” Jaffar311 it would seem to me instead of flaming and cutting people down.."
I did not see any flaming at all from Jaffar unless you are referring to him grilling out in his backyard- that I would not be able to see.
” I was always taught if you can't say anything nice or helpful not to say anything.”
And your post is an example of this?
Right here is someone keeping you updated on a success story in progress.
So, if someone posts about the fact that they are raising their iguana on a diet of field mice and eight months in it is working terrific, should we keep our typing to ourselves as we are being updated on a ‘success story’ and we can’t find anything nice to say?
” Until someone does what LprdGeckoGuy does AND manages to post regardless of what people say you never will hear about these stories!!!!”
I think Jaffar’s point was that many people have shared mixed species stories and most have been negative including maiming and fatalities. The point here is that if the practice is one that is recommended against by the majority of professionals in the field, has high odds of potentially resulting in harm to the animals, and has many drawbacks with few or no benefit to the animals involved, maybe it is a rather dangerous and irresponsible act even if there is a chance that the animals might be alive 8 months later. I think the odds of hearing ‘success’ stories are much, much greater in this situation than hearing the ones that failed. We have heard quite a few failures and this is only a fraction of what is out there.
” How long do you think it should take to BE a success, 1 yesr, 5, 10, 20...ever?????”
I don’t know- how long would my iguana have to live on mice before I can count that as a success story?
To answer your question let’s agree on the definition of success in this situation.
Is success just keeping all of the animals alive? If so, we can then say that LeprdGeckoGuy has been successful for eight months.
Is success based on the cost of electricity and extent of maintenance? If so, I think we can say that LeprdGeckoGuy has been successful for eight months as he has only had one enclosure to maintain instead of 4 and I am sure his electricity bills are lower due to less equipment.
However, if your definition of success is similar to mine when dealing with animal husbandry, then success would deal with the health, welfare, and benefit of the animals.
Is there a benefit to nocturnal animals living with diurnal animals in a confined space? Is there a benefit to keeping animals with different diet and temperature requirements together? Is there a benefit to keeping animals that do not cohabitate naturally that have different temperaments in the same enclosure?
Maybe we need to look at a few things LeprdGeckoGuy has already admitted
- “there is usually one collard sitting on the head of the chuck, the uromastyx and chuck are always together under the same lamp with the uro often basking on top of the chuck, the uro is pesty to the chuck but the chuck just ignores it, the uromastyx is getting used to the collards jumping on its head all of the time…”
Statements like this tell me that this is not a successful cohabitation. Well, unless your definition is that the animals are all still alive but we are working off my definition for now so I will stick with this.
The stress of high-strung animals bouncing off the head of less active animals should be a red flag for almost everyone that this is a stressful situation. The two animals with higher heat requirements are laying on top of each other in this enclosure which tells me that because the enclosure is rigged for a variety of animals, the high basking/heat area is limited and the two are competing for space.
Having insectivores in with herbivores could lead to some serious health issues. Has LeprdGeckoGuy done any blood workup to verify the effects that a mixed diet habitat might be playing on the herbivores? If the uromastyx and chuck are in early stages of gout-would we be chalking this all up as a success right now?
How about stress? Do we know what role the stress of animals jumping on each others heads or nocturnal animals interfering with the sleep patterns of diurnal animals might be playing on the health of these animals? If the life expectancy is cut by 30% due to the increased stress of this multiple species habitat- do we still consider this a success?
What if there is an increase in frequency of health related issues or overgrowth of parasites where we need to treat 2-3 times more often than we would if each species lived in its own enclosure tailored to its own needs- is this a success story?
What about the fact that the gradient is tailored to meet the needs of a wide variety of animals and therefore substandard or ‘ok’ for some but not ideal for any? Do we measure this as a success? For who?
The part that everyone is overlooking is how we measure success. If we look for mere aggression and injury and overlook things that this stressful environment might cause such as an increase in health issues, larger health issues that might be present or slowly growing but not readily apparent, possible decrease in longevity, and the actual ‘quality ‘of life these animals face living in this mixed environment, then I say we have no business declaring the cohabitation of these animals a success. I say we simply state it for what it is- LeprdGeckoGuy has managed to keep multiple species alive together for eight months in a 6x4x4 enclosure.
A reminder to all that this is a forum where people like LeprdGeckoGuy and Jaffar are free to express any opinion they want. For those that might feel they are in first grade because a particular post or opinion upset them, feel free to exercise your right not to click on replies.
