Posted by:
casichelydia
at Thu Oct 13 14:27:10 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by casichelydia ]
You propose people's aversion towards amphibians and reptiles as the antagonist of your paper's objective. Consider that, if you are trying to convince people that these creatures aren't all that bad, taking the route of telling them that such animals make good housepets may be a little ambitious insofar as possible approaches go.
Describing herps as important ecosystem participants, important for our understandings of primitive approaches (from a basal aspect) to vertebrate physiologic processes, or just because they're nifty, might be better-received persuasion than claiming large constrictors as ideal bedfellows.
You might be taking too liberal an advance towards very high-strung emotions (in the people who are not reptile fans). Also consider, herps are not self-regulating as are dogs, cats, birds. Their environmental mandates tend to be a little more elaborate than those of the average aquarium fish species. For the latter, plug in light, filter, sometimes heater, good to go. No worries about humidity, photoperiod, substrate, nutrition, thermogradation, etc. The basics to amphibian and reptile keeping are more plagued with contradicting approaches than is the keeping of fishes, birds, and certainly, mammals. With regards to these comparative groups, I mean the common "pet" species, as I'm sure you're similarly stressing the good pet qualities of common herp species, as opposed to rare or difficult specialists.
The truth is, amphibians and reptiles are actually not good pets for most people. For the purposes here, good = practical. Understand, by this I do not mean most "herp people," but, most people in general. Practicality in pets provides for a positive margin for error in the keepers, and keepers are prone to error (i.e., they're human). Since understanding how to properly care for amphibians and reptiles requires an owner to understand not just the animals' behavior, but also, environmental conditions required, they are far more complicated to approach as pet subjects than endotherms (warm-blooded critters). Since (most) amphibians and reptiles live in air or at least (after metamorphosis) breathe it, their environments cannot be so closed and self-supporting as the average simple fish tank.
Physiologically, amphibians and reptiles are far more diverse than average aquarium fish (which are similarly "cold-blooded" , too, which means, you can't understand the specifics for one species and understand the specifics for all. Achieving that requires a great deal of applied common sense - something that many pet keepers don't like to (or can't) invest. This is why so many keepers fall down on keeping herps alive in the long run, let alone allowing them to achieve greater goals in life (reproduction).
Finally, certain characteristics about the animals this forum directly concerns will never appeal to most people. Why would you keep large, huffy, scaley animals that feed on cute, little, fuzzy animals when you can keep more responsive dogs or cats, which feed on pureed racehorses and chicken entrails that are conveniently packaged as dog- or cat-specific, unrecognizable-ingredient, food in cans?
Do remember, these are just thoughts with which you might approach your paper's topic. Take em or leave em. Hopefully, the paper will work out for you, since schools are a positive atmosphere in which to counter near-superstitious beliefs such as those pertaining to many amphibians and reptiles. Young minds seem to lose interest in prejudice a little more easily than do old ones. Still, how could anyone hold distaste for such an endearing face?
[ Hide Replies ]
|
You're skipping a step or two. - casichelydia, Thu Oct 13 14:27:10 2005 