Especially the last part. That gave me a real kick. The defining point with regards to the differences in what we approach when it comes to captive monitor applications is how I got started and then progressed with my (successful) group.

Meaningfully, that start was from reading kingsnake forums since the care guides and vet's advice proved unrealistic; I was too young at that point to be theoretical on my own, so that wasn't a, er, handicapp.

The forum voice back then that I particularly liked (as so many other beginning keepers do) was that which ran under a big F and R, because it was easy to understand. The messages given were very blunt, to-the-point. This is a writing characteristic that I've never had and am always intrigued by. I don't mean outright flattery by that, it's just different (to me), and as in many cases here, different is good. Many of my bottom-line understandings came from reading of prior experiences and, yeah, the results. But eventually, since I was intent on breeding these monitors, the detail difficulties became too frequent and I had to figure out how to sythesize complete thoughts for application on my own.

I went to the library since no concrete answers seemed to abound online. I don't know where I got the notion that an archaic public library would have more to offer about varanid reproduction. It would not have, were I not in possession of a little common sense and an ability to apply by way of thinking in the same fashion that you summarized nice and humorously in that last post. Neat thing is, I figure that was possible because I was young enough not to have a bunch of theoretical "halfway technologies" already imbedded in my head (I had a helpful form of innocence, which is often synonomized with purity; okay, maybe that's getting a bit too poetic). The book that really helped out my way of thinking was "Herpetology," the '93 one by George Zug. It was great because it presented behavioral ecology and physiology not group to group but rather across the board. This was a simple format, and similarly, helped me keep applications simple, even though the text was much more grammatically and topically "advanced" than your (basics) discussions here. From it I gleaned that the monitors were truly not that much different, insofar as captive applications, than the very distant reptiles I bred in large numbers at the same time. So, I guess in a way, the scientific reference that could cloud the minds of some, actually unclouded mine.

My subsequent success encouraged me to figure that a properly-dosed applied principle approach does prove beneficial. However, such an approach is best starting off from simple, proven captive-based basics. I think that part should be underscored. Similarly, advancing those basics need the applied principles to help with some of the more advanced problems down the road. You stated this more concisely with the crawling-walking-flying progression analogy.

That is a problem on this forum, the lack of the meaningful division you mention. My way of communication would be a lost cause on a beginner forum. That's where elaboration on how to understand the avoidance of problems is not needed, but rather, a brief explanation on how to simply, correct the problems that are occurring. You see, I don't disagree with what you discuss, or how you approach the topics. What I have to say, similarly, does not at all fail to apply to captive monitor maintenance, it just emphasizes understandings instead of proofs. Understandings (physiology and consequent behavior) is where the groundwork for the proofs (captive results) lays. Beginners don't tend to like the elaborate part. I didn't until it seemed necessary. Regardless of which part of the approach seems more palatable to the masses, I don't think encouragement should be given for not having such discussions, as at least I've taken from this one. Thanks.

[ Show Entire Thread ]