Them,











These events still occurred(on 7-23-06) and under conditions that suggest, not define, that social behavior is included with monitor behavior.



They occurred with groups of monitors kept together at all times. They get along fine, there is no fighing or any other solitary behaviors, they do not seek to be away from eachother, they actually seek to be around eachother.



I think, but do not know, that most keepers would hope to see such events, normal or otherwise. As I mentioned in my responce to mrcota, its the goal of both nature and captivity to succeed and exsist.



So again, what do these pics represent. Do they represent something bad, contrary to the nature of monitors? Or something good, included in the nature of monitors???????? There must be a answer to this.



That Mrcota and other theory boys cannot answer that is odd and something that should be questioned. You see, if they say those pics are good, then that reflects poorly on their opinions and supports my opinions. If they say those pics are wrong all wrong, then we all will easily be able to tell where they are coming from. A place not about monitors, but about their own personal egos. As I do not believe any rational person thinks that happens by doing it wrong.



You see it boils down to this. The information givin in both literature and here on this forum, is to support the success of captive monitors, not hinder it. That I show success and express methods that support the successful keeping of monitors, bothers the heck out of some people. Particularly those from a different background and different education.



To allow what the above pictures show, is often a longterm goal of most of us. That some try with all their ability to confuse the successful keeping of monitors, with information that has not shown any benefit, is very odd and shows a distinct direction of their intent. They cannot be here to help with the keeping of monitors, but only come to somehow prove they must be right. Even thought they themselves are not good at keeping monitors.



The above paragraph, is the honey pot, this is the key. Why are they trying to confuse the successful keeping of monitors, when they have expressed no evidence they have any capability at the successful keeping, muchless advanced keeping of monitors?



I know this sounds like its about people, but its truely about how we keep monitors. Why do they offer information that has not been shown to advance our chances of success? They only offer what was done many years ago, often with poor results and rarely with any success at all. "Yet they claim to be advanced".



One last thought, when keeping monitors in groups, we do see solitary behaviors and we see social behaviors. Individuals that attract eachother and other individuals that repell the others. That both occur means there is a choice, they can do either if needed. That some chose to be solitary, indicates they made a choice, and were not forced. That some chose to be social is also a choice made. While saying its the cages fault is an easy scapegoat, it could cause that, but does not have to.



Common sense(some educated people seem to lack this) tells you this is a easy problem to solve. You remove the solitary individual and let the social individuals practice their choice. Or you can increase the size of the cage or contents of the cage. Or can use behavior to your benefit.



If you take it farther, you can actually promote a high degree of success. Simply, raising them from babies together increases the percentages of success. In most cases, by raising them together, you get over 80% success, which is very much the opposite when they are not raised together.



This practice indicates, its not the walls of the cage that allows captive monitors to be social or practice socialized behaviors, but more about how the monitor was raised and how those experiences reflect its life.



What bothers me and should bother all keepers is, why do they use information gained from what they did not see or use, over information that we commonly do see. This is not scientific at all.



In summary, we see hardcore social behaviors that result in measurable successful repeatable results. In short, It meets all things science requires, yet these professed students of science throw it out, in lew of what they do not see. If you were to inquire and curious minds do inquire, they have not seen much of anything. Just ask them. They cannot express a series of events. Things like what a successful female does year after year, what mates she chooses, what nests she choses, what diet, what temps, what acitivities? They cannot express that for any species muchless a number of species. Not in captivity or in nature.



Consider, they do have tiny pieces of a puzzle and are telling us how the puzzle will come out. Yet we have a much much simplier puzzle and WE KNOW HOW THE PUZZLE WILL COME OUT. As we have done it thousands of times(that number scares them) Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]