And good food. My native environment contains satellite TV and the Internet machine. I would expect the same from my alien caretakers.
Cowboy_Ken said:Yes, perhaps a little. On a very primitive level, I find my relationship with my torts and other animals akin to the harvester ant/ aphid relationship. They provide me with something I feel is valuable, and in return, their needs are met by me. Sort of a symbiotic relationship as it were. For example, I don't think this relationship would work for me if the animal wanted to fling poop at me, and if I wanted to do something equally distasteful to the animal.
sibi said:Or they can provide 2 or more males for each female...of course, boundaries would have to be set.
Cowboy_Ken said:Yes, perhaps a little. On a very primitive level, I find my relationship with my torts and other animals akin to the harvester ant/ aphid relationship. They provide me with something I feel is valuable, and in return, their needs are met by me. Sort of a symbiotic relationship as it were. For example, I don't think this relationship would work for me if the animal wanted to fling poop at me, and if I wanted to do something equally distasteful to the animal.
sibi said:Or they can provide 2 or more males for each female...of course, boundaries would have to be set.
Terry Allan Hall said:I believe that some reptiles are more "amendable" to captive life than others, and have kept, temporarily species that never grew tame, and probably, after many years in captivity, if still alive, would still be just as "wild". Coachwhip snakes are such an example. Such creatures really should be returned to the wild, if at all possible, as they rarely thrive, and often die shortly after capture, either from stress or just refuse to eat. So, keeping these is, to my thinking, unethical.
Others, seem to be much "friendlier", in that while allowed to roam around an open area, would stay close, and if I moved further away, would move closer to me. My Hermann's tortoises, my boas and, in particular, a Burmese python ("Cassandra") I had in my 20s, who I often took to the lake and swam with...she never got further than 6-8 feet away in the water, and wherever I swam, she stay right with me. And talk about a "wingman"...she was a babe-magnet beyond compare!
Others have fallen in between these extremes.
EricIvins said:Terry Allan Hall said:I believe that some reptiles are more "amendable" to captive life than others, and have kept, temporarily species that never grew tame, and probably, after many years in captivity, if still alive, would still be just as "wild". Coachwhip snakes are such an example. Such creatures really should be returned to the wild, if at all possible, as they rarely thrive, and often die shortly after capture, either from stress or just refuse to eat. So, keeping these is, to my thinking, unethical.
Others, seem to be much "friendlier", in that while allowed to roam around an open area, would stay close, and if I moved further away, would move closer to me. My Hermann's tortoises, my boas and, in particular, a Burmese python ("Cassandra") I had in my 20s, who I often took to the lake and swam with...she never got further than 6-8 feet away in the water, and wherever I swam, she stay right with me. And talk about a "wingman"...she was a babe-magnet beyond compare!
Others have fallen in between these extremes.
Herein lies the problem - The "thought" that some animals are better suited to captivity........
There are plenty of dedicated Coachwhip keepers, whose animals thrive, recruit, and do all the things a "wild" Coachwhip will do in captivity.......The difference is the fact that they know how to work with, and understand the animals. Give a Coachwhip to a Ball Python breeder and of course it will be dead in a week. It's a totally different dynamic. This goes for any animal kept in captivity. If you don't understand the hows, whats, whys, and whens, you shouldn't be keeping the animal to begin with. Keeping a Coachwhip is really no different than keeping any Drymarchon species to be honest.......
Terry Allan Hall said:EricIvins said:Terry Allan Hall said:I believe that some reptiles are more "amendable" to captive life than others, and have kept, temporarily species that never grew tame, and probably, after many years in captivity, if still alive, would still be just as "wild". Coachwhip snakes are such an example. Such creatures really should be returned to the wild, if at all possible, as they rarely thrive, and often die shortly after capture, either from stress or just refuse to eat. So, keeping these is, to my thinking, unethical.
Others, seem to be much "friendlier", in that while allowed to roam around an open area, would stay close, and if I moved further away, would move closer to me. My Hermann's tortoises, my boas and, in particular, a Burmese python ("Cassandra") I had in my 20s, who I often took to the lake and swam with...she never got further than 6-8 feet away in the water, and wherever I swam, she stay right with me. And talk about a "wingman"...she was a babe-magnet beyond compare!
Others have fallen in between these extremes.
Herein lies the problem - The "thought" that some animals are better suited to captivity........
There are plenty of dedicated Coachwhip keepers, whose animals thrive, recruit, and do all the things a "wild" Coachwhip will do in captivity.......The difference is the fact that they know how to work with, and understand the animals. Give a Coachwhip to a Ball Python breeder and of course it will be dead in a week. It's a totally different dynamic. This goes for any animal kept in captivity. If you don't understand the hows, whats, whys, and whens, you shouldn't be keeping the animal to begin with. Keeping a Coachwhip is really no different than keeping any Drymarchon species to be honest.......
Except that coachwhip snakes do not thrive (or even live long) in captivity...much too high-strung.
EricIvins said:Terry Allan Hall said:EricIvins said:Terry Allan Hall said:I believe that some reptiles are more "amendable" to captive life than others, and have kept, temporarily species that never grew tame, and probably, after many years in captivity, if still alive, would still be just as "wild". Coachwhip snakes are such an example. Such creatures really should be returned to the wild, if at all possible, as they rarely thrive, and often die shortly after capture, either from stress or just refuse to eat. So, keeping these is, to my thinking, unethical.
Others, seem to be much "friendlier", in that while allowed to roam around an open area, would stay close, and if I moved further away, would move closer to me. My Hermann's tortoises, my boas and, in particular, a Burmese python ("Cassandra") I had in my 20s, who I often took to the lake and swam with...she never got further than 6-8 feet away in the water, and wherever I swam, she stay right with me. And talk about a "wingman"...she was a babe-magnet beyond compare!
Others have fallen in between these extremes.
Herein lies the problem - The "thought" that some animals are better suited to captivity........
There are plenty of dedicated Coachwhip keepers, whose animals thrive, recruit, and do all the things a "wild" Coachwhip will do in captivity.......The difference is the fact that they know how to work with, and understand the animals. Give a Coachwhip to a Ball Python breeder and of course it will be dead in a week. It's a totally different dynamic. This goes for any animal kept in captivity. If you don't understand the hows, whats, whys, and whens, you shouldn't be keeping the animal to begin with. Keeping a Coachwhip is really no different than keeping any Drymarchon species to be honest.......
Except that coachwhip snakes do not thrive (or even live long) in captivity...much too high-strung.
Again, they do thrive in the right hands. No different than keeping Spilotes, Drymarchon, Pseustes, and the myriad of other "high strung" Snakes that people keep every day........These animals live as long as any other captive snake species........
Tortus said:*Catches cookie crumbs*
That is an excellent post. Very well stated.
One argument from some that gets me though is stating that by being in our care, they're free from parasites, predators, foul weather, etc.
I really think this is one of the worst ways to justify keeping them in our care. I don't believe they know any of that when they're trying to get lose from their enclosures and obtain their natural range. I've thought the same thing myself for years, but now it just feels like I was trying to supplement my desire to keep them as pets. All that talk is just for our peace of mind. Not theirs.
Tortus said:I really think this is one of the worst ways to justify keeping them in our care. I don't believe they know any of that when they're trying to get lose from their enclosures and obtain their natural range. I've thought the same thing myself for years, but now it just feels like I was trying to supplement my desire to keep them as pets. All that talk is just for our peace of mind. Not theirs.
I have to disagree. Do you think that generations of CB turtles/tortoises know where they "should" be in the wild?
I believe that as far as they know, their enclosure is their whole world. CB animals don't "think back" to when they were in the wild, because they haven't been taken from the wild, in my opinion.
If someone kidnaps a child before they can "remember" their real parents, that child will think the kidnaper is their true parent. They dont know better. So when you keep a CB animal, they can't remember something that they haven't experienced, such as being in their natural home range. To WC animals, none of this applies.
CactusVinnie said:I am quite positive about that... they know just a few things, but they knew them very well. You cannot erase their ancestral memory, they are too old for that to be possible... you just can offer them decent care, and they will accept it, since survival first, dreaming second... but just give them a breach, and they will escape for good.
"Thinking back" for a reptile can be, as I said before, quite very, very "back"... their ancient brain is not limited to their own, short, life experience.
Yep, good point: they can't remember something that they haven't experienced; that works for mammals, especially for us, humans. Reptile "parents" are in fact their ancient, implacable memory. We are very adaptable and versatile- always like "installing/uninstalling" programs- that allowed us spreading all over the world in a very short time; from an initially tropical creature, some of us reached cold mountain tops, subpolar regions, deserts, cold/wet forests... The reptiles are different... more... "conservative". Their brain is very different. Primitive and implacable. They will always remember the wild, they will always scratch the walls of their huge enclosure, where food and water are offered daily, predators removed, shelter provided... they "know" is much more beyond the walls, even if a safer (in our view) life inside them.
In fact, man is the only animal with such a short memory... just look at us: we gladly eat garbage food, prefer computers, getting fat and sick- just because we had that presented as "normal", so we do not "feel" the urge to eat healthy, to run, to spend our lives under the sky... man it's the easiest breed to lie to! But you cannot lie a tortoise, never- she's way too ancient for that. She will know always that it's something more than her enclosure, no matter how big.