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

[joseph]

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]

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]

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

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!

"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!"

Al

 

[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?"

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

ugh-i dont feel this is accomplishing anything- i'm out of here....

......its been swell -but the swellings gone down......

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]

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

"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."<!-/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]

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]

@sally

why do I keep animals?
because I like to, simple as that

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

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]

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]

"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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.