-, but how one defines animal rights groups is a most subjective matter. Just because it's not 'your definition' of an AR group, does that make it not so? I personally believe that any groups that classify themselves as animal right groups are AR groups. And I'm trying really hard to avoid similes with current world politics here...


----------



## Tom (Feb 15, 2015)

FLINTUS said:


> I'm glad about circus animals not being allowed yes, and I guess that is a restriction of liberty, but how 'free' are we to actually choose what we want? I'll try to avoid talking about Charlie Hebdo atm. Same thing goes for kids having guns etc...
> We have bad AR groups here as well-the APA is the main problem for the reptile community-, but how one defines animal rights groups is a most subjective matter. Just because it's not 'your definition' of an AR group, does that make it not so? I personally believe that any groups that classify themselves as animal right groups are AR groups. And I'm trying really hard to avoid similes with current world politics here...



Sorry. I think we've gone way off topic here. I have no idea what left-wing French satirical newspapers or children enjoying hobbies has to do with any of this.

This is not about how "Tom" defines a group. This is about what actions any particular group takes or is attempting to take against me and people like me. Their actions are what define them, not my opinions. When a group lobbies to ban my tortoise and have them taken away from me, or restricted, or permitted by the government in some way, then they become the enemy of tortoise keepers.


----------



## FLINTUS (Feb 15, 2015)

Tom said:


> Sorry. I think we've gone way off topic here. I have no idea what left-wing French satirical newspapers or children enjoying hobbies has to do with any of this.
> 
> This is not about how "Tom" defines a group. This is about what actions any particular group takes or is attempting to take against me and people like me. Their actions are what define them, not my opinions. When a group lobbies to ban my tortoise and have them taken away from me, or restricted, or permitted by the government in some way, then they become the enemy of tortoise keepers.


Sure, not disagreeing about that particular example, but not all groups that claim to be AR activists do that. 
The reference above was about you going on about governments restricting liberties, and therefore, I was kind of hinting at how much freedom do we actually have? Or should have?...


----------



## tglazie (Feb 15, 2015)

ascott said:


> Since it would appear that you are only looking for a fight.....I will save you the trouble....I won't use up any of my time to debate with those that are incapable of differentiating between "A" crazy extremist group and other groups acting on behalf of animals (domestic as well as wild)..so since there is not the ability to do so---one equates all groups to the extremist group and continues to bring the group of conversation back to the extreme one--so to further fear monger...that is fine--we will ABSOLUTELY not agree, I am alright with that-- I live in the world that is occupied by a variety of groups interested in the well being of animals--and let me assure you that the "humane society" is the worst killers, period...



Did you read anything I posted, or did you just characterize me as some strawman and go from there? I CLEARLY differentiated between "Animal Rightsists" and groups interested in Animal Welfare. I even used examples and cited sources. I don't have a problem with any of these other animal rights groups of which you speak, ones that argue for animal welfare and the responsible stewardship of pets and wildlife resources. When I speak of "Animal Rightsists," I am referring specifially to groups such as ALF, ELF, and PETA (and that's three groups I mentioned, not "A" group, by the way). You, on the other hand, didn't defend any of your points, simply saying that you didn't wish to "use up any of my time" arguing with me, accusing me of simply "looking for a fight" and being "incapable of differentiating between a crazy extremist group and other groups acting on behalf of animals," both of which are demonstrably false. I didn't attack you. You inaccurately characterized my comments as "fear mongering," then condescendingly asked "seriously?" Saying that PETA wants to press legislation to make it illegal for us to keep tortoises isn't fear mongering. It is the truth. And when it comes to decrying the actions of animal rightsists (not defenders of animal welfare or stewards of wildlife resources, but animal rightsists), you'd better believe I'm serious. I don't have anything against you, ascott; I'm not even sure we're disagreeing here. I don't understand why you think we disagree, given that you really haven't given me anything to go on here, since you won't "waste your time" talking to me. But hey, so be it. I am also alright with that. 

T.G.


----------



## tglazie (Feb 15, 2015)

I do know, however, that we both agree that the Humane Society sucks. Their president is a total idiot who wants to restrict the keeping of any and all reptiles. 

T.G.


----------



## ascott (Feb 15, 2015)

tglazie said:


> *Did you read anything I posted*, or did you just characterize me as some strawman and go from there? * I CLEARLY differentiated between "Animal Rightsists" and groups interested in Animal Welfare*. I even used examples and cited sources. _*I don't have a problem with any of these other animal rights groups*_ of which you speak, ones that argue for animal welfare and the responsible stewardship of pets and wildlife resources. When I speak of "Animal Rightsists," I am referring specifially to groups such as ALF, ELF, and PETA (and that's three groups I mentioned, *not "A" group,* by the way). *You, on the other hand, didn't defend any of your points,* simply saying that you didn't wish to "use up any of my time" arguing with me, accusing me of simply "looking for a fight" and being "incapable of differentiating between a crazy extremist group and other groups acting on behalf of animals," both of which are demonstrably false. I didn't attack you. *You inaccurately characterized my comments as "fear mongering,"* then condescendingly asked "seriously?" Saying that PETA wants to press legislation to make it illegal for us to keep tortoises isn't fear mongering. It is the truth. And when it comes to decrying the actions of animal rightsists (not defenders of animal welfare or stewards of wildlife resources, but animal rightsists), you'd better believe I'm serious. I don't have anything against you, ascott; I'm not even sure we're disagreeing here. I don't understand why you think we disagree, given that you really haven't given me anything to go on here, since you won't "waste your time" talking to me. But hey, so be it. I am also alright with that.
> 
> T.G.





> _*animal rightsists*_ are an enemy to everyone on this forum. *These idiots *_*will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed.*_ They are a bunch of *animal hating monsters who would rather see every animal on earth die a horrible and torturous death* than spend one moment in the care of a human being. This is one of the reasons* I automatically reject anything any of them say.* *Those people *are despicable liars, shameless opportunists who would burn the bill of rights at the slightest opportunity. What these horrible human beings do is incredibly damaging, because every day they are working to bend the law to meet their sick and twisted view of humanity's relationship with the world and the laws that govern that relationship.



I totally read your post....word for word..there absolutely is lumping of animal rights groups to "an enemy to everyone" on this forum....fear mongering is what goes on when someone makes statements such as --oh, "will not rest until every tortoise keeper on the planet has their animals confiscated from them and destroyed" and in this initial post you make no reference to PETA...so the lumping of animal rightists began here...then you go onto to say that yo automatically reject anything any of them say...again, no reference here to PETA....so yes, I have read your post and those thereafter....wherein you then begin to label PETA....at which time I believe I also agreed that I am not a fan of PETA....but do not have that same feeling for "animal rightists" as being the same and all inclusive PETA...that is when I realized that we are not going to agree (not about PETA but rather about all animal rightists) and decided that it be a waste of my time to continue.....I have not personal issue with you, I do not know you...but as you have the right to...so do I...to not agree with all that is shared, correct?


----------



## tglazie (Feb 15, 2015)

I did not use the name of the organization PETA in my first post, but I did use the term "Animal Rightsist," which is different from the terms animal rights activist and animal welfare proponent. I thought I explained that I feel an "Animal Rightsist" is different than someone concerned with animal welfare. I thought Tom explained it rather well also. An "animal rightsist" is an extremist, such as members of PETA, the ALF, and the ELF, those who would commit or support acts of terrorism in the name of an extreme agenda that would, yes, see all tortoises separated from their owners. This is not fear mongering. It is fact. Were I to describe Al Queda as a terrorist organization bent on killing or converting anyone who doesn't conform to their rigid view of Islam, I wouldn't be engaged in fear mongering. I would be stating a fact. In describing someone as an "animal rightsist," I am not describing a person who volunteers at a raptor rehabilitation center or someone who campaigns on behalf of preserving wilderness habitat, nor am I describing someone who fosters and acts as a proponent for the responsible ownership of pets or someone, such as myself, who regularly petitions the city to create a concrete burm on the Woodlawn spillway to allow turtles to escape to the surrounding habitat. I am referring, very specifically, to extremists mentioned of those particular organizations, the sort who would murder thousands of animals to "save" them from living in captivity. I am lumping nobody together, as I thought it was generally understood that when someone uses the term "animal rightsist," it is generally understood that said person is referring to an extremist who finds the very nature of keeping exotic animals of any kind an abomination, a practice that must be stopped. I did not explain that in my initial post, certainly, but I explained it in all proceeding posts, perhaps not as thoroughly as I did just now. But I apologize, I didn't realize it required such thorough explanation. Perhaps it didn't. I don't know. 

I am still convinced this "disagreement" is the fruit of misunderstanding. You are, of course, correct in that we both have the right to disagree. I simply don't agree that we disagree here. At least I don't have demonstrable evidence of such. Perhaps there is a disagreement on definition of terms, but that is hardly a disagreement worthy of all the words spent elaborating upon the subject thus far. Though perhaps there's disagreement on that particular subject. I don't know. We shall see. But yeah, I was simply trying to say that PETA, and the terrorists they support, are terrible. That's it. Anything else interpreted from my posts is simply that, an interpretation. Perhaps I was somewhat bellicose in my denunciation of them, such that I led folks to believe that I was attacking anyone who felt animals should be treated responsibly, but I intended no such thing. I am taking issue with the extremists in particular, the sorts of extremists who would see our rights taken away. Well, them and the nimrods in government who enjoy abusing their petty little authority to shut down breeders selling their hatchlings at an expo. Those government stooges are also terrible. 

T.G.


----------



## dmmj (Feb 16, 2015)

Ok, this thread is off the tracks.
The way I understand PETA is a dead animal is bettr then an enslaved animal. There that should stoke the flames.


----------



## puffy137 (Feb 16, 2015)

Extremist groups of every stripe should get a grip & a life . In Uk we have the famous RSPCA, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals .In America there is obviously the equivalent . That should be enough!!!!! All the others are just nut cases looking for a cause , like many people they end up following hateful paths . Thanks for an interesting discussion. You all did very well .


----------



## kerwillard (Feb 16, 2015)

Has anyone called the animal people? I think with the painting they could seize it for abuse. Mixing species in their enclosure i don't think they can do anything about


----------



## puffy137 (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't really think of painting the shell as abuse. Its silly , stupid & crass , but I'm still not convinced that it really harms the tortoise. Its not like the popes hundreds of years ago painting little boys with gold for a religious ceremony & naturally they died from over heating . (where did I hear that ?? crikey It must have been in school years ago & the teacher was telling us the importance of keeping our skins clean ) lol


----------



## kerwillard (Feb 16, 2015)

Oh crap i should have read the whole thread before making a comment. I don't have an opinion I'd wish to share in this forum about animal rights for or against, I'll just say that i don't think any animals should be painted, or dyed their non-natural color. Living in LA I've seen lots of pink labradoodles in purses and at that point i think the owners should have opted for a Barbie rather than a pet. Same here. If you want to paint, take up art. If you want to make things unique for your tortoise, get creative with his habitat and show us pics of that. Not your pink tortoise.


----------



## puffy137 (Feb 16, 2015)

kerwillard said:


> Oh crap i should have read the whole thread before making a comment. I don't have an opinion I'd wish to share in this forum about animal rights for or against, I'll just say that i don't think any animals should be painted, or dyed their non-natural color. Living in LA I've seen lots of pink labradoodles in purses and at that point i think the owners should have opted for a Barbie rather than a pet. Same here. If you want to paint, take up art. If you want to make things unique for your tortoise, get creative with his habitat and show us pics of that. Not your pink tortoise.



All is forgiven , I was just thinking of dunking my 2 captive white pigeons in red food dye to see if it would take ,..... just kidding !!!


----------



## ascott (Feb 16, 2015)

tglazie said:


> I did not use the name of the organization PETA in my first post, but I did use the term "Animal Rightsist," which is different from the terms animal rights activist and animal welfare proponent. I thought I explained that I feel an "Animal Rightsist" is different than someone concerned with animal welfare. I thought Tom explained it rather well also. An "animal rightsist" is an extremist, such as members of PETA, the ALF, and the ELF, those who would commit or support acts of terrorism in the name of an extreme agenda that would, yes, see all tortoises separated from their owners. This is not fear mongering. It is fact. Were I to describe Al Queda as a terrorist organization bent on killing or converting anyone who doesn't conform to their rigid view of Islam, I wouldn't be engaged in fear mongering. I would be stating a fact. In describing someone as an "animal rightsist," I am not describing a person who volunteers at a raptor rehabilitation center or someone who campaigns on behalf of preserving wilderness habitat, nor am I describing someone who fosters and acts as a proponent for the responsible ownership of pets or someone, such as myself, who regularly petitions the city to create a concrete burm on the Woodlawn spillway to allow turtles to escape to the surrounding habitat. I am referring, very specifically, to extremists mentioned of those particular organizations, the sort who would murder thousands of animals to "save" them from living in captivity. I am lumping nobody together, as I thought it was generally understood that when someone uses the term "animal rightsist," it is generally understood that said person is referring to an extremist who finds the very nature of keeping exotic animals of any kind an abomination, a practice that must be stopped. I did not explain that in my initial post, certainly, but I explained it in all proceeding posts, perhaps not as thoroughly as I did just now. But I apologize, I didn't realize it required such thorough explanation. Perhaps it didn't. I don't know.
> 
> I am still convinced this "disagreement" is the fruit of misunderstanding. You are, of course, correct in that we both have the right to disagree. I simply don't agree that we disagree here. At least I don't have demonstrable evidence of such. Perhaps there is a disagreement on definition of terms, but that is hardly a disagreement worthy of all the words spent elaborating upon the subject thus far. Though perhaps there's disagreement on that particular subject. I don't know. We shall see. But yeah, I was simply trying to say that PETA, and the terrorists they support, are terrible. That's it. Anything else interpreted from my posts is simply that, an interpretation. Perhaps I was somewhat bellicose in my denunciation of them, such that I led folks to believe that I was attacking anyone who felt animals should be treated responsibly, but I intended no such thing. I am taking issue with the extremists in particular, the sorts of extremists who would see our rights taken away. Well, them and the nimrods in government who enjoy abusing their petty little authority to shut down breeders selling their hatchlings at an expo. Those government stooges are also terrible.
> 
> T.G.






> Perhaps I was somewhat _*bellicose *_in my denunciation of them, such that I led folks to believe that I was attacking anyone who felt animals should be treated responsibly, but I intended no such thing.



Purely elegant in your delivery. I also love when such a fun word is pulled into a conversation....you and I indeed do not disagree on the pertinent parts.


----------



## tglazie (Feb 16, 2015)

On this we agree, that we, indeed, do not disagree on those pertinent matters that matter most agreeably. 

T.G.


----------



## Anyfoot (Feb 16, 2015)

Well I have observed and read the lot, very very interesting, I am now a more knowledgeable person. Thank you all.
@ndrew. Have you given the tort owners any advise on painting and mixing torts yet. 

Thank you

Craig


----------



## smarch (Feb 17, 2015)

What species is the painted tort? I initially thought sulcata but it definitely doesn't look as such anymore? maybe a hermans or greek? the paint makes it hard for me to get the whole picture when it comes to the shell. Either way, the tort is smooth, it shows its been fed and cared for properly. So the keeper painted it, maybe its a little degrading to the animal, being a "piece of art" but heck being an artist it kind of shows what they mean to you... I prefer to draw Nank and not paint on him, but its getting better care than many tortoises out there may get who aren't painted.


----------



## smarch (Feb 17, 2015)

I'll make this short sweet and to the point, since i'd like to share my opinion. 

Theres a difference between animal rights activist and animal rights extremist. The groups mentioned above, are animal rights extremists, radical, and lost the very point they fight for through their actions. You must act in a certain way when representing a group or cause if you want that thing to retain credibility. 

I call myself an animal rights activist. But by that, I see pets as ok, domesticated pets just cant be thrown to the wild, and most see us as companions just as we see them as such. Its in the responsibility of the owner to provide what pets need since when we take them in they can't just fend for themselves. A well taken care of pet, can in no way be unhappy as such, fresh food and water at the ready, a warm safe place to sleep, toys to entertain and stimulate, is that not the life?


----------



## ascott (Feb 18, 2015)

smarch said:


> I'll make this short sweet and to the point, since i'd like to share my opinion.
> 
> Theres a difference between animal rights activist and animal rights extremist. The groups mentioned above, are animal rights extremists, radical, and lost the very point they fight for through their actions. You must act in a certain way when representing a group or cause if you want that thing to retain credibility.
> 
> I call myself an animal rights activist. But by that, I see pets as ok, domesticated pets just cant be thrown to the wild, and most see us as companions just as we see them as such. Its in the responsibility of the owner to provide what pets need since when we take them in they can't just fend for themselves. A well taken care of pet, can in no way be unhappy as such, fresh food and water at the ready, a warm safe place to sleep, toys to entertain and stimulate, is that not the life?





> A well taken care of* pet,* _*can in no way be unhappy as such*_, fresh food and water at the ready, a warm safe place to sleep,* toys to entertain and stimulate, is that not the life?*



There is so much here that can be utilized in an entirely new thread....one that will go south quicker than a migratory bird fleeing winter....


----------

