Okay, since some of you insist, i will comment on all that has been said that you feel i've been avoiding because i have no way of "backing-up" my beliefs. I have been avoiding it, because, unlike you *assume*, i did NOT come here to argue or offend. But i will give some examples because that seems to be what some of you want.
"When humans first started becoming the dominant species, we kept wild dogs, which eventually became the dogs we have today. Was it wrong for us to do that? Should people just let their schnauzers run free because they too were at one time wild animals?"
The negative side-effects of domesticating and breeding cats and dogs is clearly evident in both the canine and feline species and the environment. Because of the mass domestication, most of the canine and small cat species are now extinct in the wild. Their genetics have been so tampered with that many of these animals have developed genetic deformities. If you don't believe this, all you have to do is a little research and find your own answers. Millions of UNWANTED cats and dogs are murdered, abused, abandoned, and either tortured and eventually killed in laboratories or are killed in the masses by pounds (or what they call "HUMANE SOCIETIES"), cars from city streets, or starvation because they no longer live in their natural habitats where they're able to hunt and provide themselves with their own food. The other millions of stray and feral cats and dogs that are not collected by pounds and laboratories are left to fend for themselves, struggling because they have no way to hunt or provide shelter for themselves. Most have become completely dependent on humans, digging through dumpsters for food, or simply freezing to death from the cold. So, the question:
"was it wrong for us to do that?". It wouldn't be wrong if so many people weren't so careless, heartless and irresponsible, but so many are, and it's the job of the good people in the world to clean up their messes. So, if setting a good example by sacrificing a pet will alleviate some of this catastrophe, then why not do it? I'm not pointing this out because i'm trying to express how wrong it is to keep animals for pleasure, but you have to look at the big picture. Humans have destroyed this earth and it's not just the animals that have suffered for it. I don't think i can change that, but what i can do is stand up for what i believe in. The argument that domesticating and breeding animals by unqualified persons, and for only the sake of having a pet, is good for the environment and for the species, is wrong, when the facts are taken into consideration.
"I get the direct impression that you're condemning pet-owners for the animals we keep."
Stating my OPINION is not condemning anyone. If you're offended, then you're condemning yourself, because if you're in the right, what reason is there to be offended?
"I see part of what you mean, but you've got to understand that the great majority of the keepers here provide their animals with great care, in larger than necessary enclosures."
If you're not disrupting the species and you're looking out for the best interest of the animal and not yourself, then what i said does not pertain to you. I don't like the caging of any animal, but people will always feel the need to cage animals. As long as you're looking from the animals prospective and you actually care whether or not your pet is enjoying it's life, then there's no argument. You could try and convince me all you want that cages are best for them, but it will not change the way i feel about it. This does not mean i'm condemning anyone.
"Hmm, I saw a variety of responses to the comment about keeping them in captivity.
I would not typify any of these because a "conscience" suddenly kicked in as you allege but as a response to attempt to explain a point of view that is different than your own."
You all seem to agree that i'm accusatory, and yet you will not admit that you are accusatory of MY points of view and opinions. Not to mention acknowledging the assumption that i'm christian and then attacking my faith. I guess your argument is that we do not have the same morals, and i will agree with that. You accuse me of attacking YOUR morals, and i'm attacked for believing God created all things and i'm accused of using my religion to cover guilt and avoid responsibility. Now that is a huge contradiction.
"ira-
my brother in law is the same way-he especially believes animals dont feel pain as we do. he is a born again and a new yorker -i am not sure which (if either) has influenced him on this matter but to him the only value of an animal is to serve humans.(and i know many of that faith do not believe this-its just a convienent cozy ideal that can be adopted to avoid guilt/responcibility)"
This quote by paris was in response to Ira's argument that i have no way of knowing that plants don't feel:
"ok firstly, how do you know that plants dont feel?"
I never said plants don't feel; it's obvious that they do. I said that they don't have emotions. There's an ENORMOUS difference. (my quote below)
"You're comparing animals with emotions with emotionless life which have the main purpose of providing us with food. One could argue that all things are made up of some form of life, but not all things have emotions."
"it is a known contradiction that those who often want to 'share' their religion/opinions with others do not wish for those others to share their side" --paris
"can anyone guess whos mother used to be on the high schools debate team?? (until she got kicked out of school for being pregnant?)" --paris
Talk about accusatory.
"One of the main points that is misunderstood about the biology of most caudates is that their spatial requirements are based on the availability of food, shelter and temperature and not a need for movement.
This need has been studied in a number of caudates and access to a rich diet causes the spatial needs to become smaller (and in the case of some species such as red backs this may actually be reduced to the cover object) therefore what may be percieved to be a small cage by a human observer is in fact more than adequate for the needs of the animal."
Then why do the animals try to escape? Out of boredom? This is true temporarily, but even if it were true in the long-term, it does not change that fact that it depresses me to see them caged. And it does not change the fact that if taken from the wild where they're used to being free and having relations with other caudates, it will cause them a great amount of distress. It also does not change the fact that their natural habitats usually provide the healthiest environments for them where they're able to eat a wide variety of fresh food and maintain and are able to dictate their own moisture and temperature levels...because they know what their bodies need and when they need them better than us. A lot of captive caudates are malnourished and their owners don't even know it. And if you subsidize their nutritional requirements with man-made vitamins by putting them on their food then they can't even enjoy what they eat. I would rather eat a worm than a worm smothered in vitamin powder.
"If the animal's needs were not being met then a number of behaviors will become evident one of which is often a failure to thrive."
Some other behaviors they start to show when captive is lethargy and "hibernation" mode, where they really don't do anything but sleep...and really, what is there to do?
How many people take chances with these animals, i wonder....is it just hit&miss, the process of elimination...once so many die, then you know you've got a problem?
"We started debating because our "conscience" kicked in? It's irritating to be analyzed (wrongly, I might add,) by a condescending person that doesn't know me."
You say that, yet, here, again, is a quote from one of paris' above posts:
"(and i know many of that faith do not believe this-its just a convienent cozy ideal that can be adopted to avoid guilt/responcibility)"
That was in response to paris assuming i'm "christian" because i don't believe humans evolved from apes, and then attacking those of the christian faith. It wasn't direct, but a close examination of our above correspondences will shed some light.
And you don't know me, i might add; and since you consider me a "troll", then why not ignore me? Does my opinion matter that much to you? I am one person with one personal opinion, why do you care what i think?
"We started this debate because it seemed as though you came here looking for one. You offered your views, (though I have to admit, you have yet to back up anything you say with anything other than excuses,)"
What do you want me to "back-up"?
"with a holier-than-thou attitude."
Holier-than-thou? I shared the mistakes i've made with animals, and that is why i won't get any more, because i know that i can't provide for them what they need. I'm not the only one that believes pesticides and air pollution are bad for the environment, you know. Holding these morals does not make one arrogant. There are many things i do that contribute to destruction, such as eating meat from factory farms. I don't buy the meat, but i eat it. I really don't have any control over it, but by eating it, i'm contributing to strife. We can only do good when the ability is in our hands. Like i said, that's the best any of us can do. This has little to do with the keeping of caudates. It's about morals, and we each have our own. You can interpret what i say anyway you want and you can be as offended as you like, there's nothing i can do about that.
"You are unwilling to understand or accept that we have different views than you and since you haven't commented on the positive points we've made about animal conservation, the entire backbone of your argument, (and yes, it does go with keeping animals in captivity, but not in Dixie cups like you want to believe.)"
Positive points? I don't agree with many forms of "conservation" because many of them are just selfish ploys. I'm sorry, but you seem to be unwilling to understand that there is no way that i can convey my full opinion to you. So you must understand that i don't necessarily disagree with you on everything. I don't disagree with all captivity, but the "average" owner is fairly irresponsible in my opinion. Most get these animals without knowing anything about them, or where they came from. I think it's wrong to take animals from the wild unless it's temporary and for helping the animals; however, there are a lot of unwanted herps that were born into captivity and need homes, just like unwanted cats and dogs. So i believe that breeding and selling them does more harm than good unless it's done under strict conditions in order to preserve the proper genetics, and i believe this should be done by professional herpetologists/conservationists, not your every-day average owner. It also does more harm than good because, as i've stated above, there are already many unwanted herps/caudates from people snatching them from the woods or buying them and then deciding they don't want them any more - just like a piece of garbage...and many just flush them down the toilet! So, yes, these creatures need rescuing from these irresponsible people that leave them behind.
"What bothers me is that you did a Google search and came here basically to get up on your soap box and condemn us for keeping animal companions"
Can you prove that? I did a google search looking for pictures of a Red Eft Newt and found several posts from people claiming to love these animals, and yet are ripping them from their natural environments and putting them in small containers with inadequate care. If you don't do this, and you DON'T think this pertains to you, then why comment? Obviously it has nothing to do with you. If i annoy you so much, ignore me.
"and then you adamantly refused to understand our points of view, claiming that we're only debating because we feel guilty for owning pets. We're debating, as Ed said, because we're expressing that we've got different views."
Yeah, i've got different views, too, and some of you don't want to understand how i feel about the subject. Fair? This argument is very one-sided, and for obvious reasons. It's me against all of you.
One against, how many?
I'm not against you, though...you may think i am, but i'm not.
"You'd like to see animals in their natural environments. Wouldn't we all? Out of curiosity, if you wanted to see pandas, what would you do?"
Paris already tried to get me to answer one of these questions by saying that i'd go to the zoo or go see them in captivity somewhere (
"here is a question for you -where did you learn your first love of nature and animals? books and stuffed toys are not the same as zoo trips, field trips and pets. we need interaction"). I'm perfectly content not seeing animals outside my home land. I have plenty of other animals right here where i live that i've never seen or even heard of. And there's no way i'm ever going to see all of them. Most animals i've seen only through pictures and tv. If i truly wanted to see an animal that i couldn't see by going out into the woods and i wanted a live experience with them, i would save up money and go to that country, or do some research and find an animal refuge that runs off public donations and is looking out for the best interest of the animal. But there are a lot of things in life i can't do, but would like to. Seeing a panda up-close is one of probably trillions of things on my list. Seeing all animals up-close is on my list.
And, honestly, as a kid i went to several zoos and was always disappointed. All the animals did was lay there...the whole time. Few ever moved. Instead of being excited, i was saddened because they were not the same creatures that i saw on the National Geographic videos and other animal documentaries. These animals were objects of an unnatural environment and did none of their natural activities. Not only that, but i couldn't touch any of them, except the nose of some like giraffes. To me, because we were separated by large fences and because the animals never moved, it was no different than seeing them in a motionless photograph.
"You say you're also doing the best you can do, but what exactly is that?"
I stand up for what i believe in. It's not about what you do, it's more about what you avoid. Agriculture for example, since we've already discussed this...you can believe that pesticides and herbicides are bad for us and the world as a whole, but what do you get if you buy them? Poisonous food which has many negative effects. What do you get if you avoid them? Possibly some more choices! Pet shops are also a good example. I'm guessing most of you that truly love caudates do not buy from animal stores that don't properly care for them, or maybe take them from the wild. So what do you do to resolve the situation? You boycott. Buying the animals would be saving the animals that were currently in the store, but would be financially helping the store and would therefore be supporting the pain of other caudates. You can report the store to officials, but if people continue to buy, there will always be a market for cruelty and disrespect towards these animals. It's the same with anything. To live by example is the best charity of all. And we all do this in different ways.
"You don't own pets because that apparently supports captivity and captivity makes you sad."
I have a dog that was rescued from the pound, i've had him since i was a kid, nearly a decade. There's a difference between having a pet and keeping them confined. And NO, i'm not saying you're all bad "caudata" owners and keep your pets in a "dixie" cup. I've said that about 3 times already - or more.
"I'd like to hear your factual reasons why you don't like zoos or their methods of conservation and education, as you have yet to comment on anyone's posts regarding that issue, other than saying that it makes you sad and that they're "prisons.""
I was trying to avoid this because i didn't think you wanted my opinion on the matter, nor did i think that any of you would care or agree with me in any way, and that it would be getting way off the subject of caudates. But since you insist, i thought i would tell you. I'll provide some links; if you do some research, you may be very surprised by what you find...and horrified.
"I'd also like to hear the rebuttals from the members of this forum who work in zoos."
Of course you only want to hear the rebuttals...that seems to be the theme. You know, just because someone works at a zoo doesn't mean they believe in what they do. It's a job like any other for a lot of people. A lot of them hate their jobs...and a lot of them can attest to the pain the poor animals go through. But if you've never taken the time to study how the animal lives in it's natural habitat, you have no way of realizing how suppressed they are. You must compare their actions and life quality in captivity with that of their actions and life quality in the wild. To observe them in captivity is very different; their entire lifestyle and natural instincts are purposeless and therefore not used. But this does not mean that they are simply CHOOSING to not use their instincts, it means they are unable to act upon anything they would do in the wild. Except maybe groom and sleep. But even the way they eat changes.
I'm sorry that you're offended by my own opinions, beliefs and research. But the bottom line is just that, they are my own opinions. And i would still like to hear from some people that build their own outdoor habitats. Obviously, though, people only want to argue about cages. But, as far as the debate goes, it's gotten really old, think what you want. If you choose to think everyone is condemning you not much will be resolved..all that will result is hate.
ZOO FACTS
http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/index.htm
http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/zrep1.htm
http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/zfact1.htm
http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/zse1.htm
http://www.zoocheck.com/about/
http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/companion/exoticmiseries/facts.html
Herp Societies and Rescues
http://www.anapsid.org/societies/index.html
Northern Virginia Reptile Rescue
http://www.boxturtle.org/pages/pets.htm
thank you!