Sadly True. Do You Agree/Disagree

[Gillian M]

Hi everyone at TFO.

I came across the above, which attracted my attention immediately when I saw that cute tort/turtle. After having read the words, I hesitated for a moment and thought: "There's a lot of truth in what that poor tort said, as far not wanting to be "rescued" and consequently "imprisoned" by anyone. Moreover, he/she went on to say: I am not a pet....." And: "Please leave me alone so that I can stay free."

I would like to ask: how many of you agree with the above tortoise and how many disagree, no matter how much care you are taking of your pet? Personally speaking, and honestly speaking, I believe that there is a lot of truth there, sadly.

I'd like to hear your opinions, asap: the matter is somewhat worrying me after I read those words.

Thank you.

 

[TammyJ]

I would think that if I found one on the road, and the surrounding forest areas were his obvious natural habitat, and the forest was not being destroyed by anything I knew of, I would agree and let him go safely on his way. BUT ...!

 

[Gillian M]

I would think that if I found one on the road, and the surrounding forest areas were his obvious natural habitat, and the forest was not being destroyed by anything I knew of, I would agree and let him go safely on his way. BUT ...!

But what?! Please go on and tell me what you think. Thanks.

 

[Gillian M]

@Yvonne G @wellington @Jacqui @Tom @Lyn W

would like to hear your opinions. Many thanks.

 

[TammyJ]

BUT if I knew of a situation where my releasing him would more than likely mean his detriment or death, I would not release him then and there, I couldn't. I would have just become responsible for him.

 

[ZEROPILOT]

The last one I "found" had been (I'm pretty sure) tossed over my fence into my back yard by someone thinking it was a Redfoot.
I see no other way that he could have arrived by chance in the secure area where he was found. And in my case, I live in the suburbs. There are no fields or scrub areas or "woods" of more than maybe a few square yards anywhere nearby.
Release back into the wild was not an option. Because I neither knew where exactly he came from or if it was given to me as a surrendered pet.
I gifted him to a fellow forum member and I'm sure this guy will have an absolutely fabulous life.

So I basically agree.
But there are certainly exceptions. Just like there are to most rules.

As for my captive REDFOOT. None of them were taken from the wild.
In my care they have no fear of predators. Treatment from diseases. A large variety of foods. Near perfect temperatures and humidity and a very long life expectancy.
It's not the same as pulling a wild animal into living as a captive.

 

[TammyJ]

The last one I "found" had been (I'm pretty sure) tossed over my fence into my back yard by someone thinking it was a Redfoot.
I see no other way that he could have arrived by chance in the secure area where he was found. And in my case, I live in the suburbs. There are no fields or scrub area or "woods" of more than maybe 50 square yards anywhere nearby.
Release back into the wild was not an option. Because I neither knew where exactly he came from or if it was given to me as a surrendered pet.
I gifted him to a fellow forum member and I'm sure this guy will have an absolutely fabulous life.

So I basically agree.
But there are certainly exceptions. Just like are to most rules.

As for my captive REDFOOT. None of them were taken from the wild.
In my care they have no fear of predators. Treatment from diseases. A large variety of foods. Near perfect temperatures and humidity and a very long life expectancy.
It's not the same as pulling a wild animal into living as a captive.

I remember!

 

[ZEROPILOT]

I remember!

I can see how someone might think that he was a Redfoot
And a few years ago when I had two juveniles escape I knocked on all of my neighbors doors asking permission to look in their yards.
I'll bet someone thought they found one.

 

[wellington]

I agree with it all for wild turtles and tortoises. Leave them be if they are native to the area. If they are newly injured, help them, one way or another. If the injury looks old, leave them be.
I agree with helping them cross the road, however, that can be a tricky one. In the morning, so many go to the roads to warm up. They may have no intention of crossing the road. My rule, if they are actually walking and crossing the road, or laying in the road, then place them across the road in the direction they were moving or facing. If they are just laying on the side of the road, do not put them across the road, but in an open area right by them that is further off the road side. If they are just warming up and you place them across the road, they will then cross the road to get back where they want to be.

 

[Tom]

@Yvonne G @wellington @Jacqui @Tom @Lyn W

would like to hear your opinions. Many thanks.

Good topic Gillian. This is a good one to discuss.

First and foremost, this is a bunch of anthropomorphism. Anyone who doesn't know what that word means should take a moment to look it up before reading further. Emotional non-sense. I can agree with the sentiment, which I see as "leave the wildlife alone and don't hurt them". I can get behind that idea 100%, but animals don't understand the human concept of "free".

Going further, I would like to introduce another concept to think about to the discussion. In todays' society, there seems to be this romantic notion of peace and harmony in the wild. Animals living side by side in cooperation and love. Like the Lion King. Or Snow White when she was in the forest. This Disney-fication of what living wild is really like does not help anyone and anything. Its ridiculous. Life in the wild is cruel, relentless, and completely unforgiving. It is literally kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. Predators, drought, flood, starvation, disease, co-competitors of your own species attacking you, etc... It is really rough out there in the wild. Using our turtles and tortoises as an example, less than 1% of the babies that hatch annually reach adulthood and go on to reproduce. They were all living free, and every year more than 99% of them get eating or die in some horrible painful way.

Now some would say that is okay. That is part of nature. Those little babies all had to die to maintain the balance of nature. Predators and detrivores have to eat, and allowing all this to happen keeps everything in "balance". I would agree with that idea, except that human interference alters it drastically. For one example: I have to work diligently at my ranch to keep rodent pest populations down. Many of my neighbors kill any snake they see. I can understand fear of the venomous rattlesnakes. Those are highly dangerous to kids and pets, and they absolutely will bite in certain circumstances. But the morons like to proclaim: "The only good snake is a dead snake!" While I realize the futility of the exercise, I still spend my time trying to explain to these idiots that the non-venous, harmless, easy-to-recognize gopher and king snakes that they are killing, like to eat the rattlesnakes that they are so worried about, and they also keep the rodent populations that they complain about down. Many of these same neighbors, also use poison to control the rodent problem that they have created by killing the predators of the rodents. Then the poisoned rodents get eaten by other predators like owls, hawks, and coyotes, and all the predators of these rodent species die off in a given area. Guess what happens to the rodent population with no predators keeping their numbers down... Point being: Humans interfere with this "natural balance" every where they tread.

Here is another example that I have numbers for. They teach us this during our falconry apprenticeships. Fish and Wildlife have studied this extensively and have the numbers. As a falconry apprentice, you must trap a wild passage red tail hawk, or a kestrel. Passage means it was hatched earlier in the year you are trapping it, so it is a juvenile. We are not allowed to trap breeding age adults. Sounds horrible right? I kept flying red tails after my apprenticeship was over. Every year I would go out and snatch a poor unsuspecting bird out of its rightful territory and imprison it against its will. I did this 5 times. Oh the horror!!! Get ready for some reality now. In the wild, without human interference, 75% of the babies that hatch annually do not survive until October 1st. They hatch in the spring time, mid April in my area, and three quarters of those babies are dead by October. Of the remaining 25%, 80% of those don't survive their first winter. If my math is correct, that is 5 out of 100 that live to see their first birthday, and those five are often barely clinging to life by a tentative thread. Feather mites have decimated their plumage and reduced their capacity to fly and maneuver. Internal parasites rob them of much needed nutrition. The weather, predators, and human activities all take a terrible toll. Many are fighting diseases. I see this first hand out in the field every year. I see this year's juveniles flying around doing their thing in some of my hunting fields, and then one day, I see their dead body, or what remains of it. Happens several times a year. But that dead bird was living "free and in the wild". Now here is the point of the sad story: 98% of the juvenile redtails that are captured by falconers and used for a season or two of falconry, survive after being released back to the wild in the same area where they were trapped. Now opinions will vary, but did I harm those birds? Did I do them a terrible disservice by trapping them and teaching them to fly back to me for free, easy, nutritious food? Is it bad that I eradicated their parasites, taught them to hunt well, gave them fresh clean water, shelter from the elements, and protected them from their predators? Are/were those birds worse off because I didn't leave them alone so they could be free? If I hadn't trapped them, they would have had a 95% chance of dying a slow, sometimes painful death. Instead I keep them well fed, watered, got them medical treatments for their diseases and parasites, kept them for a season or two, and then released them right in the same spots where I trapped them. There first few days of "imprisonment" were admittedly scary and stressful for them, but by day three or four, they are no longer scared and happily taking food from the formerly big scary hairless ape. By day 21, they are flying free again back in the wild, and coming back to the falconer by choice. They learn that food and hunting opportunities are plentiful when they cooperate with us, and they quickly learn that their predators and territorial competitors won't come anywhere near them when their human is present. All in all, I say they get a pretty good deal, and begin trapped and "exploited" helps both the individual and the species.

Here is my measure of someone's turtle or tortoise housing: If I died and came back as a chelonian, would I want to live there instead of the wild? Hell yes, I would! I would much rather be someone's cherished, well cared for pet, than eaten alive as a single meal for a raccoon or other predator in the wild. If I were a wild redtail hawk, and somehow still had the capacity to know what I know now, I would fly directly down and get into the first falconry trap I could find.

When I was in Georgia and kept finding wild box turtles in the road, I would stop and move them out of the road into a safe area in the direction that I saw them already traveling. That was what I felt was the best thing to do. However, I have no problem with someone who finds a baby and wants to shelter, heat, feed, care for, protect and cherish it. And like any reasonable decent person, I have nothing but disdain and disgust for any person who neglects captives or abuses wild or captive animals in any way.

 

[wellington]

Good topic Gillian. This is a good one to discuss.

First and foremost, this is a bunch of anthropomorphism. Anyone who doesn't know what that word means should take a moment to look it up before reading further. Emotional non-sense. I can agree with the sentiment, which I see as "leave the wildlife alone and don't hurt them". I can get behind that idea 100%, but animals don't understand the human concept of "free".

Going further, I would like to introduce another concept to think about to the discussion. In todays' society, there seems to be this romantic notion of peace and harmony in the wild. Animals living side by side in cooperation and love. Like the Lion King. Or Snow White when she was in the forest. This Disney-fication of what living wild is really like does not help anyone and anything. Its ridiculous. Life in the wild is cruel, relentless, and completely unforgiving. It is literally kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. Predators, drought, flood, starvation, disease, co-competitors of your own species attacking you, etc... It is really rough out there in the wild. Using our turtles and tortoises as an example, less than 1% of the babies that hatch annually reach adulthood and go on to reproduce. They were all living free, and every year more than 99% of them get eating or die in some horrible painful way.

Now some would say that is okay. That is part of nature. Those little babies all had to die to maintain the balance of nature. Predators and detrivores have to eat, and allowing all this to happen keeps everything in "balance". I would agree with that idea, except that human interference alters it drastically. For one example: I have to work diligently at my ranch to keep rodent pest populations down. Many of my neighbors kill any snake they see. I can understand fear of the venomous rattlesnakes. Those are highly dangerous to kids and pets, and they absolutely will bite in certain circumstances. But the morons like to proclaim: "The only good snake is a dead snake!" While I realize the futility of the exercise, I still spend my time trying to explain to these idiots that the non-venous, harmless, easy-to-recognize gopher and king snakes that they are killing, like to eat the rattlesnakes that they are so worried about, and they also keep the rodent populations that they complain about down. Many of these same neighbors, also use poison to control the rodent problem that they have created by killing the predators of the rodents. Then the poisoned rodents get eaten by other predators like owls, hawks, and coyotes, and all the predators of these rodent species die off in a given area. Guess what happens to the rodent population with no predators keeping their numbers down... Point being: Humans interfere with this "natural balance" every where they tread.

Here is another example that I have numbers for. They teach us this during our falconry apprenticeships. Fish and Wildlife have studied this extensively and have the numbers. As a falconry apprentice, you must trap a wild passage red tail hawk, or a kestrel. Passage means it was hatched earlier in the year you are trapping it, so it is a juvenile. We are not allowed to trap breeding age adults. Sounds horrible right? I kept flying red tails after my apprenticeship was over. Every year I would go out and snatch a poor unsuspecting bird out of its rightful territory and imprison it against its will. I did this 5 times. Oh the horror!!! Get ready for some reality now. In the wild, without human interference, 75% of the babies that hatch annually do not survive until October 1st. They hatch in the spring time, mid April in my area, and three quarters of those babies are dead by October. Of the remaining 25%, 80% of those don't survive their first winter. If my math is correct, that is 5 out of 100 that live to see their first birthday, and those five are often barely clinging to life by a tentative thread. Feather mites have decimated their plumage and reduced their capacity to fly and maneuver. Internal parasites rob them of much needed nutrition. The weather, predators, and human activities all take a terrible toll. Many are fighting diseases. I see this first hand out in the field every year. I see this year's juveniles flying around doing their thing in some of my hunting fields, and then one day, I see their dead body, or what remains of it. Happens several times a year. But that dead bird was living "free and in the wild". Now here is the point of the sad story: 98% of the juvenile redtails that are captured by falconers and used for a season or two of falconry, survive after being released back to the wild in the same area where they were trapped. Now opinions will vary, but did I harm those birds? Did I do them a terrible disservice by trapping them and teaching them to fly back to me for free, easy, nutritious food? Is it bad that I eradicated their parasites, taught them to hunt well, gave them fresh clean water, shelter from the elements, and protected them from their predators? Are/were those birds worse off because I didn't leave them alone so they could be free? If I hadn't trapped them, they would have had a 95% chance of dying a slow, sometimes painful death. Instead I keep them well fed, watered, got them medical treatments for their diseases and parasites, kept them for a season or two, and then released them right in the same spots where I trapped them. There first few days of "imprisonment" were admittedly scary and stressful for them, but by day three or four, they are no longer scared and happily taking food from the formerly big scary hairless ape. By day 21, they are flying free again back in the wild, and coming back to the falconer by choice. They learn that food and hunting opportunities are plentiful when they cooperate with us, and they quickly learn that their predators and territorial competitors won't come anywhere near them when their human is present. All in all, I say they get a pretty good deal, and begin trapped and "exploited" helps both the individual and the species.

Here is my measure of someone's turtle or tortoise housing: If I died and came back as a chelonian, would I want to live there instead of the wild? Hell yes, I would! I would much rather be someone's cherished, well cared for pet, than eaten alive as a single meal for a raccoon or other predator in the wild. If I were a wild redtail hawk, and somehow still had the capacity to know what I know now, I would fly directly down and get into the first falconry trap I could find.

When I was in Georgia and kept finding wild box turtles in the road, I would stop and move them out of the road into a safe area in the direction that I saw them already traveling. That was what I felt was the best thing to do. However, I have no problem with someone who finds a baby and wants to shelter, heat, feed, care for, protect and cherish it. And like any reasonable decent person, I have nothing but disdain and disgust for any person who neglects captives or abuses wild or captive animals in any way.

But what a sad world this would be if nothing was left to the wild. The world would never survive. Nature knows how to handle itself. Yes, humans disrupt that, but, I still feel, for the most part, it works and the answer is not taking from the wild, but fixing everything humans have done to destroy it, so the wild can survive in the wild.
The best pictures are of wild animals living in the wild, not in a cage of any kind.

 

[TammyJ]

There has been so much destruction of "the wild" by human beings and nature itself, that in many cases, it is actually pointless and cruel to try to release animals back into it. What may once have been safe and nurturing is not any more, and the right thing to do is keep and care, and yes, breed and sell responsibly! I think for example of our critically endangered (my own categorization) Jamaican Boa. At this point, "the wild" is the most dangerous place they could be. So I definitely see Tom's argument as totally valid.

 

[wellington]

There has been so much destruction of "the wild" by human beings and nature itself, that in many cases, it is actually pointless and cruel to try to release animals back into it. What may once have been safe and nurturing is not any more, and the right thing to do is keep and care, and yes, breed and sell responsibly! I think for example of our critically endangered (my own categorization) Jamaican Boa. At this point, "the wild" is the most dangerous place they could be. So I definitely see Tom's argument as totally valid.

If too many people had this attitude, then enjoy looking at animals only at zoos! Said, that you'd rather keep them, then help fix their native land.

 

[ZEROPILOT]

If too many people had this attitude, then enjoy looking at animals only at zoos! Said, that you'd rather keep them, then help fix their native land.

A agree with your basic line of thought there. But I don't think that habitat restoration on a large scale anywhere is realistic.
Animals are going extinct everywhere. All of the time. Some of it is certainly because of human activity. Maybe most of it. It's a much larger issue than any single conversation can cover.
The question if Animals are better off in the wild IS actually a fantastic one.

 

[TammyJ]

If too many people had this attitude, then enjoy looking at animals only at zoos! Said, that you'd rather keep them, then help fix their native land.

Not quite. The ideal would be to keep and breed what is already in captivity, while at the same time, fight tooth and nail to restore and preserve their native land and stop poaching by imposing the harshest penalty.

 

[TammyJ]

Not quite. The ideal would be to keep and breed what is already in captivity, while at the same time, fight tooth and nail to restore and preserve their native land and stop poaching by imposing the harshest penalty.

You mean the death sentence, don't you, Tammy.

 

[wellington]

You mean the death sentence, don't you, Tammy.

Now I'm with that!

 

[Gillian M]

I agree with it all for wild turtles and tortoises. Leave them be if they are native to the area. If they are newly injured, help them, one way or another. If the injury looks old, leave them be.

I agree with helping them cross the road, however, that can be a tricky one. In the morning, so many go to the roads to warm up. They may have no intention of crossing the road. My rule, if they are actually walking and crossing the road, or laying in the road, then place them across the road in the direction they were moving or facing. If they are just laying on the side of the road, do not put them across the road, but in an open area right by them that is further off the road side. If they are just warming up and you place them across the road, they will then cross the road to get back where they want to be.

So very true, Barbra. Personally, I am now 100% sure that these cute little creatures do not like to "become pets" and to be "imprisoned" in an enclosure, no matter how large it is and no matter how well-equipped it is. They simply want to remain in the wild.

 

[Gillian M]

But what a sad world this would be if nothing was left to the wild. The world would never survive. Nature knows how to handle itself. Yes, humans disrupt that, but, I still feel, for the most part, it works and the answer is not taking from the wild, but fixing everything humans have done to destroy it, so the wild can survive in the wild.

The best pictures are of wild animals living in the wild, not in a cage of any kind.

A agree with your basic line of thought there. But I don't think that habitat restoration on a large scale anywhere is realistic.
Animals are going extinct everywhere. All of the time. Some of it is certainly because of human activity. Maybe most of it. It's a much larger issue than any single conversation can cover.
The question if Animals are better off in the wild IS actually a fantastic one.

As far as crawling animals are concerned, I think that the wild is their right place, despite the fact that I have a tort I love. I for one, take Oli out for a "walk" in the sun every now and again. I sit down and watch. You ought to see how happy he seems to be outside. I was told by a member at TFO not to do so, because this will allow him to get used to it. Moreover, he will start disliking his enclosure, so as to say. But to be honest, I still do take him out, when the weather permits.
But what a sad world this would be if nothing was left to the wild. The world would never survive. Nature knows how to handle itself. Yes, humans disrupt that, but, I still feel, for the most part, it works and the answer is not taking from the wild, but fixing everything humans have done to destroy it, so the wild can survive in the wild.
The best pictures are of wild animals living in the wild, not in a cage of any kind.

 

[Gillian M]

There has been so much destruction of "the wild" by human beings and nature itself, that in many cases, it is actually pointless and cruel to try to release animals back into it. What may once have been safe and nurturing is not any more, and the right thing to do is keep and care, and yes, breed and sell responsibly! I think for example of our critically endangered (my own categorization) Jamaican Boa. At this point, "the wild" is the most dangerous place they could be. So I definitely see Tom's argument as totally valid.

Some animals have lived in the wild for ages.