PDA

View Full Version : Longest Thread Ever (Original title was "Like?")


sally
4th August 2004, 15:52
Aren't salamanders and most amphibians endangered (or near so)? They're such beautiful creatures...why would you want to tear them away from their natural habitats to live in a small tank just for your own pleasure? I'm saddened. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/sad.gif

I guess it's like caging any animal.

Do any of you build a habitat for them in your yard?

carl
4th August 2004, 16:49
i would love to but i think the tempreture is to low for some off them so i sometimes breed newts that like britains cold climate and let them go but i think its better for them to be in a tank then in some fishes belly if people didnt put them in tanks there would probably be even less

paris
4th August 2004, 17:37
if you do some basic research on line you can see which caudates are endangered and which are commonly sold/used as fish bait. i believe you keep an axolotl right?- so why ask others in a psuedo judgemental way why they keep them?(axies are endangered in the wild btw, and protected-but have been bred in captivity for over 100 years)-why do people keep fish or birds or plants? with the natural environment being destroyed at an alarming rate to make way for walmarts - alot of their native land is lost. one person with 2 or so wild caught spotted sals does far less harm than 1 bulldozer that removes a vernal pool to make way for a parking lot, besides not all caudates kept in captivity are taken from the wild -may of us breed ours. (but their parents may have been wild caught). keeping them in outdoor enclosures may sound ideal -it isnt -especially if they are not native species. since they are limited to a confined area they might not be able to burrow deep enough to escape the winter cold or summer heat. enclosures also make them targets for a wandering racoon or snake that can get into their 'habitat'. if the animal is not native to your area then the soil may contain bacteria or parasites that the animal is not used to and may make it sick or even kill it -the same goes the other way-the animal may introduce pathogens into the local landscape that other natives have no way of fending off (escaping perhaps after a big rain), then you have alot to worry about if they themselves can get out and establish themselves as a non native population.(or interbreed with the locals) -releasing animals into the wild is illegal and this is why australia prohibits keeping any caudates except for axolotls -since they believe they will not leave pools they are in and become invasive species.

sally
5th August 2004, 05:22
"i believe you keep an axolotl right?"

Excuse me? I believe you've mistaken me for someone else.

As a kid i collected a couple of salamanders native to my area, just for hybernation, and then let them go. I do think an outdoor habitat is best - if they get eaten by another animal, well, that's the circle of life, but it just seems a little mean to cage any animal that is naturally wild. Why do people cage fish or birds? That was a point i was trying to make, also...why do they? I don't know. Plants on the other hand are different; plants don't have legs they're supposed to use.
Also, why should we keep animals that aren't native to our own areas? I like parrots and lions, but to keep them would be for my own gain and not in the best interest of the animal.
What brings me joy about these little creatures is that they live their lives in their natural habitats...if our habitats go, it won't just be the amphibians that die, we humans will as well.

dot
5th August 2004, 06:28
"It just seems a little mean to cage any animal that is naturally wild."

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?

I kept a wild painted turtle in an outdoor habitat, (keeping her in a tank indoors during her hibernation months,) for close to a year after it had been hit by a car. From what you're saying, I should have just left the turtle to die, as opposed to giving it antibiotics and hand-feeding it, and nursing it back to health. My question is - though I did take this turtle out of the "wild" (though a backyard swamp in suburban Connecticut barely counts as "wild,") and I nursed it back to health, was it unethical for me to do so even though it wasn't Nature that caused her injuries? Because as far as I know, cars are not naturally occurring things, and not part of the "circle of life."

Why keep non-native animals? For primarily the same reason as zoological parks - education and propagation. Like Paris said, many of the people here breed their animals. They surely don't have to do that, when you can order one from someone who may or may not have plucked it out of the wild. Captive breeders are doing a good thing - they're propagating a species without removing wild animals. And many of these animals are creatures that people have never heard of. I know none of my friends even knew axolotls existed before I got one. And with this comes awareness. The more people are aware that creatures like this exist, the more likely they'll be aware of the effects they have on the environment.

I do understand where you're coming from and it's nice that you're expressing your views, however, I get the direct impression that you're condemning pet-owners for the animals we keep. Understandably, in a perfect world, there would be no such thing as endangered species and every being would be equal, but it's because of humans that the natural habitats of these creatures are disappearing and it's also because of us that these animals are dying. So I feel that it's up to us to make things right, by educating others and propagating the species we're responsible for destroying. And if it brings us joy to know we're doing something good for these animals, that's just another perk.

paris
5th August 2004, 07:10
yes i did mistake this person for another -there is another new person who is using that name in the chat - it creates some confusion for a person to have one handle on here and a separate identity in the chat. non the less it is our nature to be attracted to nature and to want to incorporate it in our ever urban lives -it shows how connected we still are to create micro worlds of what we miss.
you seem to be missing the point-or perhaps i am not getting yours-a good many of these are not wild animals-they are captive bred, bred by human intervention for pets. do not forget that we are also animals. the need to connect with nature is important to most -but many cannot travel out of their urban areas (a good many inner city children have never seen a horse -much less a salamander). the need for non utilitarian animal companions (unlike dogs and cats that can be said to fill a purpose-like guarding or catching vermin) fills a void in our lives, it has been proven that fish tanks lower peoples stress levels. so to answer the question "why do people.." the answer is because it keeps our connection with nature that we are too rapidly loosing. pity more those that have severed the connection and have no desire to deal with such things - to them nature is of no consequence and is not worth preserving.

sally
5th August 2004, 17:59
There's no way i can express my point-of-view fully on this forum, so i won't even try. But to comment on a few things; i don't think humans used to be wild, i don't think it's wrong to nurse a hurting, dying animal back to health and then release it, i'm not condeming anyone, and if people want nature, they should go out into the woods more where they'll find lots of it...if more people supported the habitats DIRECTLY, they would be better preserved.

All i was saying is that i enjoy wild life because it's just that; wild and free. I envy wildlife, and it brings me much joy to watch them live and be free in the wild...but it greatly saddens me to see them captive...whether it be in a fish tank or a zoo...and i'm not even a hard-core animal activist, i believe people have the right to eat meat, just not the right to supress the lives of living creatures...and i'm not saying you are, but there are a lot of very selfish and cruel people out there.

peter
5th August 2004, 21:40
Well, supressing animals is one thing, caring for and taking care of an animal is another. I can see your arguement in stories of people keeping necturus or hellbenders, etc, in cages way too small for them. However, keeping an animal healthy, fed, and safe in captivity is much more than the animal could ask for in the wild. And when you think about it, a 30 gallon tank is a fairly large area for an animal that's only a few inches long, and moves at such a slow pace.

This site also helps provide information on how to care for many animals, and the captive keeping sometimes results in lots of learning that can be used to keep populations of animals safe and wild. Learning how to captive breed certain types of salamanders could save species from extinction.

You've got a point, but the purpose of this website is to help people provide adequate care and enclosures for animals, so that we can enjoy and learn from these creatures. Not at the expense of the animal; because most of us truely love the creatures we care for, but in many cases, the animal benefits much more than it would in the wild.

If you've got something to be angry or upset about, I'd go after the people that wild-catch huge numbers of animals to make a profit, seeing as how they kill many animals, disrupt natural ecosystems, and don't care for the well-being of those collected. However, many types of salamanders are now commonly bred in captivity, shutting these people down slowly and releasing pressure on wild populations. Some species are even being captive bred that weren't before due to efforts of members of this forum.

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.

paris
6th August 2004, 00:30
sally-
you must realize this far in life that if you stand up and express your opinion -especially when that opinion comes across to others as accusatory/condeming- then you MUST be willing to accept the rebuttal -that is only fair. 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....

when you came to this site you probably came through the main page -if you note there is this 'mission statement' on the main page:
"Caudata.org's mission has been to facilitate the sharing of accurate information about newts and salamanders, with an emphasis on their maintenance in captivity."

so to stand up and express your condemnation of hobbyists as 'selfish' is itself a selfish act -you should know that your statement is viewed as an attack upon those of us who keep them. if you really didnt intend for your statement to appear so -then realize it did, perhaps a little more diplomacy in your speech would go a long way in paving over the tension. the title 'like?' also seems accusatory in a sort of purile valley girl way -this section is designated for help topics - it should have been presented in the 'general' section.

i have however answered your questions, and your misquote of "humans used to be wild" is incorrect. i am supposing that by that point of view you are not an evolutionist-no matter (i DO however believe humans used to be wild) - there is no denial that we are animals too- we perform many of the exact functions right down to the molecular level.

your point of view about going out to nature -as i tried to point out above-is a privledged one. there are many who cannot interact with nature -whether it be because they are confined to wheel chairs or just the trappings of urban life.i currently work with someone who has been confined to a wheel chair his whole life -he is in his 40's now-since wheelchair access to public wildlife areas is a modern (and still limited) invention his interaction with nature is severely limited (and probably somewhat threatening) he has no love for these animals (he calls them disgusting) and since he is a voter i doubt he will ever take their side when they would need his vote. since we feel the connection to nature it is expected that we would thus want to bring nature back into our lives. to keep them in cages is to keep them safe -unlike dogs and cats they cannot be underfoot. this you see as a bad thing but think on this: what would be the fate of the animals and environment if we did not love them so much? if we didnt get exposure to such enjoyment/enrichment in our lives then how many do you think would give to nature charities that preserve what remains wild? (both land and animals) i know many who profess to hate 'slimy ' things yet after i give talks to their kids (and them too since they came along) they see these creatures through different eyes. many many people would consider these animals inconsequential - but once they meet them or once their kids bring one home they learn to love them(...usually), people will not vote to protect foreign things -its alot like foreign exchange students -exposure is supposed to promote understanding and well being.(although these animals are admittibly not consulted)

you missed my point about plants -they are also "wild" (but probably also captive bred) -to keep them indoors or isolated from others of their kind is to stop them fulfilling their main function -to breed. we keep them for our own enjoyment - yes a selfish act - but how many non pet, non plant people would ever vote to preserve wetlands? how many would care if the local plant they work for dumped more chemicals than their limit into the local lake? there are still many who see 'preservation' as contrary to their job security - would these people feel the same if they knew these animals first hand? it is true some preservation is also a selfish act -since it is often fishermen/hunters who want to preserve wildlife because it serves them.

since you express your opinion i am expressing mine - it is better to promote the cause of animals by selfish personal education than by casual learning of them in books. (salamanders to me 10 years ago use to be just a word in a book -i never met one till i was 15 and i was condemned for picking the disgusting poisionous thing up -now i keep 50+ tanks full and breed them and often have people drop by to learn about them and ask lots of questions) almost everything humans do is a selfish act -even altruism is a form of that since it is expected that if we do well for others they may return the favour someday.

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 dont see how you can find this idea foreign that if one cannot access the wilds that they would want to import it. there are a lot of people who cannot see nature in the wild - many many people dont even have back yards (me for one)- and many people are limited in their access to true nature.

we live in an ever increasing urban sprawl, it is easy for me to understand why the hobby of terrarium keeping is much higher in europe -as they are living in higher urban areas -they desire more what they cannot have. it is a possibility that some caudates kept as pets someday may be the only representatives on the planet as their natural environment disappears or is destroyed.

do not believe that any of our hands are clean -even yours - you probably travel by car on roads that fracture native habitats and migratory pathways, the house you live in may have been built on native breeding grounds, the fuel used to transport your breakfast cereal to the grocery store probably contains MTBE -a fuel additive that is very bad for aquatic systems as it can pollute a very large area even with just a teaspoon full. the water you use to bathe with is drawn from aquifers or redirected from rivers and is thus taken out of the natural flow -sure it is returned but in a deficit and not in as healthy a condition.

again consider the alternative -if people didnt keep animals as pets to learn the value of how nature enriches us- where would we be? (not all people see it this way too - some feel threatened by nature)

dot
6th August 2004, 01:48
Paris -
That was very well said and I applaud you. *applaud*

joseph
6th August 2004, 01:59
I agree wholeheartedly with Paris's main point.


I have no idea who I am quoting(therefore this quote may be a bit off), but I remember this line quite a bit, it was said in reference to wildlife...

"You cannot love something you don't understand."

The reason I came to love the small animals is because I got to know them in a sense. I still remember when I was three I caught a cupful of Milkweed bugs and observed them crawling over my hand. I also remember the first time I saw a cricket chirp, the fish toad call I heard and saw, the first tadpoles I raised which grew legs, arms, and the transformed into a frog right in front of my eyes. These are the things that get kids to love and understand nature.

What happens when you take them away? You can well see that in todays age.

sally
6th August 2004, 07:47
"sally-
you must realize this far in life that if you stand up and express your opinion -especially when that opinion comes across to others as accusatory/condeming- then you MUST be willing to accept the rebuttal -that is only fair. 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...."

And you're saying that's so with me? I'm willing to get your point-of-view, that's why my initial post was a question.

"when you came to this site you probably came through the main page -if you note there is this 'mission statement' on the main page:
"Caudata.org's mission has been to facilitate the sharing of accurate information about newts and salamanders, with an emphasis on their maintenance in captivity.""

I came to this site through Google directly to the forum, i read several posts of people talking about collecting salamanders from the wild and putting them in aquariums and it saddened me. But i in no way think that everyone that posts here has bad intent.

"so to stand up and express your condemnation of hobbyists as 'selfish' is itself a selfish act -you should know that your statement is viewed as an attack upon those of us who keep them. if you really didnt intend for your statement to appear so -then realize it did"

If you feel you're being attacked or if you're offended, it's because you allow yourself to be.

"perhaps a little more diplomacy in your speech would go a long way in paving over the tension."

What tension? And i hope you realize that your reply to me sounds rather sarcastic. Is it intented to be?

"the title 'like?' also seems accusatory in a sort of purile valley girl way -this section is designated for help topics - it should have been presented in the 'general' section."

I'm sorry for the topic, i needed a title, i had a question, and a lot of people use the word "like" when asking a question, so it popped into my head. As far as the proper placement of my post goes; i was asking about salamanders in paticular and only had a couple of minutes of computer time, so i didn't have time to read through every section and find where exactly i should post. I figured; i have a question concerning salamanders and this the newt and salamander help topic, so that's why i posted here.

"i have however answered your questions, and your misquote of "humans used to be wild" is incorrect. i am supposing that by that point of view you are not an evolutionist-no matter (i DO however believe humans used to be wild)"

We both have our own opinions. You believe humans evolved from apes, i'm guessing, and that we are getting stronger in our species(which is what evolution is based on). I believe we have always been human and are DEvolving, getting weaker in our species. You believe animals should be kept captive, and in most cases, i don't. My opinion does not make me incorrect, nor does it make me correct. And since when is an opinion and accusation?

" - there is no denial that we are animals too- we perform many of the exact functions right down to the molecular level."

No there is no denial of that, but that does not mean that we were at one time apes. There are still primitive people living in the wild in the sense that they depend completely on nature like an animal, i myself am a lot like that; but animals act mostly by instinct and humans act mostly by intillect.

"you missed my point about plants -they are also "wild" (but probably also captive bred) -to keep them indoors or isolated from others of their kind is to stop them fulfilling their main function -to breed."

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.

"almost everything humans do is a selfish act-even altruism is a form of that since it is expected that if we do well for others they may return the favour someday."

That term is a bit generalized. Almost everything MOST humans do is selfish, yes...you're right...the world is very corrupted. If it wasn't, our beautiful forests and the creatures living within wouldn't be in harms way.}

"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"

Aren't most people just born inquisitive of nature. Most children love animals, that is why they go out into the woods and search for them. That is why they want pets. As a kid i wanted every kind of animal. But to see them caged up always made me sad, so i would let them raom free. Nature took it's course and killed a lot of them, of course, so i figured, ideally, it's best that i have no pets and just observe them from their natural habitats. I have never gained an interest by seeing animals in coptivity, though...especially zoos. Most zoos are only a prison for animals - that is my opinion.

"i dont see how you can find this idea foreign that if one cannot access the wilds that they would want to import it."

I don't find the idea foreign at all, i love being around animals, but there are humane ways of going about it, ideally keeping them in a like-environment. And, again, i'm not saying you're inhumane.

"there are a lot of people who cannot see nature in the wild - many many people dont even have back yards (me for one)- and many people are limited in their access to true nature."

Yes, and i am limited, too...all i have curently are memories. I wish looking into a terrarium satisfied my desire to be one with nature, but it doesn't. Is it any wonder i'm saddened? Are you not saddened by this, too?

"we live in an ever increasing urban sprawl, it is easy for me to understand why the hobby of terrarium keeping is much higher in europe -as they are living in higher urban areas -they desire more what they cannot have. it is a possibility that some caudates kept as pets someday may be the only representatives on the planet as their natural environment disappears or is destroyed."

This is the same with humans, though, as i've said. We need nature to survive just as much as nature needs us. You may see this satement as a contradiction, but it was actually my main point. I don't believe captivity is the answer. Obviously, we've led ourselves into captivity and it didn't work. People long for nature. Why not get out of the cities and go back to nature instead of bringing nature to us in artificial ways.....before it's too late. And God bless those of you who do. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif

"do not believe that any of our hands are clean -even yours - you probably travel by car on roads that fracture native habitats and migratory pathways, the house you live in may have been built on native breeding grounds, the fuel used to transport your breakfast cereal to the grocery store probably contains MTBE -a fuel additive that is very bad for aquatic systems as it can pollute a very large area even with just a teaspoon full. the water you use to bathe with is drawn from aquifers or redirected from rivers and is thus taken out of the natural flow -sure it is returned but in a deficit and not in as healthy a condition."

I don't think my hands are clean, but i do the best i can. I actually don't drive myself, i'm against cars as well and anything that pollutes the environment. When i buy food, i buy organic whenever possible. I apply this to every aspect of my life, it's not just about taking animals out of their natural habitats and confining them to small cages (which a lot of you don't do - i realize), i am concerned about life as a whole and i don't think of anything individually.

"again consider the alternative -if people didnt keep animals as pets to learn the value of how nature enriches us- where would we be? (not all people see it this way too - some feel threatened by nature)"

You will not be able to convince those who are threatened by nature or that care nothing about it just as i cannot convince you and you cannot convince me.

This is my opinion, i'm not condeming anyone, my main point WAS to get your point-of-view, i got it; you can't change my mind, i can't change yours, and please don't be offended by me....it's a little silly to be offended by a complete stranger. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif

dot
6th August 2004, 08:53
I read that post over several times and still, I'm not quite sure I'm believing everything that was just placed before me.

You claim to be an advocate for "life as a whole," but you've said that you've watched numerous pets die when you've let them "roam free." In my opinion, that makes you an irresponsible pet owner. As much as you claimed to care for these creatures, it doesn't seem like much "caring" was taking place. The primary objective to owning pets is to allow them to live a comfortable life they would not have in the wild. It comes across to me that though you enjoyed watching them in what you presumed to be their natural habitat, (ie: removing them from one place and putting them in another foreign environment,) you were more concerned with their so-called "freedom" than you were with their well-being and survival. You say "nature" killed a lot of them, but if you removed them from their original home, or even purchased them at a pet store, I'm inclined to think that nature wasn't 100% to blame for the casualties. It was stated before that releasing pets is illegal and threatening to the environment, not to mention overwhelmingly stressful to the animal. (IE: 11 parrots die for every 1 parrot found in the pet trade.)

I am aware you'll counter my previous statement with a schpiel about how it's "The Circle of Life," but how "natural" is it when an animal, already probably suffering great stress from its inital removal, is placed into another, supposedly more natural environment that is completely foreign to it? It'd be like if someone kidnapped you and then tossed you in the middle of a forest. Before you even knew what was happening, you'd be in an unfamiliar place with many strange and scary sounds.

If we can't change your mind at all, why are you even bothering to get our opinions? Clearly nothing we're saying has made you less militant that you think that owning pets is wrong. It's nice that you realize that we don't keep our animals in shot glasses on the mantle, but you're still condemning us for owning them, regardless of what lengths we've gone through to maintain the health and well-being. We've all made sacrifices in order to maintain the survival of these creatures, big and small.

Also, you clearly are opposed to zoos and zoological parks. You do realize that if it weren't for such places, there'd be no conservation attempts to save Giant Pandas, right? Here's a non-caudate example: The Pere David Deer. Up until recently, that species of deer was only alive in zoos. Through breeding programs at those zoos, those animals are now starting to be re-released into their natural habitats. Had it not been for the educational programs and the breeding programs, there would be one less species of animal on this planet. This same principle goes for numerous other "non-cuddly" animals, as well. If it weren't for zoos and other educational research facilities, who knows how many other animals would no longer be here for us to care about? And to bring this back to caudates - axolotls. Endangered in their native Mexico, but thriving in the research/pet trade due to captive breeding. If we didn't have breeding programs, no more axolotls.

"Go back to nature instead of bringing nature to us in artificial ways"

By the time you've finished reading this, at least 20 acres of rainforest will have been decimated. The hole in the ozone layer is practically the size of Asia. Animals are being flushed out of their natural habitats. Oil spills and overfishing are irreparably damaging our oceans.

Where do you expect us to "go back to nature"? It's already too late. The minority are the ones who are trying to bring back the populations of flora and fauna that we arrogantly took for granted so many years ago, and I commend them for actively breeding and educating people of what we've done and what we continue to do to harm our environment.

Thinking that we would not be able to convinced people who are threatened by nature/do not care, is a rather negative outlook. You haven't really given any argument to convince anyone that keeping an animal in captivity is wrong, aside from your basic view that it's "mean," so clearly we're not going to just up and say, "Oh, I see! I'm sorry for giving you a roof over your head, the best and most nutritional foods, unconditional love and for waiting on you hand and foot, Kitty. Go be free!"

Sure, we may not be able to 100% convince people who don't want to be convinced, and it seems like you don't, but as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

The water's in front of you.

ira
6th August 2004, 12:27
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.


ok firstly, how do you know that plants dont feel? Plants, on a genetic and physiological level are so differnt from vertebre animals that we have absoutly no means to tell if they communicate or feel as we do, and it is basic human arrogance that dictates that if a creature dosnt perceive the world exactly as we do then it is a lesser creature and cant possibly be on the same level as us. Let me ask you this, If we are still unable able to understand and communicate with dolphins and whales (which obviously have a very complex mode of verbal communication, just like humans) how can ever expect ourselves to comprehend the level on which plants may exist? Its easier to just lable them as unintelligent beings and forget about them.

You say that plants and other "non emotional" life exists for the soul purpose of feeding us. While, yes, we derive a large portion of our sustince from plants, do not think for one second that the plants are not benifiting from our consumtion of them. Many plants sorround their seeds with delicious tissues so that animals will consume the tissues and then discard the seeds, which allows the species to propigate itself and spread to new territories with a minium of energy expenditure. Complex interation with non-sentient life forms is extremely common in the plant world, from orchids which mimic and rely on speific species of insects to pollinate them, to oak trees, which produce 100's of acorns every year which are buried by small rodents like squirrels and chipmunks as a food source during the winter months, with the idea that not all of the acorns will be dug up and consumed, allowing a small portion of the seeds to sprout.


The point i am trying to make is to not look at the world in such black and white terms. Plants are extremely complex creatures that way to many people take for granted as just a source of food and wood. Just because they dont percieve the world in the same way you and i do, dosnt make them any less important or less viable than you.

edward
6th August 2004, 16:07
Lets see,
If I remember a statistic correctly from a USGS study, in one study site in the Mid-Atlantic USA, paving/building on less than 10% of a watershed resulted in the immediate loss of 7 species of amphibian (this was from a conversation at the PARC conference in PA a few years ago).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however the pet trade is a small impact when compared to development of any type (there are some exceptions such as red backs which adapt well to change). I would suggest that a better method for preserving animals in the wild would be to support a conservation group that preserves and pays for continued protection of habitat rather than rescueing animals from captivity. This will potentially be the best and longest lasting potentially survivial chance of many animals.

Killed by nature is a rationalization as this could be used to define just about every cause of death to make it sound more palatable to the listener. Oh why did he die, his heart stopped, killed by nature (this can be used for every disruption of the organic pathways of life). It doesn't matter if the cause of death was due to a bullet, heart attack or tumor. He died because his heart could not continue to beat, he was killed by nature.

Your impact by not driving is offset by the the fact that the goods you purchase are all driven from one location to another including your organic foods. This has a strong impact on the enviroment.

Just some comments.

Ed

paris
6th August 2004, 16:51
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. he doesnt stop his small children from manhandling the cats and dogs -when one cat did turn on my niece and bit her so hard she needed stitches and botox shots (and it was not that cuddly a kitten to begin with) he wanted to shoot it. he is one of those who do not care for this world or its non human inhabitants because he is promised another.(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)

i have a co coworker who does point out that worms must not feel pain as we do since they have ganglia and not nerves -but still when i cut them with a razor they dont seem happy! -it causes them some distress.

as a child i was very much into parapsychology (it still facinates me today but my time is limited) there used to be many studies done on plants -one was this phenomenon that if you took 'aural' photographs of a plant leaf you could see its 'life force' (im not sure exactly what the film is sensitive to) if you then took the leaf and cut a section out and reshot the photo -you would see the whole leaf in the 'aural' photo-with a shift in colours. it was also proven back in the 70-80's that plants feel stress (again not sure how they measured this) -so when they were cut they expressed this in some measurable way. they pointed out though that stress is necessary in all our lives (ie-good stress vs. bad stress) and a plant that isnt pruned/grazed on grows slower and not as robust.

sally
6th August 2004, 19:35
"You claim to be an advocate for "life as a whole," but you've said that you've watched numerous pets die when you've let them "roam free." In my opinion, that makes you an irresponsible pet owner."

I was a small child, so, yes, i was irresponsible. Most small children are. And i didn't buy the animals, they were given to me. They were going to go to the pound, i took them in. I would not let them roam free now. As i've said, i realized soon after that it was wrong.

"Your impact by not driving is offset by the the fact that the goods you purchase are all driven from one location to another including your organic foods. This has a strong impact on the enviroment."

I do realize this, that is why i believe in buying from local farmers. Not only do you support the environment, but you're supporting the economy by supporting small, ethical businesses. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif That's not to say that i always do what's best..i do what i can, and that's the best you, me and anyone can do.

Paris, your argument that plants feel pain and have emotions could also be applied to hair, skin and nails or any microorganism...we're completely made up of microorganisms which make us into a whole. Our hair reacts to the environment. Put chemicals on it, rip it, ect. and your hair is going to show physical signs of stress, yet, our hair is part of us and we don't feel it. Hurt any part of our bodies and they will react as if a thinking being with possible emotions, but if we're asleep, we do not feel the pain, or if our organs are removed from our bodies, they can remain alive, but without the intricate wiring of our brains, they do not feel pain, nor do we feel them once they are removed, or if the sensory area of the brain is some-how disturbed - whether it be through removal, pain-killers, behavioral modification, scar tissue, ect. Embryos are a good example. Embryos are the beginning of human life, yet, do they have emotions? Plants have to react to environment, they are living creatures and to not react would mean to be dead, just like us. That does not, however mean they have emotions. Plants do know when they are being hurt, they have to know in order to adapt and survive. Microorganisms are the substance of life, without them nothing would be here, but they must work together to create anything...but does this mean that they must also have emotions? To feel is one thing, to be able to process that physical feeling through emotion is another.

And since this argument is no longer about the caging of wild and highly emotional creatures that live 20+ years, i think this will be it for me...thank you for your feedback. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif

drew
6th August 2004, 21:05
I had an axolotl once...

It tasted a lot like eel.

joseph
6th August 2004, 22:30
I find it interesting that you havent commented on Dot Stastny's post. Very well said. You wanted points on how captivity can benefit some animals/ There you go.

As for going back to nature to observe the animals nearly 24/7...you can learn far more about animals in captivity. You would probably have to spend a long time away from civilization and observe the animals in order to, say, observe there breeding behavior in the wild(unless you are a scientist, that is unlikely to happen). In captivity, with the animals close by at all times, you can observe all their behavior close up and firsthand. Some creatures may live very deep, be nocturnal or cavedwelling, or live in very silted water-making observation almost impossible. In captivity, with the help of a red light, such secretive animals can be observed. And surely no one would be able to observe mate selection or genetics in the wild. Neither would you be able to write a complete lifecycle for many animals. Admittingly, some behaviors in the wild cannot be duplicated in captivity(therefore making field study neccesary for scientists studying about that), but that is more than made up for by close up and controlled environs.


My $0.25

(Message edited by fishkeeper on August 06, 2004)

paris
7th August 2004, 11:28
where did i say plants feel pain - much less feel emotions? hair and nails are dead - these are not valid parallels. i m not one to re argue points, but dont put words i never "spoke" into my mouth.

...can anyone guess whos mother used to be on the high schools debate team?? (until she got kicked out of school for being pregnant?)

edward
7th August 2004, 12:30
This thread is germane to the discussion of caudates and captivity, but it may be a subtle connection. And despite it having the appearence of being started by a troll, I will elaborate on some of my points.

Except that the local farmers use equipment that impacts the enviroment as much as driving, as fuel, lubricants, and spare parts have to be shipped in to fix the equipment. Creation of farmland as well as urbanization is one of the big factors driving many species into extinction (box turtles are a good noncaudate animal). The food was just the tip of the iceberg and the most easily defended on the points as it is easy to say you purchase locally produced foods but the larger impact comes from nonfood goods. These are often produced overseas, shipped to the country for distribution, and are then trucked to the distributer, then trucked to the retailer requiring more paving of watersheds and the loss of more animals. (For example the origin of the computers that everyone is using to read and type on this thread).
Many people do not consider the impact of the convience of having mail delivered. Once again more roads....
Supporting of organic farms is important but the overall beneficial effect is very small when compared to habitat destruction. Where it has a larger impact is in prevention of contamination of items with pesticides and herbicides (although this is a moot point with atrazine). However it has to be remembered that this doesn't do the animal any good if there isn't any place left for it to live.

Off to buy some feeder rodents for my animals that can potentially live 40 years in captivity so if necessary I will have to respond some more later.

Ed

hayden
7th August 2004, 16:46
Sally,
As most people here keep captive born/bred newts it is not right for them to release an animal that has never been in the wild into the wild...If they are born and fed in captivity they would not know how to hunt...

al
7th August 2004, 16:59
Wow....I thought "granola yuppies" were only in Chapel Hill, NC!http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/smile6.gif
On a serious note, since I missed this thread, I applaud all those that answered. It's amazing to me how we can personify animals/plants with emotions as "happy" or "sad". I'm all for keeping living things in a healthy state and am the first in my house to be "bummed" when one of my many house plants is not doing well.
Some of the powerful themes to this thread:
*protecting environment from urban sprawl
*educating the public on nature and our impact on(takes research, books, and yes, zoos)
*captive breeding, because we all know the first two issues will eventually fail
*Release programs could be the only means of salvaging some species (Red wolf program at Kill Devil Hills NC)

All in all, I've considered this "organic" way of life...It made me no more healthy, but ate a hole in my pocket! Many folks are making a bundle from this and the ironic thing about it, what impact did we really make? The only way in my mind to be a "purist" with this issue, is to leave civilization completely and become a Homesteader!
Al (who's not quitting his job, or selling his house any time soon, but he does recycle!)http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/biggrin.gif

sally
7th August 2004, 17:37
And i'm judgmental, you say?

--------------------------------------

Hayden, i was not suggesting that people let the animals that have been bred into captivity loose in the woods, i said it saddened me to see -some- people on this forum talking about capturing wild salamanders and then coming on here to get some pointers as to how to keep them alive. That seems to do no good for the species at all. I commented that it made me sad to see them locked up in small cages and some others started debating with me because their conscience kicked in, i guess. Are you trying to change the fact that i feel very depressed when seeing them behind the glass walls of a rather small container??? Keeping these creatures as pets may make some happy, but it doesn't make everyone happy...i *personally* would rather see them in their natural environments, but that is MY OWN personal preference. I'm sorry if this offend any of you.

hayden
7th August 2004, 18:02
I personally have caught and kept wild Tigers that would have been killed when they were found in my garage...My cats would have completely ripped them apart...you may think it is the circle of life but it is still not pretty.

edward
7th August 2004, 23:04
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.
This is probably the main requirement for communication and if this is typically a response of a guilty conscience then there are a lot of guilty conciences in the world.

One of the main points that is misunderstood about the biology of most caudates is that thier 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.

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. If people are keeping species for 20 plus years in some cases then the animals needs are more than being met as this lifespan would otherwise not be attainable.
(For an excellant discussion on this topic as it pertains to reptiles I refer you to Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles, 1995, Chapman and Hall)

Ed

edward
7th August 2004, 23:05
By the way most species of caudates are not endangered. Yes some of us do set up suitable habitat in our yards.

Ed

ira
8th August 2004, 02:09
Paris-

I know way to many people with the exact outlook that you described. The fact so many people feel this is why is probally one of the leading reasons why are world is being so activly destroyed

dot
8th August 2004, 05:04
"I commented that it made me sad to see them locked up in small cages and some others started debating with me because their conscience kicked in, i guess."

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. 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,) with a holier-than-thou attitude. 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.)

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 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.

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?

You say you're also doing the best you can do, but what exactly is that? You don't drive or apparently eat non-organic foods. I'm sure you recycle. You don't own pets because that apparently supports captivity and captivity makes you sad. Do you donate to any conservation funds? If you do donate money to foundations like the World Wildlife Fund, or the Ocean Conservancy, you're indirectly supporting "prisons for animals", as those groups do support the use of zoological parks to conserve wildlife.

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'd also like to hear the rebuttals from the members of this forum who work in zoos.}

joseph
8th August 2004, 20:36
I think this topic is done. We expressed our positive views, and they weren't taking.

Trolling...but not for fish.

edward
8th August 2004, 23:57
Hi Dot,
One of the current problems in Zoos today is the issue of sterotypical behavior (pacing the same route over and over again is an example, feather plucking is another). This is an animal welfare problem that is often cited as an example of poor care in a Zoo, insufficient space, expression of stress.....
The problem with this argument is that this group of behaviors as an indicator of a problem was only initially recognized in the mid to late 1980s with the serious research on it beginning in the 1990s. Once the animal has developed the habit, it is very difficult to cause the behavior to go away even if the stress is resolved as the animal has developed a ritual. As many of the animals that exhibit these behaviors can easily live for more than 20 years, these behaviors are still often seen in many Zoos. This however does not help the image of Zoos as the animals with these negative behaviors are still maintained perpetuating the image that these animals are unhappy. However with the recognition that this is a problem Zoos and the keepers spend a significant amount of time working with behavioral enrichment and other programs to alleviate "boredom" and stress and to meet the needs of the animals more fully. As Zoos continue to further understand the needs of the animals these behaviors should become a vanishing problem.

Ed

dot
9th August 2004, 02:20
Ed -
That makes a lot of sense, but it's unfortunate that there's still a certain stigmata that is attributed to zoos due to stress-related behaviors. (And thanks for the quick response - coincidentally I needed this exact information for a paper I'm writing for my summer ethics class.)

hayden
9th August 2004, 03:06
Our "conseince" Kicked in...Yes thats it we didnt care for caudates until now we are so glad you pointed that out now we will all love and cherish them...*rolls eyes*

sally
9th August 2004, 10:04
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. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/rofl.gif 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

al
9th August 2004, 15:21
Sally,
If you are really sad over the husbandry of caudates, go do something that will make you happy. Why bother going into a discertation of the ethics of captive care of animals, when your mind is made up. There are probably more we agree on, than disagree.
It was brought up prior, the mission statement of this site. Read it and move on. We are educated adults (most of us are adults), and can further research this issue and come to our own convictions. Thank you for your opinions, but it time to move on to a different topic.
Is there anything you want to know about natural history of a particular caudate? BTW, the zoo keepers I know have degrees and do much research in animal behavior in the wild (another inaccurate judgement on your part.) Do you have any questions concerning the natural history of the red spotted newt? Some of us here have worked with them for 20+ years and could tell you many stories of their behavior in the wild and how intricately they are connected to many other species and their environment.
If you have nothing to contribute to the purpose of this site, then I'm sad. It makes me sad how some one can come on a site like this, that has given so much knowledge and time to caudates, and not learn anything new about them. I'm sad that there might be one new bit of information about the Red Spotted Newt natural history, that you actually did not know about, and maybe failed to ask, since you felt it most necessary to talk about your personal feelings and opinions about the ethics of captivity and caudates.
Sally, it is not necessary to write lengthy responses defending your words and pretending you did not mean any ill feelings. It is even more offensive when you project this back on those that were offended and take no responsibility.
The way you take my post will indeed expose your true intentions and really see if you are sincere or just another TROLL.
Al

dot
9th August 2004, 16:23
The links posted depressed me. Why? Sure, they promoted the closure of facilities where conditions were poor, but they were also promoting the closure of other facilities, as well as being against the building of new zoos and parks. Militant groups like those, as well as PETA, make me worried. Why? Because as much as you want to believe you're making a difference, in the grand scheme of things, you're not really doing much "good." And as much as it pains me to say this, I consider myself a realist about these things.

Whales are still being slaughtered for the oil trade in Asia. The rainforest is still being cut down for paper and wood products. The world's coral reefs are being blown up for souvenirs. As much as you try to fight, the raping of these resources is still going to happen. Just because you try to do something in one country, when the rest of the world won't listen, the fight becomes futile.

And if people keep destroying the environment, where are these animals going to go? If you let them stay in the wild and we keep destroying their environments, all those wonderful species, some of which haven't even been named yet, go the way of the Dodo. Why not put them in conservation programs, where not only they can receive care that they wouldn't get in the wild, and we can learn more about them in order to make more attempts at preserving them?

The groups that run those afforementioned sites mean well, but by stopping the building of educational conservation facilities, they're denying people, like you and me, the chance to educate themselves about these animals. And as Paris was saying, with the building of bigger and denser cities, some people may not get the opportunity to see wildlife at all without zoos and other educational facilities.

I'm glad you're content with not seeing animals outside the range of your home. Some of us aren't, myself included. My parents have been taking me to zoos since before I can even remember and although I'm in my early twenties now, I still enjoy walking through a zoological park and seeing animals I know I'd never be able to see otherwise, many of which I wouldn't have even known about had it not been for the zoo. When I go there, I want to soak up every bit of information I can about these animals and heighten my awareness of man's impact on their habitat.

And please understand that though it may not have been your intent to offend, irritate or annoy those of us here, it's how you come across, and I'm not the only one who's said something about that, so it's not just me being oversensative. Even the way you started this thread had an air of passive-aggressiveness to it, and though you may not have intended it to be that way, it's how you presented it that made us feel we needed to comment as strongly as we did. And you can take this as accusatory as you wish, but I just wanted to let you know that it's how you were interpreted.

If your question was to ask about outdoor enclosures, then you should have just asked about outdoor enclosures, as it would have been clear that you were going to start a debate with your passive attack at our keeping animal companions.

paris
9th August 2004, 18:12
sally-
you seem very good at quoting my exact words and then posting a response that is non related- the thing about my mom was a semi-joke to point out that i do have debating skills taught to me by a person who is trained in such matters -i dont just ARGUE...and in fact - just like the bit about the plants and parapsychology - they werent ment for you OR AGAINST YOU, they were comments made to the other readers.- I CANNOT SEE HOW THOSE 2 STATEMENTS ARE ACCUSATORY,...the part about my brother in law and the "sharing" perhaps are -but w/o posting the comment about sharing alot of people get upset when someone doesnt take their side, you are not the first in this category, i wonder what your responses would have been if i hadnt pointed it out- its a way of pointing out a GENERAL comment about human nature to REMIND those who give opinions that others also have valid and different opinions. that comment was not INTENDED to be accusatory - and this thread is not all just about you -there are many others who read it and id also like for them to know my point on that. the threads here dont get erased, so it is also for future readers. unlike you, i do have a permanent identification here with my real name attached (not just a first one like some) -people know exactly who i am (some of us have even met in person) and i want them to know my point of view and why i believe it.

i still dont get this...
"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)" -sally

PLEASE point out where anyone but you said plants had emotions? in order to take your position of arguing that they dont have emotions someone must have said/implied they did. i did neither and i am wondering where this came from? the word i used was 'stress'-not pain, feel or emotion- and i commented that the measurement of such condition was left up to others (presumably more educated) who conducted the experiments. though a biologist-i am not familiar beyond the basics in plants - i cannot hold an EDUCATED opinion as to what plants sense other than light.

i would ask for the opinions of the other readers - did i even imply these things? i think that i am carefully choosing exact words that would leave no one in doubt as to what i mean and yet i am being accused of saying/implying things i didnt intend. are my writing/communication skills that bad and in need of adjustment?

dot
9th August 2004, 18:44
Paris -

Nothing you've stated previously implied anything other than you meant. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that "Sally" is only choosing to really read into what she wants to read into, as opposed to at least saying, "I see where you're coming from, but ..." I also think you've made very valid points, but s/he is trying to play the part of the martyr by trying to make you look like the bad guy.


Sally -

You keep saying that there's no way you can fully express your opinion, but no one here is suppressing you from doing so. Through this debate, we've all been trying to get you to explain your full opinion, but instead, you've been on the defensive, which makes trying to understand your viewpoint increasingly frustrating. We've been wide open with our viewpoints, why can't you be with yours?

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.

It wouldn't have been brought up if we didn't want to hear your opinion. (Hence, my previously stating that you've yet to back up any of your "opinions" with facts as to why.) You're writing us off as uncaring and fascist, when you've yet to express exactly what you're trying to say. How are we supposed to understand what you're trying to say if you're not expressing your opinions? How can there be "no way" of conveying your true opinion when we've all been more than patient and eager to hear your side?}

joseph
9th August 2004, 20:24
I too don't quite understand the cause you are for...

If you are against keeping animals in ~less than optimum conditions or not meeting all there husbandry requirements~ than we too are against that and this is why this website is here, to educate people on proper care in captivity.


You mention that the animals in the zoo were not acting natural because they were sleeping. That is perfectly natural. Many animals, like, say, lions, are often more active at night, snoozing for a good portion of the day. You probably know already...but when you see a lion chasing a herd of impala on the savanna at night...there is a photographer running with them. When you see a bird hatching you don't see the photographer who has sat for hours-days...waiting for it to hatch. While I admit it is a bit dissapointing when the animals are snoozing, that is natural behavior you described. I would be far more concerned about a captive animal that walks around all day then one who spends some time inactive. Most caudates or quite inactive for the most part too. I'm sure that not all kids have the chance to go see animals in the wild. Maybe they will later, but the films serve in perking interest in the animals, as does captivity(among many other things). The zookeepers themselves suggest-instead of racing through to see all the animals, to stop and observe one of them for about 5 minutes or so, and then guess what it will do next(simple way to say behavioral study).

If you are against keeping animals in captivity, we have listed many valid points(some which were really good and you didn't respond to them).

(Message edited by fishkeeper on August 09, 2004)

(Message edited by fishkeeper on August 09, 2004)

kaysie
9th August 2004, 20:49
"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."
Two Points here: how about captive bred caudates that try to escape? In fact, I have captive bred Triturus, one escaped (and was found). But I have wildcaught Ambystomatids which are more than happy to hang out in their tank. That doesnt make much sense if I follow your logic.
Point two: do you realize that a vast majority of caudates are non-social animals and DON'T socialize with other caudates except for during breeding season? In fact, most are terretorial to a degree and will fend off invading caudates. So hey, lets just throw a bunch together!

"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..."

I can speak for pretty much everyone here when I say live food is best. It doesn't get any fresher than alive. In fact, I feed my animals a variety of worms and creepy crawlies, to keep their diet balanced.

So nature provides the best environment? Explain that to all the eggs and larvae that die when the vernal ponds dry up. Or when the temperatures soar to 110F and everything roasts. Caudates aren't very capable of controlling their environment in the wild any more than we are at controlling 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."

I don't use nutritional suppliments because with a balanced diet, they're not needed. And I'll tell my axolotls that they don't really enjoy what they eat when they scarf down their nightcrawlers tonight.

You should probably climb down off your soap box.

We know your opinion, and you know ours. There's no point in continuing to whine about animals in cages. It happens all over the world, and in a lot of cases (ESPECIALLY here), the animals are MUCH better off in their cages. My Axolotls are much better off in their tank, fat and happy, growing like weeds, than their wild counterparts-struggling through polluted and silty waters, fighting fish for food and avoiding becoming food.

joseph
9th August 2004, 21:00
Also note that they CAN control moisture and temp in captivity....we let them. The tylotriton often prefer to live drier than we expect, so those who keep them often keep one side more damp, and that creates a moisture gradient. No different from burrowing and following tunnels made by roots to escape the trying conditions that nature unleashes.

For your variety arguement, while that may work for some species, doesn't apply to many amphibians-70-90percent of the diet often consist of one or several food items. Many salamanders eat lots of earthworms in the wild-easily duplicated in captivity.


For you"animals are better off in the wild" I dunno if that refers to them individually or as a species. As a species, MOST of the time they are better off in the wild, but keeping a few in captivity as representatives(and note that many photos and videos are taken in enclosures). Sometimes, as with the axolotl, when the habitat has been altered and destroyed, captivity can save a species from extinction. Surely you can not argue what captivity did for the Arabian Oryx, hunted to extinction in the wild, but breeding programs were established in captivity which allowed zoos to eventually reintroduce animals into the wild.

If this sounds a little mixed up as far as order of points, I apologize.

(Message edited by fishkeeper on August 09, 2004)

edward
10th August 2004, 00:41
I have either posted your comment only or with the quote you cited from me with the relevant parts of your comment. So it is a long post people.

snip "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."

This is an interesting statement, I'm not sure how domestication affected the wild canid and felid populations as most of these were not part of the domestication process. Most of the small canids are foxes and jackles are not part of the genus Canis. The members of this genus are not small and some are even doing better now than historically (Coyotes for example). Most of the wild small felids are nondomesticatable and are endangered because of habitat destruction.

snip "Their genetics have been so tampered with that many of these animals have developed genetic deformities."

Please define genetic deformities. Please explain what you mean by tampered with.. I am not aware of any corroborating evidence other than some of the animal rights groups citations involving breeding for specific traits. If you are refering to problems like deafness, hip dysplasia and other similar issues then this is more the result of improper screening and breeding and bringing lost breeds back from extinction than anything else. If you are referring to true species in their natural habitat I would be interested in seeing some references in peer reviewed publications.

snip ""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."

I did not think you were accusatory until you made the guilty conscience statement. At that point I elaborated on what was an obvious accusation.
In none of my posts have I made any of the assumptions you are using a quote from my post to illustrate. I have made no assumptions based on creed.
.
snip ""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"

Many of the animals when displaced show stress as they acclimate to a new enviroment. This would be the same if you moved the animal 2 feet, 200 feet, 2 miles or into a enclosure. This initial round of stress is because there has been a change in the enviroment and the cues establishing territory are absent (for terrestrial and stream dwelling species, pond dwelling species do not seem to have the same problems). In the cases cited above if the salamander can get a bearing then it will head back to its home territory. If it cannot get a bearing then what typically occurs is that the salamander will head in a straight line looking for a recognizable cue. If no cue is located, then at some point the animal looks to establish a new territory. Most animals displaced in the wild that have territories have terrible survivial rates so relocations and repatriations need to be strictly monitored. For example box turtles and timber rattlesnakes have less than a 20% survivial rate after being displaced the first year in the wild as they often fail to hibernate successfully.
Okay a belief statement about how you feel, I can live that.
Living free is a anthropomorphism. There is no Nathan Hale of caudates. Animals like caudates'change behaviors in relation to whether a need is met or not met. If it is not met then stress behaviors become evident.
Actually the healthy diet statment is not supported by probably the best studied plethodontid salamander the red back salamander. Only the largest red backs eat the best foods. The weaker and smaller animals are relegated into eating less nutritious food items. This even plays into whether or not a red back male will be able to breed. For the complete details check out the sexy feces articles.
If variations in microhabitats are supplied the animals will regulate themselves in captivity in exactly the same manner as in the wild. It is only when these choices are not provided that this may be a issue.
The section about vitamins is an unsubstantiated anthropomorphism. In actuality caudates appear to be the least prone of the amphibians to problems relating from vitamin-mineral deficencies when fed a varied diet. There are very few documented cases of metabolic disruptions in caudates as opposed to anurans. This may be an artifact of the frequency by which one is kept versus the other but the anecdotal evidence supports it.

snip ""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? "

Hmm, I answere this in that post from where the quote was cited. This is a relatively newly recognized problem and is being addressed at least in AZA zoos where it is a mandate.
To address the sleeping comment, many carnivores spend more than 20 hours a day sleeping as it is an energy efficient method to pass the time between hunts. This is a normal behavior that is frequently misinterpreted as boredom. "Boredom" is also being addressed by the behavioral enrichment programs that many of the better Zoos are instituting. This is a program that will help to eliminate this as older animals with behavioral issues die from old age and animals that have not developed the behaviors replace them. Please defing "hibernation mode" as I cannot find it in any of my animal behavior texts or even in the Sociobiology texts by Wilson.
One of the problems here is that it appears that there is an application of "mammalian behaviors and requirements" and anthropomorphisms applied to animals that are not behaviorally or metabolically the same.


snip "I don't agree with many forms of "conservation" because many of them are just selfish ploys. I'm sorry,"

You are aware that the reptile and amphibian rescue you cited is selling a hypomelanistic box turtle to the highest bidder regardless of the ability of the person to deal with the animal? This was an ad on kingsnake.com and their website. The adoption fees charges also approximate the current market value of the animal so in essence the animals are being sold.

snip ""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".

Actually I am currently unaware of any of my coworkers hating the way the animals are maintained. I come into contact with most of them on a frequent basis as I am also the chief shop steward. Most of the keepers I have met who hated their job came to work for the Zoo hating Zoos and moved on pretty quickly or hated management or some other aspect of the Zoo other than animal care (aquistion decisions ect). None of these people tend to stay in the Zoo field.
Is the pain citation a belief statement or do you have some statistical support to back it up?
Hmm, by definition instinct and choice are not compatiable. If something is instinctual how can you choose to use it or not?
The instincts may be unused as the situation in which the instinct would activate does not occur. This is the same in the wild or in captivity.
They way they eat has to change otherwise they would become grossly obese. (Did you have another meaning that I missed?)
In addition, the public would never support feeding a carnivore in a manner in which its instincts could be used. (although this has not stopped some enterprising Zookeepers from trying. For example one Zoo took a large plywood cutout of a Zebra and would hang chunks of meat on it and then hang it on a pully system. The cutout was then pulled through the exhibit causing the wild dogs to "pull" it down and "kill" it).

I'm not even going to check out the links as most of the information cited on those sites is
1) often severly outdated
2) deals with non accrediated Zoos
3) often contains outright distortions,

Ed

al
10th August 2004, 03:57
Ed,
Thanks for the information. Even though our Troll has decided to not post, I'm sure the members here on this site enjoyed it as much as I did.
I am not surprised by the many quirky practices by pet keepers in general. They are rarely backed by sound research and project humanistic beliefs to their pets. I heard of dog owners on a kick of feeding their pet organically grown,pesticide free diets that cost 3-4 times as much as a quality commercial feed. This owner states "my dog eats better than me, I can't afford to eat the same way". Wow, when we start putting the needs of our pets over our own needs from false information and advertising, there is a problem. There is a big market for pet foods now. No more purina chow. A dog owner with a pet on a "special" diet, is better off making their own food and would save them much money. I'm a mixed breed/pound puppy guy. They seem more tolerant than some of the full breeds with less issues. My Border Collie mix would devour anything (healthy or not) and never did she read labels http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/biggrin.gif Lucy would love to follow my children when they were young as they drop cherios on the floor. The only issue with Lucy that we had to worry about was her weight.
I think zoos have come a long way and appreciate all they do. These educated professionals are sort of like teachers, they need to know much, but get paid very little. How do I know? Man, do you see what they drive!http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/rofl.gif "Honey, put another quart of oil in it...it should give us another 10,000 miles" or "Dad, how come your truck doesn't have air conditioning? Air conditioning is for sissies! This helps us adapt better to the environment!" http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/smile6.gif
Al

sally
10th August 2004, 06:12
"PLEASE point out where anyone but you said plants had emotions? in order to take your position of arguing that they dont have emotions someone must have said/implied they did. i did neither and i am wondering where this came from?"

Paris, i said, "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."

In response to that, Ira said, "ok firstly, how do you know that plants dont feel? Plants, on a genetic and physiological level are so differnt from vertebre animals that we have absoutly no means to tell if they communicate or feel as we do, and it is basic human arrogance that dictates that if a creature dosnt perceive the world exactly as we do then it is a lesser creature and cant possibly be on the same level as us. Let me ask you this, If we are still unable able to understand and communicate with dolphins and whales (which obviously have a very complex mode of verbal communication, just like humans) how can ever expect ourselves to comprehend the level on which plants may exist? Its easier to just lable them as unintelligent beings and forget about them."

Then you responded by saying that your born-again brother (like me) is the "same way". Using his religion as a means to justify animals not having emotions/feelings. Neither you or Ira plainly said that plants have emotions, but you were debating me about it as if you thought that perhaps they may. That is how i came to that conclution.

"Sally, it is not necessary to write lengthy responses defending your words and pretending you did not mean any ill feelings. It is even more offensive when you project this back on those that were offended and take no responsibility."

Al, It is not my fault if someone is offended by my opionions. I'm trying to be sincere, but i cannot control another's emotions. People should really go back and ponder my first post, it was not meant for debate and it was not aimed towards those who are responsible owners. I said, <u>"I GUESS IT'S LIKE CAGING ANY ANIMAL"</u>. I was basically throwing my hands up in the air because i know that i can do nothing about it. But some chose to be offended by my own personal grief and that is how it started. Some agree with captivity, some don't...we all have our own standards. I would like to leave it at that. I do do research on animals in captivity. I get both the good side and the bad side...but seriously, there is a big difference between an animal refuge participating in conservation and a zoo used for entertainment. You don't have to go to the links i've provided, you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And i agree that a lot of people that work in zoos love the the animals they work with and are underpaid...do a google search and you will find many articles about zookeepers on strike and the workers getting sick from poor conditions. The workers have little control, sadly, because they are the ones that care for the animals. And while the money rolls in for the zoo, the worker's benefits and funding for the animals is down-sized.

I also asked about out-door habitats for native species...this is what i was really wondering about. DO any of you have outdoor habitats? I would like some day to create my own outdoor habitat for animals to come and go as they please. And because of this i need to learn more about them.

dot
10th August 2004, 06:58
Sally --

I suggest you re-read Ed's post, as he is a zookeeper and made a lot of valid points about the profession.

Also, for the second time - it's not that we're offended by things you say - don't give yourself that much credit - it's that several of your points have been corrected by those who have firsthand knowledge of the subjects you bring up, and aside from the fact that you're not particularly clear about what you're saying, when we comment on what you've said, you respond aggressively/over-defensively, as if we've threatened you in some way.

Where are you getting your information? Is it trustworthy?

edward
10th August 2004, 22:00
Hi Al,
Funny you should mention that as I drive a 11 year old toyota pickup truck without AC.
My wife drives a 7 year old subaru outback (which is the luxury mobile as it has AC).

In general Zookeeping is high status lower pay. Where I work pays pretty well but most Zoos and Aquariums pay between $10 and $15 dollars an hour. This is partly because there are many people competing for each opening regardless of the pay so they do not have to lure people to work for them.

Ed

edward
10th August 2004, 22:07
The only truly real benefit to using many of the more expensive grades of dog foods is that they often use better quality ingredients and less fillers so less in less out.
I currently have two rescued shiba inus. The older one is a little over ten years old now and the male is a little over three. They will eat anything as well (and if given the slighest chance will run down and eat small mammals and birds).

Ed

edward
10th August 2004, 22:33
snip "but seriously, there is a big difference between an animal refuge participating in conservation and a zoo used for entertainment. You don't have to go to the links i've provided, you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And i agree that a lot of people that work in zoos love the the animals they work with and are underpaid...do a google search and you will find many articles about zookeepers on strike and the workers getting sick from poor conditions. The workers have little control, sadly, because they are the ones that care for the animals. And while the money rolls in for the zoo, the worker's benefits and funding for the animals is down-sized."

The largest portion of any Zoos budget is animal care.
I'm not where you get the idea that money rolls into Zoos as many Zoos are currently in fiscal trouble as the supporting cities, counties or states have slashed the Zoo budgets and are cutting staff that do not participate in the day to day animal care. for example, at the Baltimore Zoo, the management staff was let go but all of the keepers were kept on. In reference to the benefits this applies to pretty much every employer as the cost of health care is a bigger and bigger problem.
At the last negotiation, the Zoo did not try to cut the benefits in really any manner except to ask for the employees to pay part of the health care bill but the raises were significant enough to cover it.

I didn't bother with the links as I have seen all of the propaganda before and did not need to review it. If you want to see the other side of the coin check out Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights by Kathleen Marquardt. This is just as radical in the other direction but includes some interesting facts..

Zoos and entertainment.... Most Zoo charters do not include entertainment as a goal but some do (charters can be typically summed up in three words conservation, education and research). Most Zoos do include some form of entertainment to help meet budget requirements and make the guests stay more enjoyable but I am unaware of any AZA zoos that put entertainment over animal welfare... The public does demand to be entertained and is never happy to see a sleeping animal so the opiate for the masses needs to be provided in another venue. At work they put in a small train that runs in a circle, swan boats on the lake and people stand around and discuss the animals to anyone willing to listen. In this way, we meet the entertainement expectation. The extra revenues from this are going to update our carnivore house to provide the animals with large outside areas with pools for the animals. The yards wil also be planted so the cats can get out of public view if they want. Funds from this are also going to golden lion tamarin research in the wild (as well as repatriations), habitat preservation, amur leopard habitat preservation and potentially hellbender conservation.

Many of the research on how bad Zoos are does not seperate the poor and good Zoos as this does not fit the mission statements of most of the organizations that are antiZoo. Instead of working with the Zoos that are attempting to benefit the animals as opposed to the ones that do not do any good, all Zoos are bad. This benefits no one least of all the animals.

How is an animal refuge different from a Zoo? The animals are contained, occasionally just in a larger space. Most refuges give tours (entertain...), allow visitors, educate, solicite donations and/or charge admission. How is this different from a Zoo? If they do not allow admission how is this different from a private Zoo except in name?

Ed

edward
10th August 2004, 22:37
Outside habitats for caudates.
This depends on the species you wish to attract.
Cover boards and log piles for some of the plethodontids. Vernal ponds for ambystomids and some newts, streams for other species of plethodontids.
I have a couple of log piles on the property that I leave alone as it provides cover and habitat for a number of species.

Ed

sally
13th August 2004, 05:39
"If you want to see the other side of the coin check out Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights by Kathleen Marquardt."

Ed, i try to see all sides of every situation, and i have seen the many sides of animal vs human rights. Like i said, i'm not a hard-core animal activist. I wouldn't even consider myself an animal activist. I simply believe in setting an example of ones beliefs through our actions; and i believe that using animals for entertainment purposes with very little regard to their feelings desensitizes humans and sets the example to treat eachother that way. I'm not saying that animals should not at all be used by humans in humane ways...even we humans are used by humans. I'm sure you're aware that children who are taught to disrespect the life of animals often grow up to disrespect human life as well. I definitely don't think animals should have rights above humans, or even equal to humans....i do believe there's a scam going on in animals rights trying to remove the rights of humans.....sadly, that is the point. We are being desensitized; being taught to disrespect life. While the hard-core animal rights activists are trying to give animals the same rights as humans, the "abusers" are playing them (and all of us) like a fiddle, turning us into nothing more than "inventory". When you compare the footage of some animals in captivity to humans in prisons, the similarities are frightening. Sorry, but you know the old saying...only love can win. I doubt i will be able to see that documentary, Ed...it does sound very interesting; however, it too sounds one-sided. But, i hope that people do realize the scam that is going on. I'm just depressed to see so much corruption. It's not just in documentaries, but everywhere you go.

I am not the malicious hard-core animal activist that thinks all humans are evil that you all make me out to be; and i was never trying to imply that you were all heartless pet owners, either.

I used to live out in the woods near vernal ponds and streams, and i also had log piles and such laying around for little critters, but they attracted more snakes and spiders than anything...i actually found that old bricks lying around attracted the most salamanders.

paris
14th August 2004, 08:12
ugh-i dont feel this is accomplishing anything- i'm out of here....

......its been swell -but the swellings gone down......http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/crazy.gif

i feel the need to tie antlers to my head and run drunk and naked through the woods -enjoy the 'debate' all -im going back to my retreat!

kaysie
14th August 2004, 14:13
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>Sally Mander II (Unregistered Guest) wrote on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 06:39 : (#POST30089)</font>

&quot;i believe that using animals for entertainment purposes with very little regard to their feelings desensitizes humans and sets the example to treat eachother that way.&quot;<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Do you not understand that a majority of the GOOD zoos bend over backward in order to EDUCATE and provide the best habitat for these animals? They're not there for entertainment, its EDUCATION. If you want animal entertainment, go to the circus.

kim
14th August 2004, 14:18
Im with Pairs, I dont think this is getting anyone anywhere... It just goin around and around and around and around and around and around....

karin
14th August 2004, 15:53
@sally

why do I keep animals?
because I like to, simple as that http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif
do I feel guilty for not letting them live in their natural habitat?
nope, cause I got the cats from breeders and the axos from the pet store, they do not know what a *natural habitat is*
I live in the middle of vienna and there is no chance of finding wild cats or axos anywhere, so I would not even have the chance to go out and collect them.

I am convinced, that my animals are well cared for and that they found a very good place to live. I respect all living creatures and enjoy watching them and studying their behavior http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif

do you wear store bought clothes?
do you eat store bought food?
did you ever take any medication?
do you use hygiene products?
what about the monitor you are lookin in? is it a natural product?

if you answered any of the questions with yes, you are no better or worse than me, cause all of those products have been tested on animals for various reasons, all the animal have been kept in well not very nice conditions, but thats the price of life in its self.

who knows what would have happened to my animals if I would not have them....
the cats would have probably been brought to the rspca and the axos could have endet up in some research lab who knows

before you try to remove the speck in your brothers eye, you should first remove the log in yours. if you are really as good as you claim to be, I wonder how come we dont know you as the winner of some nobel price? or as the 2 nd mother theresa?
sorry but it seems to me as if you have been judged and now passing on a judgement

cheer up and let people enjoy what they love. find something that you can love and give you some back as well
cheers
karin

edward
14th August 2004, 21:29
I missed this post or I would have responded sooner...

I am unaware of any person who works with/for animals in a conservation based format that wants to promote animals for entertainment use however I fail to see how education and entertainment can truly be seperated anymore. Classroom projects and hands on participation are used to relieve boredom in the classroom and hold the student's interest in the subject causing a better retention and learning. This is what Zoos are aiming for by having animals where the public can veiw them however note that the animals are not made to "perform" for the public. At work to show the public how keepers work with the animals, there are scheduled routines where the public can watch the keepers interact with the animals. Probably the most common (and popular) is the weighing of some of the primates on a weeekly or monthly basis. The keeper takes a scale in with lemurs or another small primate and gets them to walk on a scale for a small reward (cheerios or a small piece of fruit). If the animal doesn't want to be weighed then it doesn't get on the scale. Thats all there is to it. (And none of the animals regular diet or feedings have been withheld prior to the weighing before anyone asks). Does this entertain, yes, does it educate yes. I do not see how this is negative to the animal involved. Very, very few mammals or birds in Zoos are wild caught anymore. (Reptiles and amphibians it still happens on occasion as the last of a species will be brought in for captive breeding and release, see Puerto Rican Crested Toads or Wyoming Toads for two recent good examples). In general there isn't any need as there are sufficient bloodlines of most species to maintain the genetic diversity and attempt to preserve habitat for repatriations. This is still a newer field than many people believe as during the period until the 1980s people were not concerned about subspecies in captive populations. This changed in the 1980s as Zoos moved past thginking of themselves solely as arks and began looking at habitat preservation and repatriations. Not all of the repatriations are working as well as can be hoped (ex. Cape Hunting Dogs) but the efforts are there and are being continued.

I brought up the other side to balance out your explanations, as the discussion was fairly lopsided. I have paid attention to both sides for years and there have been major changes in the ethological considerations of animals (including herps) that were not part of the main stream even 15 years ago.
One of the thoughts to keep im mind anytime someone compares prison footage to animal behavior in an enclosed enviroment is that while visually the same, the behaviors can be from totally different roots and are in actuallity not comparable.

I suggest restarting a new thread for the creation of outdoor habitat as I doubt there will much more discussion here.

In the log piles I have, the salamanders occupy the lowest levels with other animals inhabiting the upper sections (including providing hibernacula sites for some native butterflies).


Ed

sally
15th August 2004, 07:16
"if you answered any of the questions with yes, you are no better or worse than me"

It has nothing to do with who is a better person...absolutely nothing. I never claimed to be good, i never said i was a better person than anyone, nor was i trying to insinuate.

"cause all of those products have been tested on animals for various reasons, all the animal have been kept in well not very nice conditions, but thats the price of life in its self."

Yep...it sucks, doesn't it? I feel there's a reason for all this...and an end....but, it's sad...which is what my original statement was about...just the sadness of the situation....but i do apologize for commenting on my opinions/emotions...i should have known they would have been perceived wrong...that was my mistake...i keep forgetting..... It was never my intention to make anyone look bad, or to raise myself up, so i sincerely apologize...

"sorry but it seems to me as if you have been judged and now passing on a judgement"

Judged by you? I have 2 judges; 1 being myself, the other being the Word. I'm sorry if you feel condemned by one person's opinion, but it's not me that's condemning anyone...you stand up for what you believe in and i will stand up for what i believe in. It is not my place to judge anyone, nor are you all my jury. And if you still feel that i'm trying to pass judgment on you after i've apologized and tried to explain myself, well, what else can i do?

I agree concerning the "debate", it isn't getting anywhere, but i hope you can accept my apology... Human error can be greatly misconstrued.


Thanks for your response, Ed....

karin
15th August 2004, 09:29
@sally,

no surley not judged by me, for I do not judge anyone or anything, I think its a very touchy subject and dont think that you have reason to appologise for anything, you stated your oppinion and I thought about it long and hard.

I even agree with you, animals shouldnt live in captivity at all. I keep them for my own selfish pleasure, even though I am convinced they are better off with me than anywhere else.

if it was up to me, I would free all animals in research labs etc. I condemm those people who do morphin tests with iodine etc on their axos, and frankly I tell ya I am the first to contact authorities whenever I see an animal (or child) mistreadet.

however, this is a forum where almost everybody keeps animals in tanks etc. so of course people get offendet by such questions and do take them personal. (similar to vegetariens going to mcdonalds and point out that meat eating kills animals)

I appreciate also your honest questions, and I am seriously considering putting an end to the keeping of my axos and taking them to the zoo. we will discuss this within the family and then make a decision

kregs
karin

edward
15th August 2004, 13:50
Karin,
Just an FYI, it is unlikely that a Zoo will take your axolotls. Unless the Zoo has an active program for working with that species it is unlikely to have the space to allocate to the axolotls as this will remove space from another species.
Zoos no longer accept (or even usually need) the usually offered donated pet species. Also while axolotls are in danger in the wild due to habitat loss the Mexican Zoos seem to have the program well in hand and are looking to reduce water polution and introduced fish species to allow for repatriations in native enviroments.

Ed

karin
15th August 2004, 14:18
hi ed,

the zoo would take them, I already spoke to the director. they have various places in vienna where they show reptiles, amphibiens etc (even one of those big japanese salamanders)

it is also helpfull that a friend is related to the zoodirector and explained my situation to him.

regs
karin

sally
16th August 2004, 02:38
Karin, no, i don't agree with caging animals, but with the world in it's current condition there are a lot of unwanted pets that actually need homes by loving people that are equipped to provide for them properly...including axoltls. I understand that animals bred in captivity or that have been captive for too long can't be placed back into the wild..these animals need rescuing, which usually requires caging them; i don't disagree with that, i never said i did. What i strongly disagree with is capturing wild animals and then placing them in unfit cages\environments. Some zoos, for example, keep animals from the arctic in subtropical wheather!

I have a lot of personal morals that i stand by concerning many things, but if someone doesn't share these morals with me, i don't necessarily think they're bad people (i think those that test on animals and humans are evil). There are many people that i highly admire and love that share none of my morals; that doesn't make me think any less of them. But life is about sharing opinions, and if no one did so, none of us would learn anything...especially about eachother. But i am sorry for the misunderstanding.

hayden
16th August 2004, 02:43
"i don't necessarily think they're bad people (i think those that test on animals and humans are evil). "

Then can you please tell me what to test life-saving drugs on?...grass?

sally
16th August 2004, 04:31
PLEEEEASE....before you further debate with me on the subject, please visit these links and READ, and perhaps do your own research. I want to answer your question, but i really do not want a debate...it's gone on long enough; and strayed far from the topic of caudates.

WHY ANIMAL TESTING DOESN'T WORK / THE SCAM
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs05.html
http://www.rds-online.org/money.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0%2C11381%2C646078%2C00.html
http://www.navs.org/news/drgreek_full_article.cfm?SectionID=News&amp;NewsID=30
http://www.aaaai.org/aadmc/inthenews/wypr/1997archive/articlewriting.html
http://www.informedpharmacotherapy.com/Issue13/Editorial/editorial13.htm
http://hypocrisytoday.com/drugs.html
http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=160

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22animal+testing%22+alternatives (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22animal+testing%22+alternatives)
http://www.navs.org/testing/alternatives_testing.cfm?SectionID=Testing

dot
16th August 2004, 15:58
If you're going to bring up these topics, then have the foresight to understand that people are going to want to debate you on them.

And just because the subject has strayed from caudates doesn't make it any less valid. Don't try to absolve yourself from the debate you started by claiming "It's not on the subject of caudates."

When your dog gets sick, and it had to have been sick at least once in the past 10 years you claim to have owned it, did you give it medicine? Hate to break it to you, but any medications administered by veterinarians were tested on animals. The same goes for the "homeopathic" remedies. Unless you've got some sort of divine knowledge of dosage and what will or will not poison your pet, the medication you administer have been tested on animals. Anyone who allows their pet to suffer, be it from cancer or arthritis or pancreatitis, because they do not believe in administering medications because they are "tested on animals," remember the vow you made when you first took on that pet - to care, love and make their years with you as comfortable as possible.

Something that may hit close to home: Did you ever try to switch your dog to a different food? That's animal testing. Granted, it's a very minor form of it, but you're testing whether or not your animal's body will agree with it. Would you continue to give your animal the same food even if that food gives the animal diarrhea and vomitting? Just a thought.

I know this is going to fall upon deaf ears, just like many of the very valid posts here have, but to sum everything up to now:
- You've condemned (yes, I used the word "condemned,") all zoos over the actions of a few. All zoos must be the work of Satan because a couple have been closed due to poor conditions.
(By the way, to whomever spoke out against keeping arctic animals in sub-tropical environments, some, if not many zoos not only chill the water kept in polar exhibits, but the terrestrial portions as well, and blast cold air into the exhibit, which is why it's often cooler when you approach a polar bear exhibit as opposed to say, zebras.)
- You don't drive yourself or buy food from grocery stores, but choose to purchase food from local farmers.
- You said you've had your dog since you were a child, "almost 10 years now" which would mean you're in your late teens or early twenties.
- You've yet to explain your beliefs, rather choosing to give us lists of links to websites written by others.

I hope I got all that.

Sadly, no matter what I say, it'll either be ignored or misunderstood. I've tried to state my point of view and it fell upon deaf ears. So with that, I'm washing my hands of this debate. It's not going anywhere, especially not if "Sally" won't even acknowledge our points, without giving off the aura that we're evil for not sharing her views.

Like Mike said, it's like arguing with a brick wall. But hell, even the Berlin Wall eventually fell ...

kaysie
16th August 2004, 16:06
Well said, Dot.

edward
16th August 2004, 21:29
Hmm,
Animal testing...
The problem with this is that we cannot phase this out of existance at this time as we cannot model the effects of many things via a non-animal system with any success.
With respect to drugs (any kind), the ingested item is often not the item of concern but the product after your body modifys it in the liver to make it easier to excrete is usually the bigger concern. The manner it which is modified and the extent by which it is modified to aid in excretion often defy accurate prediction anf when you then include that the modification often changes the action and affected locations (from organs as a whole to tissues to DNA in certain cells). We simply do not have a sufficient understanding of the biology of many of these drugs to predict the effects despite having excellant computers. You have to have a complete understanding of a system before you can accurately model it. (A good example of attempts to model a system without complete understanding is the weather).
At this time we cannot really even just use one species as there have been several drugs that showed not effect on rodents but severly affected primates in very negative manner.
This does not mean that there has been or currently is uneccessary testing. I am sure it occurs but as the costs of animal testing increases it will slowly be phased out as being to expensive to sustain indefinetly.
Unlike in the past, there is a screening practice that takes place before going to animal trials. The drug is run through a solution of enzymes taken from liver (collected from the meat industry) and reacted for a set period of time. The resulting soltion is then tested on bacterial colonies to look for mutagesisis and colony death. If it falls outside of some paramaters set by the FDA then unless it is of major health importance it is usually rejected.
Some comments.

Ed

kim
16th August 2004, 21:59
One thing i really have to say if that anyone has had a loved one or close friend or even themselfs come down with cancer(i would not wish it on anyone not even my worse enemy), would you not want something to help cure it or even just give you pain relief.

I have had a very close family member die from cancer, this person sadly died 2years after finding out they had it. They were offered treatment which could possibly cure it and guess what it was tested on ainmals. Unforunatly it only slowed down the progress of the cancer and near the end all they could be given was pain relief and as i said sadly died after 2years.

But my point is that there are life saving and life pro-longing drugs out there that have can will and maybe save someones life at some point. Yes they have been tested on a ainmal at some point, but wouldnt anyone is this situation want something? It's just like when people have there pets put down because they are ill these drugs are also tested on ainmals, you wouldnt let your pet suffer?

I personally hate ainmals testing but if it was not for this, this great person i knew would have died within weeks and may never been able to say there good byes to family and friends and do that 'one last thing'.

Sorry to have to be grim.. but you have to except that people have different views. I dont like unnecessary ainmal testing but i believe that many people, ainmals love ones and loved pets would have been in alot of unnecessary pain.

But when you post something like this you have to be ready to except people views no matter how strong they are!

sally
16th August 2004, 23:13
"If you're going to bring up these topics, then have the foresight to understand that people are going to want to debate you on them."

Obviously i did have the foresight, that is why i asked that people READ the information at the links i provided and perhaps do their OWN research BEFORE debating any further. Did you read all of the information?

"And just because the subject has strayed from caudates doesn't make it any less valid. Don't try to absolve yourself from the debate you started by claiming "It's not on the subject of caudates.""

I said that because i no longer think this debate is appropriate on this forum. It could go on forever...

"I know this is going to fall upon deaf ears, just like many of the very valid posts here have"

I feel the same way, dot.

"All zoos must be the work of Satan because a couple have been closed due to poor conditions."

I did not say that - and all things, even evil, are the works of God to bring out the goodness in life. So i know there is a devine plan, but i will not accept what i feel Christ wouldn't accept. Though i do sometimes.

"(By the way, to whomever spoke out against keeping arctic animals in sub-tropical environments, some, if not many zoos not only chill the water kept in polar exhibits, but the terrestrial portions as well, and blast cold air into the exhibit, which is why it's often cooler when you approach a polar bear exhibit as opposed to say, zebras.)"

With the amount of money they spend on creating the "Arctic" in a subtropical climate, they could be using in much more productive ways by leaving Arctic aniamls in zoos/refuges in a more hospitable environment where it's naturally cold (eg Canada, Alaska, Northern US, Europe). This only makes sense. It doesn't make sense to throw a monkey in the Arctic, why throw a polar bear into a subtropical climate?

"You've yet to explain your beliefs, rather choosing to give us lists of links to websites written by others."

Yes, i have been stating my beliefs, perhaps you haven't been thoroughly reading the posts. I've provided the links so that you will do your own research and not have to fight with me about the truth you're presented with. If you don't believe it, fine, that is your choice.

"Sadly, no matter what I say, it'll either be ignored or misunderstood. I've tried to state my point of view and it fell upon deaf ears. So with that, I'm washing my hands of this debate. It's not going anywhere, especially not if "Sally" won't even acknowledge our points, without giving off the aura that we're evil for not sharing her views."

Well, thanks for at least making the effort to get in that last word Dot (intentionally sarcastic). I have been acknowledging your points..i thought that was obvious. Sorry if i seem a little vague, you don't want to see the ways that we agree, only the ways that we don't.

Ed, again, thank you for your comments. I don't agree with you on everything (there is much that goes on in both animal and human testing that is just plain rediculous and cruel), but at least you're patient and get your point accross without being rude.

kim
17th August 2004, 00:10
Sally dont you have any views on my post you seem to be very vocal towards everyone else!?

From having a chat with some un-named others in the chat room we believe that you only see what you want to see from others post.

By not answering my questions or some of Dot's and ED's we believe that you do agree with them and dont want this to be known.

I think that you are just out to wind people up about there beloved pets.

You havnt mention anything about our points regarding animal testing when when you made a big stink about it.

Just because we don't agree with your points does not mean that we don't know the other side as well. You shouldn't just assume that we didn't do any "research" of our own.

I know that there are life saving treatments out there that have been tested on ainmals and if it wasnt for that we may have had huge epidemics.

We have also been lead to believe that the AIDs vaccines are tested on Chimps.. Just think about the amount of lives that is helping to improve?

Just think about that when starting something like this off again.

edward
17th August 2004, 00:24
snip "Ed, again, thank you for your comments. I don't agree with you on everything (there is much that goes on in both animal and human testing that is just plain rediculous and cruel), but at least you're patient"

I don't think I argued against that in my statement...
But the situation is not as black and white as most of the groups would make it out to be.
I normally try to judge each study on the possible gains over the long haul before I judge it as ridiculous or not. For example in either Natural History or Discovery (not the most recent), one of the articles discussed attacks by conservative politicians on research into health practices and epidemology of the trucking industry (as well as other research projects) by basically stating that who cares about the sex practices of some of the long haul truckers. In the initial study the data presented a similar pattern to the spread of stds as well as HIV as occured in Africa. This can have enormous implications on resurgence of the disease in new demographics if the research is curtailed too early. Some people consider this to be ridiculous research....

Thanks for the compliment. Its a little harder to ruffle my feathers....

On the artic mammal front, the region of the artic in which these animals live usually gets into the 80 Fs or higher in the summer...
WIth respect to the polar bears, if they are wc then they are usually habituated animals that are presenting a danger to humans and are brought into Zoos as opposed to shooting them.
With animals that do not adapt well to warmer regions such as musk ox, reindeer and some of the other species you will not see them in responsiable Zoos in regions where they will have health issues.

Ed

pin-pin
17th August 2004, 00:40
Ed, you need to be a moderator on this forum. In all seriousness. I learned a lot from your replies.

Your feathers, they are so unruffled....

(Message edited by apples on August 17, 2004)

edward
17th August 2004, 01:28
I don't know, the power could go to my head creating a monster.

Thanks for the compliment though.

Ed

sally
17th August 2004, 02:07
"Sally dont you have any views on my post you seem to be very vocal towards everyone else!?"

Not really, Kim...i'm not looking for a fight. It's obvious that we will not agree, so i try to avoid what i know you do not care to hear. I've been doing that out of consideration of you and others on this forum, believe it or not.

"From having a chat with some un-named others in the chat room we believe that you only see what you want to see from others post."

I'm almost flattered. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/talker.gif But are you the type to talk badly about someone behind their backs?

"By not answering my questions or some of Dot's and ED's we believe that you do agree with them and dont want this to be known."

It's a matter of trying to avoid a useless debate.

"You havnt mention anything about our points regarding animal testing when when you made a big stink about it."

I didn't make a "big stink" about it, i replied to a question. I don't need to give you my opinion concerning your points because i know that you would not agree with me. I've provided some links that i thought would be of some insight. Take it or leave it.
If i KNOW that you're not going to agree with me and you're only going to argue that i'm wrong and accuse me of being judgmental for having different opinions, why should i bother?

"Just because we don't agree with your points does not mean that we don't know the other side as well. You shouldn't just assume that we didn't do any "research" of our own."

Ditto

"We have also been lead to believe that the AIDs vaccines are tested on Chimps.. Just think about the amount of lives that is helping to improve?"

I personally am very against vaccines. Yes, i said <u>PERSONALLY</u>.

"Just think about that when starting something like this off again."

My comment about animal testing was directed to Karin and Karin ALONE...it was in reply to her/his comment also about animal testing. So why are you attacking me personally as an individual and by name when everything that i've said concerning my opinions was very general and definately NOT directed to anyone in particular?

"But the situation is not as black and white as most of the groups would make it out to be."

I just want to note though, Ed...i am not of any group...i'm an individual that takes all evidence presented before me into account.

"Ed, you need to be a moderator on this forum. In all seriousness. I learned a lot from your replies.

Your feathers, they are so unruffled...."

I agree, Ed..you're cool.... Strangly some here don't care to notice that you and i debate in respect for eachother's opinions.

edward
17th August 2004, 02:52
snip "I just want to note though, Ed...i am not of any group...i'm an individual that takes all evidence presented before me into account. "

I wasn't aware that I had implied that you were part of any specific group (or groups as this was not my intent). I was referring to the citations that you provided.
Many of the tests that are preferred by the antianimal testing groups are insufficient to determine what the total pharmokinetics are of any specific drug (this has been the stand by these groups since before the early 1980s). They are suitable as a basic mutagen/toxicity test (as a prelude and and an aid to determine if it warrents going into animal trials) but these basic assays again do not cover all of the bases when it comes to how it affects any part of an entire organism much less the total organism. We simply are not able to model this sufficiently for anyone's safety as of yet.
People need to keep in mind that animal testing is expensive particuarly when compared to testing against established cell lines. If it wasn't necessary companies would drop it like a hot potato to boost profits.


As a side comment to both sides, people get emotional when items (such as beliefs) near and dear to them get questioned. It does no good to become emotional about it as this will without a doubt prevent your words from being heard. I think my favorite phrase describing this is "pounding sand down a rat hole".

I still would like to see a seperate thread started about setting up outside habitats for caudates as the question was listed in the original post and surely needs further discussion.

Thank you for the compliment.
Ed

al
18th August 2004, 05:59
Sally,
Being a well studied with the christian faith and the bible ("the word"), you're extreme veiwpoint and argument with animal cruelty is not supported by any theology found in the bible. The Hebrew practice of sacrifice alone give historic accounts of blood and gore. Animals where raised, killed, beaten, exploited, utilized in many ways. Some (1 or 2) proverbs of kind treatment to animals was mentioned concerning wisdom and being of a more noble character. Animals were not put on any human level or given much attention to scripture or prophesy in the bible. I believe there are many grey areas that leave the believer to come to their own convictions.
I frankly do not care how many rats are chopped up in a lab to find a cure for a disease or whatever. And frankly if shaving the back of a rabbit to apply lotions/soap products to see if they will cause irritation is okay with me! As long as my 5 year old daughter can have a shampoo that will not burn her eyes out or create disfiguring skin reactions...I vote for my 5 year old daughter...the h*ll with the rat! BTW we have 2 pet rats, yes in a cage, and my kids love them, feed and care for them. We got them from a farm/business called "Snake Snacks"! They were supposed to be snake food, but now are pets.
I work for Duke Medical Center as a Nurse and feel real good about animal testing. And when anyone that is a part of the protesters comes down with some form of rare blood discrasia (leukemia), you better thank all the thousands of rats, rabbits, and mice that were "sacrificed" in the name of medicine/science. When you see small children with fatal diseases flown in from all over the country for treatment, you don't say ..."man, I bet that new chemotherapy drug was tested on animals! Don't give it to that child! Read these web sites!" as you look into the parent's eyes....Some peoples beliefs and convictions on the subject of animal testing are from warm cozy houses, in front of their computers, with no illness plaguing themselves or their loved ones. I say to some of them, Go volunteer on a regular basis on a pediatric cancer floor. Reality check! I am sick and sad of hearing animal rights when people are hurting and suffering all around you. Kill the animal, eat, and keep warm....for the love of Mike.http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/angry.gif
Frankly I don't care about this thread anymore, I am eating a steak right now and thinking about harvesting a squirrel later (aka "tree rat")

Al

sally
18th August 2004, 19:16
For anyone who believes that the information given by my link resources is just animal
activist propaganda, read this document: http://www.sumeria.net/health/prism.html

The extremist animal rights people depicted in the media are a very small percentage of the
animal rights movement. Most are individuals such as myself that have compassion for human
and animal life and care about the well-being of the world as a whole. Most animal rights
activists do not go around naked throwing paint on people's fur coats and telling
meat-eaters they're evil murderers, just as most against abortion don't go around bombing
clinics - that's all MEDIA PROPAGANDA - don't be fooled by campaigns that only GAIN from making compassionate people look psychotic.

But a few things everyone must not forget:
1. Certain powers-that-be are manipulating animal activists by trying to give animals the
same rights as humans and therefore turning humans into nothing but cattle/inventory (don't
accept the chip!).
2. The media always tells you how they WANT you to feel; they set the stage for
mind-control, don't take the bait.
3. The world is filled with much more evil than most want to recognize; but don't be
deceived, evil is sneaky. Evil presents itself as good in order to survive; if evil can't
fool you, it can't win - remember that.

"People need to keep in mind that animal testing is expensive particuarly when compared to testing against established cell lines. If it wasn't necessary companies would drop it like a hot potato to boost profits."

This is not true, Ed, because it is the taxpayers money as well as many organizations that fund a lot of animal testing. There are many organizations out there that claim to raise money to find a "cure" - a cure for anything. All that money funds the "research": animal testing. Are you getting your money's worth? Animal testing is also used by companies as a sort of insurance. Rodents are easily bred and kept in captivity; a few mice to them are cheaper than an entire customer base or a law suit. Also note that over-the-counter cosmetics and chemicals are NOT required by law to be tested on animals (but they are anyway).

Because animals metabolize drugs differently than humans and have very different reactions to tests, animal testing is completely useless.

Even if animal testing did work (which it doesn't), i would rather die than support THIS <font face="symbol">¯</font> :

ANIMAL HOLOCAUST
Experimentation With Animals
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/jpg/vivi10.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/html/fvivi.html&amp;h=188&amp;w=290&amp;sz=13&amp;tbnid=LHx7GBvjMJgJ:&amp;t bnh=71&amp;tbnw=109&amp;start=18&amp;prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvivisection%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D UTF-8
http://www.londonpunks.co.uk/vivisection.htm
http://www.bava.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photos1.html
http://www.arkangelweb.org/barry/vivisection.shtml
http://www.all-creatures.org/ha/Shoseki_e.html
http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm
http://association.lamart.free.fr/vivisection-01.htm
http://www.primatefreedom.com/Mission.html
http://www.disinformazione.it/vivisezione.htm
http://animauzine.net/IMG/jpg/siencedemence.jpg
http://www.kolumbus.fi/juhana.lauronen/Vivisection6iso.jpg
http://membres.lycos.fr/solice/exper_singevivi.jpg
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/sub/zolavic.jpg
http://terresacree.org/images/singecanule2.jpg
http://terresacree.org/images/maig80.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?q=vivisection&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N

HUMAN HOLOCAUST
Experimentation With Humans
http://www.shoah.dk/doctors/index.htm
http://www.deathcamps.info/Experiments/experiments2.htm
http://images.google.com/images?q=holocaust%20experiments&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi

Human and animal experimentation....both done in the name of medical advancement. All it has created is more serial killers. http://website.lineone.net/~tymaloney/info.htm


As surviving victim of The Angel Of Death, Josef Mengele, Alex Dekel later stated:

"Mengele ran a butcher shop - major surgeries were performed without anesthesia. Once, I witnessed a stomach operation - Mengele was removing pieces from the stomach, but without any anesthetic. Another time, it was a heart that was removed, again, without anesthesia. It was horrifying. Mengele was a doctor who became mad because of the power he was given. Nobody ever questioned him - why did this one die? Why did that one perish? The patients did not count. He professed to do what he did in the name of science, but it was a madness on his part ..."

http://www.masskilling.com/

Some of the tests preformed on animals:

Eye Irritancy Tests: Experimenters drop substances like shampoo, mouthwash, and floor cleaner into the eyes of fully consciouse rabbits and record the damage, which can include ulceration, bleeding, and blindness. Animals who don't die are often "recycled" for use in other tests.

Lethal Dose Tests: Toothpaste, lipstick, liquid soap, ink, oven cleaner, and other chemicals are pumped into animals' stomachs to determine how much will kill or incapacitate them. Death comes from painful poisoning or stomach rupture.
Inhalation Tests: Animals are forced to inhale massive amounts of aerosol products, such as air freshener, deodorant, and hair spray, until they die from asphyxiation or poisoning.

Skin Irritancy Tests: Nail polish remover, furniture wax, hair removers, drain cleaners, and other substances are smeared onto rabbits' shaved, raw skin. Blistering and bleeding commonly result. Some chemicals eat completely through the animals' tender skin.


HHmmmmmm...how about i just use natural products...if a product is so dangerous that it has to be tested on "disposable" animals to gage the damage it does, then i don't want anything to do with it (for my own safety)!

Make sure you check out all the links, wouldn't want anyone to miss the pictures of our
"miracles of medicine".

================================================

"The Hebrew practice of sacrifice alone give historic accounts of blood and gore."

They were killed, not tortured; big difference.

"Animals where raised, killed, beaten, exploited, utilized in many ways."

Does that make it right? The bible gives more accounts of this happening to humans than animals. Many wrongs were used in the bible to give us examples of what was wrong and what displeases God.

More on bible scripture later....maybe....

joseph
18th August 2004, 22:00
Natural is poisonous mushrooms, natural is sumac and hemlock.

joseph
18th August 2004, 22:06
BTw, what exactly is useless debate? You haven't answered much on the topic-salamanders in captivity.

I'm quite unsure if you are for or against keeping salamanders in captivity or if you are just against improper captive care(which caudata.org is trying to solve).

kim
18th August 2004, 22:58
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

edward
19th August 2004, 01:42
snip ""People need to keep in mind that animal testing is expensive particuarly when compared to testing against established cell lines. If it wasn't necessary companies would drop it like a hot potato to boost profits."

This is not true, Ed, because it is the taxpayers money as well as many organizations that fund a lot of animal testing. There are many organizations out there that claim to raise money to find a "cure" - a cure for anything. All that money funds the "research": animal testing. Are you getting your money's worth? Animal testing is also used by companies as a sort of insurance. Rodents are easily bred and kept in captivity; a few mice to them are cheaper than an entire customer base or a law suit. Also note that over-the-counter cosmetics and chemicals are NOT required by law to be tested on animals (but they are anyway)."

Actually with reference to the tax payer money, as I understand it is rarely available to the for-profit pharmaceutical companies. Most of this sort of funding is used in academia (which is small scale compared to the pharmaceutical companies). I will grant that there are collaborations where a comapny supplies extra funding to a researcher in addition to the grants supplied by the tax payer but these are often for initial results that are then placed on a large scale by the company (this may be slightly out of date as it has been more than 13 years since I worked in that industry).

With respect to my money's worth, I would need to review each specific grant before I gave an absolute yes or no but I can give a qualified yes. The reason is the same as I stated above, until we can come up with a system that allows modeling of the effects of a particuarly agent in a biological organism with an excellant degree of certainty then we are stuck with animal testing.

The rodents used in this sort of testing are really not that cheap anymore as they have to all be certified as genetically identical, the same age, sex and many are microchipped for individual identification (at a cost of more than $10 a mouse), and are housed in expensive climate controlled setups regulated and inspected by the USDA. These are not inexpensive setups. Some of the mice used in these tests can cost several hundred dollars (or way more for rodents reared in sterile conditions) apiece if certain genetic strains are required for the testing. In addition with respect to academia, there are committes at each institution that are made up of staff and nonstaff memebers with at least one veterinarian that are supposed to ensure that the testing is reviewed and approved compliant with IUCAC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) regulations.

snip "Because animals metabolize drugs differently than humans and have very different reactions to tests, animal testing is completely useless. "

This is at best a partially true statement. Most of the biological pathways are identical in allmost all mammalian systems. This homology in biochemsitry even extends to a lesser extent to avian, reptilian and amphibians systems. If this was not the case then antibiotic use in these systems would be useless as the models for the pharmokinetics would not hold up under field use.
There are rare instances where a drug is metabolized differently in rodents (look up the Case of the Frozen Addicts for an example of this) but the majority of drugs are metabolized the same way. Rodent and human metabolism is consistant enough that rodents can be used as useful models (both in development of the disease and its treatment) for a number of genetic disorders in humans such as diabetes.

Animal testing is expensive, it is cumbersome, it is time consuming, it requires large outlays of resources, it requires large amounts of manpower. All of these are reasons why a for profit company would love to get out of it if it had a viable alternative. As there is no viable alternative, we are stuck with animal testing.
(Yes I used the word stuck and I feel it is apt).
Is there unecessary testing, sure, no one really needs cosmetics. The more people purchase cosmetics that have not been tested on animals the less demand there is for these items. Or you can purchase grandfathered items that have been on the market so long that they never had to undergo animal testing (ivory soap for example). That is a personal choice for each person to make.
I'm getting pretty tired now and may start to babble so I am ending this round.

Ed

dot
19th August 2004, 02:01
Here's a statistic taken from my old Psych 101 textbook:

In studies of the human genome, out of three billion bases (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine,) 99.9% of genetic material is common to humans. 1/10th of a percent is responsible for genetic differences.

Its relevance to animal testing:
Humans and mice contain 99% of the same genes.

john
19th August 2004, 02:17
Ed: you are a saint.

About a week ago I wrote a large response for this thread and never bothered to post it. I don't see the point in trying to make a close-minded individual with an obvious agenda try to understand the situation better and perhaps even dare to consider someone else's point of view...

Back to basics. There are swings and round-abouts ("rotaries" in Americanese) but let's face it, the people on this site are here because they want to learn and talk about the care of their animals. It's the people who aren't on this site trying to learn how to take better care of their animals that Sally needs to worry about.

sally
19th August 2004, 06:00
"I'm quite unsure if you are for or against keeping salamanders in captivity or if you are just against improper captive care"

Joseph, i've already addressed this in many of my posts.

Dot, of course we share the same genes, but we're obviously very different creatures. If we reacted to everything the same then why do some animals get certin illnesses and others don't? Take Feline leukemia for example...it's called feline leukemia because it only effects cats. It doesn't effect humans, why is that? And this is so with many tests that have been done on animals; medications and diseases effect them very differently, or not at all, and therefore are useless in determining what is safe for humans. So, obviously, even though we share the same genes, our genetic make-up is very different.

John, are you trying to consider my point-of-view, the animals' point-of-view, and the victims of the holocaust's point-of-view? Do you not understand that this debate is no longer about caudates and ripping animals from the wild? That is why i didn't respond to a lot of what has been posted. If you'll review the above posts, you'll see i was trying to avoid a further debate; but i was presented with a question and i will stand by what i believe.

"For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again"

Matthew 5
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

sally
19th August 2004, 11:23
For Al. http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/angel.gif

http://www.bible.com/answers/aanimal.html

Proverbs 15:17
Better is a dinner of herbs, where love is, Than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.

Ecclesiastes 3
18 I said in my heart, It is because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?
(I believe this is talking about both animals and demons. I think God uses animals to show us how helpless and pathetic we are.)

kim
19th August 2004, 16:40
'Sally' get the picture we dont care anymore... your boring us...

if only i could jump off a virtual cliff!

SAVE US ALL FROM THIS MADNESS

the
19th August 2004, 18:24
faith is a powerful thing-it often shuts off the rational mind


it would seem that it is true that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" -especially with this person. any a$$ can make a web page -and it often seems many who have more 'beliefs' than education have the time to produce them. these web pages that claim the 'big lie' of animal testing are proof of this. i am sure the KKK has a web page too and they will claim thier 'truth' in it too (they also throw in religion).

I am not going to tell my identity because I dont want death threats or hate mail from this person. i will say that I do research on animals. i know the system of how these drugs procede from killing cells in flasks to animal testing then to human trials. this is the only way we currently have to try drugs. the alternative is ?? we could test them directly on humans -but we'd have to find large groups that are at the same stages then lock them away so that they cant have other outside influences that would effect the data, and then if the drug did somehow work and didnt kill them and they didnt die in the mean time we could try it again with another set of people-except this would take many years and we still wouldnt know the long term effects. or we could just stop testing all together and let people fend for themselves -let the ill and dieing go it alone-if they survive well then ok, if they die then the gene pool is better off? we could revert back to the time of back alley abortion stye cures, where anyone will try anything because they are so desperate.(break out the voo-doo sticks).

it seems that many stand upon their principals till they turn upon them. you may be against everything you say and perhaps even if your life or your parents or siblings lives were at stake but you would probably rethink it if your own child needed drugs that were developed through this testing process. the world is not black and white,nor is it a measure of gray, it has far too many facits for us to fully comprehend. I was given a grant by a man who had melanoma for my research. 7 years ago he was diagnosed and they removed it then. recently it came back and grew in multiple areas in his body including wrapped around his spinal column, the doctors removed what they could but this process only inflamed the cancer (its a 50/50 operation) and though they gave him a week to live he survived 10 days. he died last month. he was a gentle and caring man, i know his sister in law and i met him at the award ceremony. the research i do is cancer treatment trying out dosages and effectiveness of drugs that work on cell lines in 'tubes'-this will not always work on live animals. many of my mice grow human (not mouse) cancers and we are woking with 'drug cocktails'-this is very risky stuff and i would not put an 8 year old with lukemia through it just to see if it worked. the point of lab testing is that it must be repeatable so that is can be PROVEN effective. and though this all seems to be human centered -alot of these drugs developed also are used on other animals. i know of 1 person who spent $700 a month on cancer treatment for her dog.

by your posts you seem to be about a highschool level mentality and so about that in education. you may yet live long enough to see how narrow your view is. you cannot learn anything by reading only what you agree with -and no matter what you read (especially web pages) you should check the references. i am sure you can read these and agree with what they say if it supports your view -but this is not the same as making an educated dicision. you are not speaking to uneducated people in this forum -many of us are biologists to whom this subject relates. of those that responded ~ad naseum~ to you, there are both animal and human experts trying to give you some balance that you will not even acknowledege as vaild -realise that this an issue.

the quoting of the bible does not help your argument -the bible is faith not science. science has the scientific method and peer review to challenge everything about it. faith is cultural and vairies by and even within religions and convictions and is given alot of personal interpretation and thus is unrelaible-science is universal, across all cultures and all languages. i agree with the others-there is no point here anymore you just seem to want to be 'right' and have the last word. it is very hard to have an educated debate with you because you have already made up your mind and the level of your education on these issues seems to be limited to you belief system and web pages. one symptom of mental maturity is when one can hold 2 opposing viewpoints in their mind and not go crazy. you speak to us as if we didnt know some of these things you point out, we are not ignorant of these matters we know and have chosen our positions. do you not wonder why some normally shy posters have come out of the woodwork to post here?

you are not only insulting our lifestyles, professions, IQ's, beliefs and religions(mine is NOT the same as yours and i dont like having biblical verse thrown in my face to defend a secular arguement) you are also waisting our time.

pin-pin
19th August 2004, 20:48
Hypocrit: defn. writing over 2000 words but not bothering to register.

Let's close this thread. Ed said he was tired. <strike>of toying with this flamer.</strike>

edward
19th August 2004, 21:11
One last (possibly) hurrah

snip "Dot, of course we share the same genes, but we're obviously very different creatures. If we reacted to everything the same then why do some animals get certin illnesses and others don't? Take Feline leukemia for example...it's called feline leukemia because it only effects cats. It doesn't effect humans, why is that? And this is so with many tests that have been done on animals; medications and diseases effect them very differently, or not at all, and therefore are useless in determining what is safe for humans. So, obviously, even though we share the same genes, our genetic make-up is very different."

This also is not an entirely true factoid. Many people carry antibodies to diseases that "only" affect other species.
I would be (very) surprised if a portion of the population is not carrying antibodies to FLV.
If we we immune due to the differences in our genes to diseases that normally affect other species then there would be almost no emerging diseases. Ebola, Marsburg, Hanta, and Eastern Equine Encephalitus all would not be considered a major threat for outbreak.
There would not be a new influenza strain (or strains) each year as the strains that infect waterfowl (the major source of influenza strains) could not combine with the strains that infect pigs, horses and/or humans to create new strains that can result in pandemics.
With respect to native wildlife, lions in Africa are under threat due to canine (yes canine) distemper and not feline distemper.
The fact that a disease today commonly affects one species gives no indication of the species or species it could infect tomorrow, next month or next year.
Additionally this does not even take into account parasites which can be aquired from animals. For many of these parasites, they may not be able to complete their life cycle but they can happily infect humans. This is also the same for other species, Toxoplasmosis gondi typically has a rodent-cat life cycle but it readily infects and kills lemurs and kangaroos....

Just some clarification.

Ed

dot
19th August 2004, 23:38
NOW I've got to respond to that quote towards me and now I've got to re-quote myself, because it's a pet peeve when someone tries to tell me that scientific facts from a college level textbook are wrong.

Here's a statistic taken from my old Psych 101 textbook:

In studies of the human genome, out of three billion bases (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine,) 99.9% of genetic material is common to humans. 1/10th of a percent is responsible for genetic differences.

Its relevance to animal testing:
Humans and mice contain 99% of the same genes.

In addition to what Ed, (who ROCKS, by the way,) said, I'd like to point out that Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine are the four "building blocks of life" in reference to DNA. EVERY organism has these. From salamanders to cats to humans. That is the constant.

I apologize for not being clear:
Humans and Mice share 99% of the same genetic make-up.

And much praise goes to the Phantom Poster "The Voice of Reason" for saying everything I wanted to say but couldn't without sarcasm and cursing. And over the past four years, I've spent almost $5000 (and that's after the 50% discount from being an employee at the animal hospital,) on treatments, medications and ultimately, euthanasia for my dog, whom I'd had for 15 years. She wouldn't have lived to be nearly 16 years old if it weren't for medications tested on other animals. By the way, I'm not sure if you realize that many animal medications are medications for animals for just that - because they don't have the same effect on people. You can't give your dog Tylenol, or cats aspirin, because those human medications will destroy their livers. And from the opposite side, Baytril, a popular animal anti-biotic was ruled hazardous to humans by the FDA, but as many others can testify, works for their pets.

And with a final *kick* to the dead horse, you've been adamant that we haven't done any "research" to understand your views. But it's obvious that the people who have degrees have researched both sides of the spectrum without the need for propaganda and Google searches. But hey, I guess I can throw the past three years of college out the window, and others can flush their degrees and PhD's down the toilet just because we didn't go to http://captiveanimals.org

edward
20th August 2004, 00:42
However some of these (possibly most) of these results were not determined in medical trials. There is insufficient profit for testing the viability of many medications in animals. These results are often based on the results of human testing regimens or through results after trying it with an animal. How else would someone determine that collies should not be given ivermectine as they are sensitive to it. The way this was determined was through more than one vet administering the medication and observing an adverse effect and communicating it to other vets. The same occurs with medications that are not tested in animals but are prescribed because a vet tries it and documents a positive result.

Ed

edward
20th August 2004, 00:45
Hi John,
I'm not a saint but I guess you can call it balancing my karma as I would be remiss if I didn't repay the patience shown me in my younger idealistic hard headed days. (Not to say that I can't still be stubborn as a mule or idealisitic anymore...)

Ed

sally
20th August 2004, 07:51
Yeah, this is pretty hilarious that i'm blamed for this thread going on for so long when all any one of you would have to do to end it is ignore it (and that you take offense to others' personal opinions and insights)...

"I am not going to tell my identity because I dont want death threats or hate mail from this person."

More spreading of propaganda. How nice of you to personally accuse me in this way.

"it seems that many stand upon their principals till they turn upon them. you may be against everything you say and perhaps even if your life or your parents or siblings lives were at stake but you would probably rethink it if your own child needed drugs that were developed through this testing process."

"Voice", i know many people who are dying of disease, i myself am rather sick, but the medications have not helped them, and they made me sicker, just so you know. I am not against most drugs because of animal testing, but because of the dangers they present to people. You are right about one thing though, i am wasting my time...it's too bad this thread went on so long, i had thought it ended when i apologized.

And, John, i don't have an agenda, i have nothing against this site or it's members. This is the only thread i've ever posted in and the only thread i will ever post in. I guess i can forget about my question pertaining to outdoor habitats....

Take care everyone...

kim
20th August 2004, 10:48
Its funny how after so much c*** 'sally' has thrown at us she now says she is ill?

If this is true, i am to believe that the only reason she is moaning at us about animal testing is because the drugs didnt help her?

Well if what i think is ture im sad for 'sally' and sorry she is ill, but there is no need to take it out on us just because you found us through another one of your google searches.

I know that this thread was started about caging animals, but i think that she is a sad and lonely person that may need help and this is the only way she thinks she can get attention.

edward
20th August 2004, 14:50
I said it before and I'll say it again,
The outside habitat post was worthy of discussion and should be reposted elsewhere.

Ed

dot
20th August 2004, 15:20
For the millionth time ---

If you wanted to start a discussion about outdoor enclosures for caudates, then that's what you should've focused on when you started this thread, instead of passive-aggressively passing judgement on us for owning pets.

And I quote:
Aren't salamanders and most amphibians endangered (or near so)? They're such beautiful creatures...why would you want to tear them away from their natural habitats to live in a small tank just for your own pleasure? I'm saddened.

I guess it's like caging any animal.

Do any of you build a habitat for them in your yard?

You start the post off by asking us why we'd "tear [our pets] away from their natural habitats to live in a small tank for [our] own pleasure" and saying that it "saddens" you. You follow that up by adding another passive jab at us by saying that you guessed it was like caging any animal.

For those two reasons alone, which you should've known, would have sparked pet owners to respond. To get up on your soapbox and basically question our abilities as pet owners - whether you meant to or not - were we supposed to ignore that? To put it in another way - it'd be like if I questioned your faith in your god. (I say "your" god because I do not share your religious beliefs.)

Yes, you did ask a valid question, but it wasn't asked until after you were done questioning our intentions as pet owners.

Your "apology" wasn't really much of one, to be quite honest. What exactly was it you were apologizing for? You misjudged us, yes, but the time you spent defending yourself and "researching" via Google, could have been spent realizing that this entire forum is dedicated to the proper and utmost care of our pets.

And just so we're clear, I've read both "Animal Revolution" (author's name escapes me,) an Singer's "Animal Liberation," but I also eat meat and know well enough to medicate when I'm hurt or sick. So it's not like I don't understand what's supposedly your side of the arguement. If you're still hellbent on whatever cause you're rooting for, I suggest you pick those books up and read them, so you'd have a little more information about the subject of the use of animals in vivisection, cosmetics/medical testing and slaughterhouses, before posting a bunch of websites you looked up on the fly.

And to address the final portion of your initial post, if all you really wanted to know was about outdoor habitats and you truly had no intentions of berating us for owning pets, then this question should have been asked without the dramatic introduction, or asked in its own thread.

david
20th August 2004, 16:14
There sure has been a lot of brain cells used/abused here to justify everyone's reasons for what they do and believe to a person that has little or no importance on any of our daily lives. The bottom line for me is I enjoy observing and keeping newts and salamanders. I feel no need to apologize, justify or even explain myself. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you know what they say about opinions. This forum is meant to educate people about the caring for of caudates in captivity. All the discussion in the world isn't going to change a "Sally Mander II's" viewpoint, and I doubt any of her arguments (if it is a she) will change any of our beliefs. So what was the point of this exercise? If you don't want to keep animals in captivity Sally Mander II, then don't. For the rest of us who do want to, we'll continue doing what we do. And we can all just agree to disagree. If I feel inclined to debate moral and ethical problems with someone, or get a better grasp on the meaning of life, I'll find a priest or someone who's opinion I care about more then "Sally Manders". With that said, I think I'll save the rest of my brain cells for making descisions about the things I actually can control in this life, like what I'll have for lunch.

the
20th August 2004, 17:14
dot,
though I only have use of the laboratory handbook for research animal use, which also has an amphibian section btw. I will have to admit I did not read it all but I was tested on its contents and our facility is inspected regularly by a board containing a vet. they stress in the book limited use of the animals and impose the smallest use of life possible to achieve valid results. it is beacuse of this emphasis and a few other tidbits I ran across that I question if vivisection is legal now days? I will say we are a public and privately funded facility and the rule book for strictly private ones is something I have not seen, so it may be acceptable in that one, I dont know, but since public sentiment is so strong against it I do wonder if it has been state/nationally banned since the 80's?

just a side note,.... back in the 1800s when body snatching and murder for bodies and/or parts was common enough that people who could afford it paid to have a person watch a loved ones grave to make sure it wasnt 'liberated' in the night to be sold to eager medical schools, it was also accepted to do vivisection on humans, at least the criminal class. the practice was government sanctioned. the schools could only have 1 per year I believe. the experiments back then were often curiosity based, not medical need based. so in some way we can say "mankind" (an oxymoron btw http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/happy.gif) has progressed.

dot
20th August 2004, 17:37
TVoR,

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure if vivisection is still legally practiced, but since it's mentioned in the books I've read, I thought I'd add it.

sally
21st August 2004, 05:35
Thank you, David, that's the point i was trying to make. This thread turned into completely useless debates. There's no point in debateing an opinion.

(Yes, i am ill for the time being, but i'm slowly being healed through prayer and fasting.)

john
21st August 2004, 05:55
I didn't waste much time on this. I read the first post and I read some of Ed's posts. The rest I skimmed. I simply don't have the attention span for it since I've heard it all before.

Thread closed. Sally - keep your word please.

John
19th January 2008, 04:25
It's now 2008 and I was doing some maintenance in the admin section of the forum software. Turns out this is the most replied-to thread on the forum ever. It's a strange old world.

PS: Please don't re-open the "topic" of discussion - I doubt Sally's around to defend herself any more.