Do you think it's ethical to keep reptiles as pets?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cowboy_Ken

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
17,560
Location (City and/or State)
Suburban-life in Salem, Oregon
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.
 

Baoh

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
1,827
Location (City and/or State)
Florida
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.

I enjoy your perspective on the matter.
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
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! :cool:

Others have fallen in between these extremes.
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
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.

You've just summed up why, after baby-sitting a monkey one weekend, I lost all desire to ever vshare my life with one...at least if a tortoise pees on me, I know it's nothing personal! :cool:
 

Tom

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
63,269
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
sibi said:
Or they can provide 2 or more males for each female...of course, boundaries would have to be set.

Pshhh.... Only a foolish human keeper would do something like this. It would result in serious male aggression. One would likely be killed or at least driven into extreme submission. Look at captive primates for your examples on this. My enclosure could only contain one male. I would reward my keepers wisdom with lots of breeding.
 

EricIvins

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
1,183
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! :cool:

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.......
 

tortadise

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
9,560
Location (City and/or State)
Tropical South Texas
I could probably write a paper on this as a response. But my fingers hurt so I will just say this. Humans are the problem, and this is why we have "pets" and have to instill captive breeding, or reassurance colonies of any species of animal in this world, not just reptiles, and in the natural ways of human emotions and humanistic viewpoints of coddling and the ability of feeling sorrow and sadness plays a large role in our minds to feel "sad" that they want to run "free".

They would only be free if humans did not destroy or pillage them in the wild. Species can be naturally endemic to extinction but not at the rate of our doing. That is all.
 

cesktw0

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
33
I have kept reptiles for most of my life, the thought has crossed my mind that it might be best for reptiles to stay in the wild free, where they came from. But I provide the best care and husbandry for all of my pets, and feel like they have a fighting chance in my possession rather than in the wild. Great subject for debate!
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
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! :cool:

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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
1,183
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! :cool:

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........
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
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! :cool:

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........

You obviously believe this, Eric, and I'm fine with you believing this...but I know better, as do many other folks with a lot of experience w/ keeping "difficult" snakes.

Let us agree to disagree.
 

Jessamy

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
16
Well, at least with a reptile if you provide the correct conditions(not easily done) and they are not wild caught they will be content. I have a Patagonian Conure, and though I do my best they are social and I can't totally replace a bird mate or flock. So in many ways if having a pet is ethical(?) they are a good choice.
 

Jessamy

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
16
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.

True, animals exposed to the stress of foraging, varied weather, natural predators/parasites are overall healthier- just look at any WC adult they are usually robust. That's why spoiling pets isn't best, challenging them is.

I still feel keeping other animals is ethical if done well. I had a Degu that truly hated(chewed to escape)her large cage, so I put her out free on a screened porch where she also chewed out. She would come back in to eat nuts and hang out then left again. In the outdoors she eventually disappeared, probably eaten, but she was much happier(chose to be there) free even with aggressive squirrels and predators. However, this mammal's(Cavy) intelligence,range and activity level makes them a poor pet- at least mine was. My bird hates(paces, nervous) being a cage-even huge- for similar reasons, however, if she can't be loose in the house the bathroom is ok with her because we use it and they are social learners. In my experience, most reptiles are easier(still not easy) to satisfy in captivity if you can get just get their habitat/environment right because they are less social/intelligent(not an insult I love them!) and a cage is just a physical set of boundaries to them.
 

CactusVinnie

Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
300
Location (City and/or State)
Bucharest, Romania z6
Quite late, maybe redundant, maybe someone will find something new...

In order to find THE ANSWER, not "opinions", "views" etc., that may be ok or totally aberrant, we should first to cut loose all our ego, involvement, attachements, weaknesses, selfishness, interests- otherwise, our "answer" will do nothing more than reflecting the above mentioned "viruses".

So... are we living in a perfect world?

1. If "perfect world" is in fact the initial heaven, where all things, living or not, had a subtle role in the functioning of Creation, then... Adam and Eve would have commited other kind of sin, giving to the animals another role than the Creator projected them for: a pittyful pet!! Why having a pet in the Garden of Eden?? Why arising in the edenic human's mind the desire to have one, if the whole picture was pure perfection, and human mind "without desires and passions", pure like a crystal?

Definitely, they decided to be sinners in another way, but after all, that reflected indirectly on animals too, and all Nature in general: we, their descendents, are making a horrible mess from the Paradise thei received... we learned to eat animals, to kill them for fun, or keeping them captive. Clearly, lots of unethical things here...

2. No "perfect world", but a "quite good one": here it came the traditional cultures, but not all- as some of them literally extinguished lots of species.
They were already eating animals... quite bad, but humans needed to survive outside Eden, and they were mor and more. They fought, left, spread over and finally living all over the planet.
But those hunters/gatherers are unknown to us in the religious/mystical/esotheric respects- they were humans, first hand ones, supposedly better than us in all the respects. Modern human knows "multum, non multa"- we know lots of things, many things, but we know little in fact.
They were quite probable shamanic/animists and respecting all the beings, maybe humbly asking forgiveness to the hunted ones, necessary for survival etc. They were more "ethical" than us, maybe, their judgment on animals being that none should be tormented or killed, except for defense or food. I think no pets at those times, maybe only dogs, since respecting an animal (etical behaviour) implied letting it free.

3. Our world- ugly world. We should define "ethical/unethical" now.
Again, we still eat them.
Ethical? Not really... but after all... ethical- they are just "food", aren't they? We breed them, not killing all the wild ones, for that! Ethical? in that context, it should be... better than hunting them all down!

We cut forests, destroy wilderness just to provide/cultivate forage for animals. Ethical? It start to stink here... why we keep destroying, couldn't we eat vegetables, and not wasting 10kg of cereals to obtain 1kg of meat? We could do that, after all!
Oh, we cry and resent the fate of wilderness and poor animals... but we still WANT OUR MEAT ON THE TABLE!!! Isn't it?? Yes, unethical, unethical- greed and ignorance are UNETHICAL, since they affect not only us, but all around us- other people, nature etc... we can spare the fields and forests, together with their innocent inhabitants, if just a little good will- eating vegetal matter, vegetal proteins being even healthier! We are built for them in fact- why we just forgot that?

PARANTHESIS: we are not carnivores, not even omnivores. I will not dispute that. I don't "suppose, think, having opinions"- I KNOW THAT, I FEEL THAT, I UNDERSTOOD THAT! We just eat meat to survive first, and then eating it more and more, until now, when we eat it because we like it! No hypocrisy here- it's just a cultivated taste for meat, a cultural factor! We don't need it, and we would live better without it, and that would be good for the enviroment too.
Again, I would not debate, because I KNOW. But, as all of us, I eat meat. Not much, but I eat. I want to give up one day...

Now, after all other interactions we had/have with the animals, to the original subject: keeping them, especially reptiles, as pets.
Ethical or unethical? Well, that depends... being stupid, selfish, cruel, greedy, ignorant is still "unethical"- these bugs affect all around us, remember?
It should be simple: it is unethical if you have "moods" and want an animal now, but not learning about him, researching, treying to offer a good life. If you really care about him, keeping became ethical.
Now... you do care about and look for even better for your pet... but what kind of pet?? Aha, Testudo kleinmanni! Or, obvious wild-caughts belonging to any threatened species! Well, not ethical, with all your interest in your pet's wellness!! He does not give a **** on your kindness and care, if you are just the final link of the poaching chain, and conscious people will find that clearly unethical! and it is!

Radicalism- NO PETS AT ALL, ANIMALS SHOULD BE FREE!!
I agree 100%! But when, now? Oh no, in Eden!! Now it's more complicated than that...
Even if not threatened species- some activists would say- they belong to the wild. Agree here too. It is unethical. Why keeping them captives, after all, even well cared for and only CB? Well, even unethical through "chaining, fencing" an animal, that could be useful. I personally was attracted by aquaria as a kid, and no matter the species or class, animals fascinated us. By keeping such captives, we have an unique chance to start knowing the nature laws- some will never do, but some will go further than "pet-keeper level". They will became specialists, or even redoutable knowledge-loaded amateurs. People who can make a difference for the wild animals started by carring for some fish, a lizard, a turtle etc...

The bad part is the pet-industry, fueled by the greed of those implied in breeding and selling, and the ignorance of the customers. Both behave unethical.

Knowing the animals better can make a difference, generally. The good part of the hobby is that it can raise awareness about wild animals. It's up to us to incline the ballance towards the positive side, by keeping them well and behaving not just like customers/owners, but responsable keepers.

But we are not taling about reptile keepers, after all. Frankly, it is not need for treating them as a separate type, since the principles are the same, whatever you keep.

Personally, I wish that things will get back to normal: animals roaming free, humans enjoying them by just seing them free, not fearing them, not wanting them fenced, not eating them anymore... but that is Eden reloaded, and I think it will be not soon.

Animals should be free. All beings, humans included, are just energy/matter channels, that work well when they belong to their place: animals not in cages, humans not in cities. From trophic pyramid to more subtle aspects, man should behave different than eating and caging animals, erasing the life-teeming forest and fields, poisoning waters, fishing them out until last fish and so on....
But in our world, I think we should keep them (in above mentioned conditions), learn about them, maybe even helping them. Kids having a few Guppies or a well-cared for reptile will have a chance to develop sensibility and understanding...
What for releasing them? To be totally wiped out by habitat loss or killed?

Example: those ignorants in Madagascar recently beginned to eat tortoises- initially , great TABOO to harm one!! They eat now TONS of DRIED tortoise meat- just imagine what number of tortoises are slaughtered, if only that little meat of them, dried, and still being measured in TONS??
Well, I would be The Great Poacher Tortoise Trafficant Numero Uno, if possible, in such places!! Better in other people's care overseas, than eaten to extinction in another 10 years- with the only consolation that the massacre will be "on their native environment" and they prohibited exports and so protected the tortoises!! Yes, of course!!

Being ethical is not anymore a simple answered question now. Being ethical should not resume to separate facts, but to the whole picture. If finality is good, then the steps to achieve it were necessary and therefore ethical. I know, it should not be that way, but now it is.

And... I was always disgusted by some modern "conservationist/animal right-activist" type of approach; I was shocked to find that these groups have very strong opinions in totally different questions, not related to animals, but... abortion, for instance!!! I am clearly AGAINST, as expected for a Balkan barbarian, isn't it? Well, lots of those "Pro-animal. pro-life" activists were very confident in opinate on that theme, being... pro-DEATH. Don't ask me links or exact source and things like that, I just remembered the idea, read somewhere... End of chapter for me... and frivolous manner of protesting, breasts and nudity as tools to create impact- "better naked than in fur"... quasi-porn with the pretext of "protecting life", that kind of garbage disgusted me totally. These "organisations with a heart" make me sick, they only have stomach and genitals. I like breasts, nudity, women, but not porn, wooooes and greedy manipulators behind all of these, posing in "animal heroes", fueled by people's trust in their "good" intentions.

Last paragraph explained my harsh words about PETA-ish organisations, words that Terryo took as an insult. I am sure she will agree with me now, on those specific points.
 

dannel

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
682
Location (City and/or State)
Saskatchewan, Canada
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. Sorry if its off topic, but heres an illustration. 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

Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
300
Location (City and/or State)
Bucharest, Romania z6
I have to disagree. Do you think that generations of CB turtles/tortoises know where they "should" be in the wild?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.
 

Cowboy_Ken

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
17,560
Location (City and/or State)
Suburban-life in Salem, Oregon
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.

My wife, a certified vet tech, could sure use your help when Fido comes in seeming to be off. You could help explain what the animal is feeling in human terms. Sorry, I had to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top