Longest Thread Ever (Original title was "Like?")

S

sally

Guest
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?
 
C

carl

Guest
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
 
P

paris

Guest
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.
 
S

sally

Guest
"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

New member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
277
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Connecticut, USA
Country
United States
"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.
 
P

paris

Guest
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.
 
S

sally

Guest
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.
 
P

peter

Guest
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.
 
P

paris

Guest
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)
 
J

joseph

Guest
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.
 
S

sally

Guest
"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.


"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.
 

dot

New member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
277
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Connecticut, USA
Country
United States
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.
 
I

ira

Guest
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.
 
E

edward

Guest
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
 
P

paris

Guest
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.
 
S

sally

Guest
"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.
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.
 
J

joseph

Guest
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)
 
P

paris

Guest
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?)
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • (Guest) Taro Tea:
    Will anything happen to my axolotl??
  • Mother of Dragons:
    keep adding prime everyday for a week and your axolotl should be ok
    +1
    Unlike
  • Chat Bot:
    Guest guy has joined the room.
  • (Guest) guy:
    hey
  • sde:
    Caudata.org chat? Haven’t seen this in years
    +1
    Unlike
  • Dougie:
    @sde, hi everybody I'm getting a tiger salamander coming from Katy Texas what are the shipping conditions that's okay to have them shipped to me in the state of Vermont it's just starting to get the temperature low above 45 but it may be too hot to ship him any thoughts or ideas on how to work this out
    +1
    Unlike
  • newtmember:
    as long as its not freezing they should ship fine. I usually ship mine in 2 days priorities like axolotl. insulation and some cold pack. Is this morphed or still a larvae?
    +1
    Unlike
  • macmac194:
    Greetings I have a quaratined tiger salamander due to not feeding and feeling lethargic. I saw a slimy green stuff inside the enclosure. Is this vomit? Poop?
    +1
    Unlike
  • Jjrio421:
    Are you still looking to rehome any of your axolotl babies?
    +1
    Unlike
  • Chat Bot:
    Guest nagato has joined the room.
  • (Guest) nagato:
    Does anybody know where or who to buy danube crested newts from?
  • Mother of Dragons:
    Anyone in the DMV area looking for juvenile axolotls? I have several morphs available. Experienced owners and pickup only please.
    +1
    Unlike
  • Chat Bot:
    Guest axmaolotl has joined the room.
  • Ariania Lee-Ann:
    I currently have a 3 year old axolotl, he hasn't been eating for the past couple of weeks and has lost a lot of weight. Hedwig usually eats bloodworms and earthworms just fine but now he won't even stud it. I've done a water change to make his nitrate lower and his water is at a good temperature
    +1
    Unlike
  • Chat Bot:
    Guest zippy has joined the room.
  • (Guest) zippy:
    what substrate is he on?
  • Linkisnotzelda:
    Are any of you guys on Quora? I’ve started an axolotl space there and am looking for people interested in helping out!
    +1
    Unlike
  • KarateKid08:
    I am wanting a spotted or tiger salamander and I was wondering how often to feed, what the best feeders would be and how many fed per feeding session.
    +1
    Unlike
  • Chat Bot:
    KarateKid08 has left the room.
    +1
    Unlike
  • Chat Bot:
    KarateKid08 has joined the room.
    +1
    Unlike
  • newtboi:
    Can I has alpine newts pls
    +1
    Unlike
  • ndbug:
    Any ambystoma breeders looking for californiense
    +1
    Unlike
  • axolotl owner2020:
    does anybody have any information on homemade baby axolotl food?
    +1
    Unlike
  • axolotl owner2020:
    I have an earthworm farm, and a tight budget.
    +1
    Unlike
  • Naxuzi:
    Hey guys I was wondering if my axolotl looks fine to you he/she (still don’t know) I’d activate and eating as usual but I did notice veins in the tail area.. let me know what you guys think! Also if anyone could tell if it’s a boy or girl that would be great! (Zolo was eating a worm and pretty sure the worm pooped XD)
    +2
    Unlike
    Naxuzi: Hey guys I was wondering if my axolotl looks fine to you he/she (still don’t know) I’d activate... +2
    Top