Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I couldn't make it to the chat with Chris, but reading the transcript made that dim bulb in my head glow a little harder

I personally advocate trying to provide the best environment for pets. I raise all kinds of stuff, fish, reptiles, mammals (even hooved ones).

However - SPECIFICALLY for crocodilians - given that they can go for long periods of time in the wild without eating, due to either climate or simple lack of prey, is it really that bad to reduce feeding to your croc (and I'll go on a limb here) to stunt growth?

I know gut reaction is "Hell yes it's terrible". I would hate to think responses to this would set a bad example for novice keepers so please feel free to PM me on this and discuss via email as my intent is not to advocate or condone starving your pet, but merely discuss the "real" effect on the reptile.

Mr. F

I think this is a good forum discussion point.

I also think I understand where you are coming from with this. Here is my take. Just because an animal CAN survive long periods of extreme conditions doesn't mean it's preferable or desired by the animal.

Let's say you wanted to stunt an alligator/croc whatever. So one intentionally keeps food from the animal for extended periods. Do you think the animal would prefer to eat or not? This is one of the primary differences in why i think it's a mistake to intentionally bring a wild survival scenario into a captive situation.

An animal in the wild may fast for many reasons, seasonal temperatures, overpopulation, lack of food etc but it is always with the intent that the animal will resume feeding as soon as conditions return to normal. Long term inadequate environements can lead to some populations being smaller than their counterparts or simply not being able to exist there anymore. Most of these scenarios lead to a significant number of animal deaths as well.

Now the question is as a crocodilian keeper should one ever try to emulate such extreme conditions that the animal cannot grow properly. I would say no. If you take an animal as a captive I feel the responsibility to care for that animal in a 1st rate manner is implicit. That doens't mean the animal can't or shouldn't have a natural seasonal fluctuation in feeding just that it shouldn't be forced to keep an animal undersized.

In my experience most stunted animals result from malnutrition and inadequate temperatures. Animals that are simply not cared for at all. Knowing this it would be hard for me to ever see how subjecting a living creature to a form of suffering and inadequate care could be justified. Crocodilians will grow well with a modicum of decent care, not providing it is simply cruelty.

If one wants a small crocodilian, get a small species. I simply don't see the logic in stunting a large species.
-----
CDieter
'Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science.'

...more

Thanks for the reply, and though I completly agree that one should endeavour to provide the best care, I guess I should maybe restate the question in a more clear manner...

Is it really cruelty to reduce the food intake, if it's natural or common place in the animal's wild life.

As opposed to say, horses, that you need to feed 2/3 times a day, as they eat all day every day, they don't go a day without food in the wild. If you don't feed them for one day out of the blue, you can kill them (digestive problems)

Mr. F

>>Is it really cruelty to reduce the food intake, if it's natural or common place in the animal's wild life.

I do see where you are coming from, and no I guess it wouldn't be cruelty per se. One could probably argue that given the obese state of many captive crocodilians that the real cruelty manifests itself on that end.

BUT I think you are perhaps confusing what a crocodilian is capable of doing to survive and what it would do in a better environment. Since theoretically a captive environment should be what is more optimum for the crocodilian you end up just starving the animal for no reason but your own. Now if the animal went of feed due to environmental conditions or cycling thats a different story.

>
>>As opposed to say, horses, that you need to feed 2/3 times a day, as they eat all day every day, they don't go a day without food in the wild.

Well yes but the analogy isn't a great one. The horse is also warm blooded and has much higher metabolic needs.
-----
CDieter
'Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science.'

I don't have any data to back it up, but I would think there would be a bell curve that would peak at the optimum intake for the conditions. It would tail off as intake decreases for reasons of weakness resulting in compromised immune system and lesser ability to fend for itself. It would also tail off as intake increased due to obesity and complications arising from that, as well and decreased motor skills due to weight. I think it might look something like this:

As a prevet student forced into taking a semester of statistics, I really had to chuckle at your bell curve.

I was thinking the same thing however. The extremes causing stunting... not good. Decrease in life length is expected. Even though crocs can live over 70-80 in the wild, what's the average, 10-20? WHy would you want to reproduce that?

Now optimally, say your species gets fed one a week, every week. If you miss a week here and there is this a problem? Nope.

If the genetic maximum of your individual croc (which will always be in question, but for the example, lets say we know) is say, 15 feet, but due to feeding variation it only gets 14 feet, I"d say that's a natural, and healthy growth. If it's deprived to where it's only going to reach 10 feet or whatever, then at some point, a line of cruelty should be drawn. There is some relation between deprivation and longitivity, however undefined it is.

I'm in a rush, I'll have to check in later

Ian