I didn't say "credit card" to pry open the mouth. I believe I said use that or something similar to "place" in there as it's opening and closing it's mouth...per the scenario offered by outdoorsman, that I didn't really see as viable anyway.

When offering advice on the "prying open" of the mouth; I said like a "Petco keychain card". Again...I am very precise with the word selection. I gave this type of card as an example because it is much thinner than a credit card and flexes quite a bit. It gives where a "credit card" would not. Therefore, the reason I specifically did not say "credit card" to "pry open" any "mouth". Another example of why my posts should not be comprehended to include meanings other than those given by it's specific terms. I do not speak in abstractions nor use a few words to loosely mean everything similar, as women sometimes do.

While I respect Lester's opinions, and his experience, I do not always agree. I would say most of the time I do agree with him, but his positions have sometimes contravened those of other known HL researchers or herpetologists. In fairness, I say that I don't recall that this has happened often. Nevertheless, anything said by Lester is probably best left said by Lester to avoid anything being taken out of context.

The treatment of parasites with Panacur is a long time established safe protocol for reptiles. It is very safe and very hard to overdose with. Even double the recommended dosage in many cases results in no ill effects. Some advocate the even more effective Ivermectin with some reptiles. But since this drug is known to be fatal to some herps and you must consult a chart to find out which, I stay away from it.

With respect to your mention of Lester's proported comments; I would agree for the most part with the underlying logic of that arguement. No more should be fooled with than necessary. However these lizards are not in the wild. There are many different aspects of these lizards which are being interfered with simply because they are in captivity. To observe them in captivity, is to change them. Their chemical and other health issues are affected by going to less space, to more stress, to different diet, to artificially generated UV light, etc, etc, etc. Such effects could quite conceivably lead to a higher rate of parasitic infestation, and reduction in the captive HL's ability to mitigate such infestations, I should think.

I also disagree that a healthy HL could just "shake off" these parasites. The nature of the nematode is to stay within the host, attached to the walls of the digestive system, until it's purpose is served and the life cycle can be completed through the ingestion of nematode eggs by the harvester ant. That is how they are designed. It is known that hundreds, or thousands of these parasites sometimes infest a HL. If they can be "shake off" in any significant numbers by the HL, I would like to hear some evidence of that...even if it's anecdotal evidence.

Does this mean I advocate more interference only because it is already being done? NO. Not without good merit and evidence do I advocate such things. But it does mean that some other less natural methods are necessary in captivity to employ; in order to counter, mitigate, or complement certain effects that are already taking place as a consequence of captivity. In the case of snakes; we often must force feed them in order to get them to begin eating. Sometimes can go on for quite a while. In the case of turtles; we often must treat for shell rot and predator/house pet related carapace damage. In many reptiles, the treatment of external parasites, such as mites, is called for, or assistance with shedding. In the case of the first two examples; these are situations that can lead to fatalities fairly quickly if there is no intervention. In the case of the latter two; these can lead to infection/disease and a poor health condition that may lead to eventual death. In your arguement, however, would you have us not interfere in such manners to save the lives of these captive animals or improve their quality of life, simply because they would not have such assistance in nature? The weak being culled out so to speak? Would the screwing, wiring, and epoxying of a turtle's shell back together be considered "extravagant"?

"Extravagant means" is quite a matter of subjectivity when keeping a wild animal in captivity, wouldn't you say?
I could make the case that a ZooMed UV light, or using the refrigerator to manipulate ants for Horned Lizard consumption is "extravagant" means. I could also make the case that failure to treat certain conditions, that are not only long accepted reptile veterinary practice...but that are easily and safely treated...could amount to "negligent keeping" or "abuse".

Keeping in captivity something that is wild necessitates doing some un-natural things to it. Sometimes this can prolong the life of the animal. Sometimes it is merely to improve it's quality of life and make things less rough and more comfortable than it would have in nature. Many times interventions and un-natural things are necessary if you want the animal to survive captivity at all. Without which, some animals would just be better left in the wild to begin with.
-----
"A man that should call everything by it's right name, would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax 1912,246

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]