Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I think it would not be beneficial if we stopped referring to these reptiles we keep and breed as "Pets"
They are in fact, not pets -- They are "Confined Display Animals" of an educational nature. Indeed, keeping and observing them does inspire a great deal of thought and wonder on so many levels.
There is always this discussion on how we're all getting rich at the expense of Mother Nature in the media. While there may be a very few that make a better than average living in the trade. Most people break even at best. If there was a profitable economic model for the trade, I'm sure the big corporations would be involved. They are not. Just like a few entertainers make it big and a few athletes make it big, so goes the herp business. Those that make it big are few and far between; an infinitesimally small segment of the whole.
We all know there is little money to be made in keeping and breeding herps. For the most part, progeny is bartered in trade for new acquisitions, enabling one's expanded appreciation of the hobby. Or sold, to defray costs. It's a money looser for most, but it's something we obviously love and put a great deal of ourselves into.
A more accurate economic description of the "Business" should be as a Commodity Market and the Herps themselves considered Propagated Livestock, not "Pets".
In an effort to remove the hysteria and inaccuracies in the media, lets all try to start with a more realistic and more accurate terminology of what we do. As I've just described for example. I'm open to suggestions. We have got to stop allowing those that oppose us and those that don't understand us to couch the terms and to frame the discussion. Very inaccurately, I might add.
Just my 2 cents.
jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Excellent post John. I have never liked or used the term 'pets' when making reference to any reptile or amphibian that I have kept. I've been collecting and keeping such critters for over half a century and they have never been my 'pets'. I have dogs for pets. I don't even consider any of my wife's tropical fish to be 'pets'. The other animals I collect and or keep are 'specimens' or 'breeding stock', etc. I agree that we need rethink how we refer to our animals and ultimately reshape the way the public sees our animals. They are not pets.

Just my 2 centavos on the topic.
-----
Gerald Keown
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research
www.southwesternherp.com

First of all, not all of the herp enthusiasts just breed and sell the animals. Some of us actually enjoy keeping, caring for, and handling our animals. "Pet: A domesticated animal kept for companionship or amusement." While the animal itself may not get any amusement or enjoyment out of being our pet, the pet owner definitely does. When talking about "everybody" please take steps to make sure that your "everybody" includes people who do not share your views. The way you have put it, you seem to think that everybody in the herping world does what they do simply for profit, however the reality is that some people do it because they enjoy it. "Everybody" does include those people not in the business of selling and trading herps. The private owner, like who would have a dog or cat, not a breeder, would have a "pet" (yes i said pet *GASP*) simply for the enjoyment, and the educational value of owning said pet. Just because they're cold blooded, doesn't exclude them from being able to be called pets. The way you put it, you seem to be thinking of herps as objects, or at the very least, comparing them all to livestock, such as cows, pigs, and other animals that are discompassionately killed and sold as food. Those of you that do have a large business selling and trading herps may think it easier to think of them as objects, rather than living breathing animals, but that doesn't make it more true. Sorry to be blunt, and maybe a little rude, but when the herpers themselves start treating the herps like objects, all hope is lost.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

The Idea that is trying to be conveyed is that reptiles and amphibians are a bit different than other "pets". Perhaps because all the left wing whack-jobs out there like to tell everybody that "these creatures don't make good PETS". Perhaps some of us out there are sick and tired of these left-wing anti-capitalist closet commie enviro-terrorsist types trying to compare our reptile "pets" to there stupid yellow labs and pathetic house cats. In an attempt to distance what we keep from this weak-minded train of thought perhaps some are suggesting no longer referring to them as "pets". This does not mean that we enjoy them any less just that they are not the cats and dogs that the animal whackos want to convince people we think they are.

I never said that herps were the same as dogs and cats, i simply said that the definition of "pet" includes them. I agree that keeping a dog, and keeping an herp is completely different, I just believe that they are still encompassed under the term "pet". BTW, i don't really like that subject name...I never meant to personally attack anybody, I just didn't appreciate how they were turning more and more into objects, by the same people who are trying to prove that they aren't.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

If left unrestrained or unconfined, an established pet dog or a cat will not intentionally wander off and leave it's owner for good. There is a bond between both.
However, a reptile will leave. It hasn't the capacity to recognize any relationship between itself and it's owner.
That is the difference as I see it.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Perhaps...It's debatable. Obviously snakes (my specialty) don't form bonds, but...don't like, iguanas "love", recognize individuals, and even get jealous? (forgive me, i dont know much about iguanas.) Obviously i'm anthropomorphizing, but anthropomorphisms are always somewhat true, because most animals indisputably experience emotions, so it's just names for emotions. I obviously have a different personality, and think differently than you, so i have no illusions that i will sway your point of view, and you do have a good interesting point...i just don't agree with it. I'm always open to changing my views, given a good enough reason, so i'm listening.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Jacob,

Sorry guy, i did not set out to get your dander in an uproar. For clarification while I do breed some animals, I do not sell animals...either captive bred or wild caught. And yes I do enjoy keeping, caring for, and handling herps. I you can certainly enjoy keeping, caring for and handling them also....but that does not make them a domesticated animal or a "pet".
-----
Gerald Keown
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research
www.southwesternherp.com

Domesticated: "converted or adapted to domestic use" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define: Domesticated&btnG=Google Search)

Domestic: "of or relating to the home" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define: domestic&btnG=Search)

You're saying we haven't converted herps for "use" (only for lack of a better term) in our homes? They're obviously not the same as their wild counterparts. We've tamed them and learned how to take care of them. If that's not domestication, i don't know what is.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

"You're saying we haven't converted herps for "use" (only for lack of a better term) in our homes? They're obviously not the same as their wild counterparts. We've tamed them and learned how to take care of them. If that's not domestication, i don't know what is."

Ok, then you don't know what is-because that definitely is NOT domestication. True domestication takes scores to hundreds of generations of selective breeding. We've been breeding reptiles with regularity for less than 4 decades- 10 or so generations at most (with periodic infusions of wild blood along the way).

Herps are the functional equivalents of tropical fish-beautiful to look at, fascinating to observe in form and behaviour-but totally unable to return our affection or respond to our caresses. They are living, breathing creatures, and we appreciate them as such, but they are rarely "pets".
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

Since amel corns were bred in 1969 and thousands since in captivity, I would consider them fitting the description of "domestic".
-----
Tim Cole
www.Designeratrox.com/
www.AustinReptileService.net
www.AustinReptileExpo.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
Conservation through Education

Tim-They're gettin there, anyway!
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

Yeah, I've heard that analogy, they're bred like goldfish.
So, is a goldfish a pet? People have been selectively breeding goldfish cultivars for thousands of years.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Indeed, goldfish are considered pets. Also, pet rock 0.o they don't form bonds.! Lol, couldn't resist. BRhaco- The definition of domesticated never referred to it HAVING to take thousands of generations. You're just making definitions up. A pet is a domesticated animal, and a domesticated animal is something that has been converted for "use" in a home. Taming them alone should make them domesticated, because they are being changed, and acclimated to humans. We keep and breed them, which in itself makes them domesticated. You're definition of pet is completely skewed, a pet isn't just something that forms a mutual bond with somebody. You hear of dogs and cats running away from home? Most of them wouldn't come back if you didn't find them, so saying reptiles aren't pets just because they would run away and not come back also implies that dogs, cats, birds, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, rabbits, and a whole load of other animals aren't pets as well, which simply put, would make a lot of people mad. I have more to say, but i'll let you respond to this first.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

missing the point of this thread. the idea of not refferring to reptiles as pets is not intended to make less of your animals that you keep. It is intended in the sense of a legal definition of captive reptiles for the purpose of points I made to you in an earlier post. fyi whether or not it takes several thousand years to domesticate an animal is besides the point to the fact that all animals that are considered domestic have in fact been kept in captivity for thousands of years and in some cases the actual animals they were domesticated from either no longer exist in the wild or are extremely rare(horses, bovines, new world camelids.) or have changed dramatically from their original ancestors in appearance and/or behavior(cats,dogs,jungle fowl-chickens.) If you want to see a prime example of this you should consider volunteering at a local wolf dog rescue in your area. Dogs are descended from wolves and are virtually genetically identical. Yet in reality a wolf or mid-high content wolf dog is a whole different animal to that labrodoodle you saw walking down the street this morning. such an experience will definitely change your perspective of the difference between and domestic.

>>"whether or not it takes several thousand years to domesticate an animal is besides the point to the fact that all animals that are considered domestic have in fact been kept in captivity for thousands of years"......Put that way you say that it's pure coincidence that "all" (another opinionated term, definately not all domesticated animals have taken thousands of years to get where they are today. Would have been accurate to say "some", or "most", and most is even pushing it.) animals that are domesticated today have taken thousands of years to domesticate, which does nothing to help your point. Nobody gets anywhere if opinion keeps getting turned into "fact".

>>"Dogs are descended from wolves and are virtually genetically identical. Yet in reality a wolf or mid-high content wolf dog is a whole different animal to that labrodoodle you saw walking down the street this morning. such an experience will definitely change your perspective of the difference between and domestic."

at the end, which "experience" were you referring to? IF a labradoodle walks down the street, it isn't a personal experience for me. Also, looks like you left out a word, between the third to last word, and the second to last word.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

I agree for the most part when it comes to snakes but what about monitors and tegus? Both are well known to be able to remember certain people and distinguish between them, they are able to be litter box trained, seem to enjoy affection, and quite often will choose not to run away when given the option.

I have little first hand experience with tegus but i have some experience with monitors, and that experience has led me to think they are more intelligent than they are given credit for.

Also some snakes seem to fit into the "pet" category as well, indigo snakes and king cobras come to mind. Anecdotal evidence seems to show that both can recognize individuals and respond to them differently, sometimes with what would seem to be affection.

I don't think we have enough data to say much about the motives that drive individuals of another class of organisms, and the entire idea of "domestication" is kinda silly in my opinion. There are plenty of "domesticated" dogs roaming around the U.S.A. and I'm pretty sure id rather take my chances with my wolf/husky hybrid that is sleeping on my bed or this "wild" CB ball python. =/

Sorry for the bad spelling and grammar, I'm trying to clean out a cage and typing as i walk by my PC. =P

Thank you. I partly agree with the point of snakes. Most don't seem to form bonds, or recognize individuals, but in the definitions i got off google dictionary, along with what most people say, that isn't necessary in order to make a pet. Goldfish are considered pets (as i believe i've said before), and yet there is absolutely no physical interaction with them. Snakes are more than goldfish, sure they don't form bonds either, but they tolerate us. Hamsters don't seem to show much on the "affection" side, yet they are considered pets, what makes snakes different? I agree that snakes are different, but i do NOT agree that they aren't pets.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Great post. I don't want to get involved in this semantical debate, but I can tell you that my Indigo snake routinely looks me in the eye, and he also sits on my lap and watches TV with me. I'm not quite sure yet if he "prefers" me to other humans, but time will tell.

Thanks,
Ed

>>I agree for the most part when it comes to snakes but what about monitors and tegus? Both are well known to be able to remember certain people and distinguish between them, they are able to be litter box trained, seem to enjoy affection, and quite often will choose not to run away when given the option.
>>
>>I have little first hand experience with tegus but i have some experience with monitors, and that experience has led me to think they are more intelligent than they are given credit for.
>>
>>Also some snakes seem to fit into the "pet" category as well, indigo snakes and king cobras come to mind. Anecdotal evidence seems to show that both can recognize individuals and respond to them differently, sometimes with what would seem to be affection.
>>
>>I don't think we have enough data to say much about the motives that drive individuals of another class of organisms, and the entire idea of "domestication" is kinda silly in my opinion. There are plenty of "domesticated" dogs roaming around the U.S.A. and I'm pretty sure id rather take my chances with my wolf/husky hybrid that is sleeping on my bed or this "wild" CB ball python. =/
>>
>>Sorry for the bad spelling and grammar, I'm trying to clean out a cage and typing as i walk by my PC. =P

N/P
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

I got the definition of domestication from google dictionary, and not only did i paste the ENTIRE definition (that deals with animals) into the post, but i also gave the precise URL, so you could see it for yourself. It stated nothing about "Domestication takes ___ years", or "Domestication takes ___ generations". Those numbers are simply ones you've made up for the purpose of this discussion. People could say that it takes a ______ ____ years to become a _______, but when you think of the big picture, it's all just opinion. I know that for me, i need good solid FACTS in order to change my opinion, and not just somebody else's opinion. That's all i wanted to say.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

With that line of thinking -- the recreational firearms people are playing with toys, then?
There is conditioned response, operant conditioning and imprinting involved, that does not make the animal a pet.
I've had iguanas in the past that recognized me, but that's no more a response than the tropical fish trying to swim through the glass to get fed.
The animals and situations previously referred to may be considered tame by their owners and they may behave specifically to certain cues, but they are in no way tame pets.
If a lion trainer in the circus can interact and control the behavior of his big cats, does that mean the cats are tame pets? No it means they are trained wild animals.
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

What makes an animal "tame"? Is a dog both "domesticated" and "tame" when it feels unconditional love for a human and under no circumstances will ever harm that individual? Or is a dog considered both when it is influenced by the same conditioning affected the iguana.

If you have some sort of evidence or hypothesis to show emotion as independent from conditioning towards or away from negative or positive stimulus, i would love to hear it. Personally i have never seen anything in any animal,humans included, that could not be traced to some sort of conditioning.

So what is the difference?

EXACTLY what i was thinking, i just could not have put it into words as good as you have. Thank you. I was going to say something along the lines "about 99% of everything HUMANS do can be traced back to selfish intentions", but you put it way better. It's nice to see the group that shares my views finally stepping up.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Tell me, how is recognizing features of an individual, and reacting differently to said individual, the same as not understanding the concept of glass, and acting on one of the most primal instincts of any animal, the need to feed?
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Here's a "fact" for you-emotions such as love, affection, devotion, loyalty etc. are to me the hallmarks of my pets. These emotions arise from the cerebral cortex of the brain. Reptiles have no cerebral cortex. again, that does not in any way diminish my appreciation of them.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

Again, i just want to point out to you, that is OPINION, not FACT. There is a large difference. I even pasted the definition of "pet" into the topic. Anything other than that, are terms individuals have adopted as their own definitions, which are not the definitions of all. I do give you credit for saying "I think" instead of what everybody else has been saying, which is "it is", if you know what i mean. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but just because it is YOUR opinion, doesn't make it fact.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

The part about the cerebral cortex being the seat of emotions, and reptiles lacking same is not opinion, but fact. My conception of these emotions being pretty darn essential for a "pet"-that is opinion, but I'll venture a very popular one .....
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

Another very popular opinion is the one about reptiles being pets. I'd bet a majority of people (who aren't either terrified or repelled by reptiles) would say that they are in fact pets. Your OPINION is that animals need emotions to be pets, but the DEFINITION of a pet mentions no such restriction. If you can show me a reputable dictionary that says an animal needs to have emotions to be a pet, i will consider changing my opinion, but until then...
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Here are definitions from two dictionaries -

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pet :

pet 1 (pt)
n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
2. An object of the affections.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet

2: a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility

Saying it is a *fact* that reptiles cannot be pets is bogus. It's a matter of opinion, like Jacob said. If the argument is that we shouldn't refer to them as pets as a strategy to counter the anti-reptile movement, then that's a different story.

Thanks,
Ed

>>Another very popular opinion is the one about reptiles being pets. I'd bet a majority of people (who aren't either terrified or repelled by reptiles) would say that they are in fact pets. Your OPINION is that animals need emotions to be pets, but the DEFINITION of a pet mentions no such restriction. If you can show me a reputable dictionary that says an animal needs to have emotions to be a pet, i will consider changing my opinion, but until then...
>>-----
>>-Jacob
>>
>>Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Humans, cerebral cortex and all, seem to be able to lack some or all emotions. A tegu may appear to possess emotions while lacking that brain structure, would it not seem at least somewhat plausible that what we detect originating in the cerebral cortex may not be the end all and start of all emotions? After all we have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER had what goes on in the mind of something other than ourselves, a mere fifty years ago, hell i live in Alabama and know people today that would tell me a black person doesn't feel the same things i do. There was plenty of "science" to back this up, it had holes in it but eh...it worked ok, i prefer to wait until we have some clue at least of our OWN SPECIES before i will sign off on any others.

That said you are probably right for the most part, i am somewhat confident that there is some sort of bonding in some reptiles but i have not done enough research to say more than i already have.

This is just my opinion and it is based off of anecdotes and experience with little to know scientific basis, although history has without fail proven my line of arguments correct in the past. =)

I should have previewed that, two or three times i just start a new sentence in the middle of another one. lol

Sorry for the rambling incoherentness. XD

I agree with you, I think it's pointless to assume reptile brains operate the same way as the brains of humans.

I've had other types of snakes before (boas, corn/rat snakes, garter snakes, etc.), the Indigo does seem a bit more interactive. Here's a funny picture I took. I guess he heard us in the room (his cage is in the closet), and when I looked in on him, he was resting his head on the lip of the cage, staring out, almost like, "Hey fellas, let me out of here so I can join in the fun." (Normally he's curled up in his hide box.) Okay, maybe it was just coincidence, but it made for a funny picture.

Thanks,
Ed

>>Humans, cerebral cortex and all, seem to be able to lack some or all emotions. A tegu may appear to possess emotions while lacking that brain structure, would it not seem at least somewhat plausible that what we detect originating in the cerebral cortex may not be the end all and start of all emotions? After all we have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER had what goes on in the mind of something other than ourselves, a mere fifty years ago, hell i live in Alabama and know people today that would tell me a black person doesn't feel the same things i do. There was plenty of "science" to back this up, it had holes in it but eh...it worked ok, i prefer to wait until we have some clue at least of our OWN SPECIES before i will sign off on any others.
>>
>>That said you are probably right for the most part, i am somewhat confident that there is some sort of bonding in some reptiles but i have not done enough research to say more than i already have.
>>
>>This is just my opinion and it is based off of anecdotes and experience with little to know scientific basis, although history has without fail proven my line of arguments correct in the past. =)

Lol thanks, that was a funny picture. I have a bit of a story for you guys too! I was at the Minneapolis Pet Expo with the Minnesota Herp Society, and somebody there had a ratsnake that seemed to enjoy being pet. It would arch its back when you pet it, and the arch would follow your hand all the way down the back. It was cool!
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Cool picture, i really want an indigo or yellow cribo. The price tag and my lack of room for a large cage aren't helping me though.

My experience has been when the snake is behaving as if it wants to get out and join the fun it is telling me something. Not trying to communicate with me, but 1) recognizing, I am the one that brings the food. It is hungry. 2) Recognizes I am the one that has the ability to open the cage and allow it to get out because a) the cage is filthy, b) it is thirsty, c) something is irritating it that it wishes to escape from (mites for example).
If the snake is confined and something it requires is not available, it will try to escape to find that something (food, water, shelter, environment).
If the snake is confined and subjected to an unpleasant physiological environmental situation it will try to escape that condition for a better location. It may recognize its keeper as the one that can facilitate that change in circumstance, but that is the extent of the bond.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

And you "know this for a fact" simply because it is what you have attributed it's behavior to...It could be something completely different, but we can never truly know, because we can't ask the snake what it is thinking.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Hey John,

I'm not sure what your argument is. By definition,
people CAN call snakes pets. I certainly consider my Indigo
snake a pet. Yes, he is MORE than just that, he is an educational tool, an example of preserving a threatened species, etc. But if we start changing the definitions of words, then we all might as well hang it up.

I think I agree with the thought behind your original post, but
I don't think playing semantics means anything. I think we can just as easily counter the anti-reptile nuts by saying herps are "more than just pets, they are also..." as by saying "they are NOT pets, that are..." And the former does not allow the adversary to accuse us of changing the language and playing semantical games.

Now we just need to figure out how to get a Congressional hearing initiated.

Thanks,
Ed

>>My experience has been when the snake is behaving as if it wants to get out and join the fun it is telling me something. Not trying to communicate with me, but 1) recognizing, I am the one that brings the food. It is hungry. 2) Recognizes I am the one that has the ability to open the cage and allow it to get out because a) the cage is filthy, b) it is thirsty, c) something is irritating it that it wishes to escape from (mites for example).
>>If the snake is confined and something it requires is not available, it will try to escape to find that something (food, water, shelter, environment).
>>If the snake is confined and subjected to an unpleasant physiological environmental situation it will try to escape that condition for a better location. It may recognize its keeper as the one that can facilitate that change in circumstance, but that is the extent of the bond.
>>jsc
>>-----
>>"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
>>John Crickmer

On a thread a while back on the monitor forum Tom Crutchfield mentioned something about it "not being fair to match wits with an unarmed person". This thread went down this path a long time ago. Btw perhaps you remember me from the uha days in upstate N.Y. I my name is Mike Bailey I was one of Jim Giacobbe's friends (I sitll am I just haven't talked to him in years). Where-abouts are you living in Tx. Being a transplanted Texan form the Corpus Christi area I was just curious.

The thread never made any sense to me. Does anyone really think it will make one bit of difference if any/every reptile owner in the world starts referring to their animals as "educational tools" instead of "pets?"

Thanks,
Ed

Of course it will. That's exactly the problem. People seem to have some rather misguided conception on what these animals are.
They are not cute cuddly "pets" that seek and return affection as the moniker "Pets" implies.
They are scaly cold blooded creatures that have sharp claws and teeth and tails that can put an eye out. My iguanas always thrashed their tails at the eyes in defense. It was an instinctive reaction, not some cleverly crafted strategy.
These animals routinely harbor bacterial flora that have been known to cause gastrointestinal and other illnesses in humans.
Let me return to the gun analogy -- just because there are recreational firearms sportsmen out there, does this mean guns are toys? Of course not.
"Pets" is just not a good descriptive term to use when referring to these animals. It's just too far off the mark and leads to so much misinformation, errors of fact and judgment, and irresponsible behavior by the uninformed.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

The definition of "pet" states nothing towards the fact that it HAS to have emotions, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING HAS BUILT IN INSTINCTUAL REACTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENT. The "definition" of pet that you and some others are so set on, is the REAL misconception here. You have made up a definition where none exists! I agree that reptiles aren't the same as cats, or dogs, but they DO fall under the same category of pets. MANY people have posted the definition of "pet" on this thread, and yet you still refuse to believe it! What, is every dictionary wrong??? A PET IS AN ANIMAL KEPT FOR AMUSEMENT OR COMPANIONSHIP. I typed that in bold so you can SEE it this time! Point out anywhere where it says that an animal NEEDS to have emotions to be considered a pet! Come on! You need a better defense than "i'm right and you're wrong, because i said so!". Start stating FACTS to support your theory, instead of trying to warp the definition of a word to support your own theory!!! Sorry, but this entire thing is dragging on for a while, and to be clear, i was the last one to start getting rude, and i haven't progressed to insults yet, which is more than i can say for one poster.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Perhaps we should narrow this down a little. If we are talking about dangerous venomous snakes, large boids, heloderma, crocodile monitors, and things along those lines then i agree with you. Most serious keepers don't consider them pets and for good reason. A shift in thinking by the general public about how we think of them would probably be good for us.

BUT are you honestly saying that a bearded dragon is the same as an angry green iguana? Dogs and cats can transmit all types of diseases to humans, including rabies and the bubonic plague....honestly salmonella vs the plague. But the point is that it would be inaccurate to convey to people that reptiles cant be pets and would probably cause as much if not more damage than it would prevent. The prolific spread of ball pythons, corn snakes, king snakes, beardies, etc is one of the only positive PR things we have going for us. I don't think we should step up and say " that 8" lizard isn't a pet, it is dangerous and should only be used for educational purposes or as a display."

Exactly!

If we stop referring to reptiles as pets (other than the venomous, or dangerous ones, which aren't pets by MY definition, because they cannot be handled, but that's a personal definition) then we are effectively dismissing any importance that they may have gained. People will only value reptiles as much as they value the cages they're in. The less we talk about them being good fun pets, the more the public is going to think of them as soulless objects that feel no pain, and are "immune" to neglect...Isn't that what we are trying to prevent? Reptiles DO have their own category, it's called the REPTILE category, but i do not believe that we should remove them from the PET category, because that will do a lot of harm.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

That's my point. The ones that create the controversy for the most part are the ones you admit by your own definition are NOT pets.
Where do we draw the line? There does need to be some tweaking of the terminology and less all encompassing confusion with the generalities.
The discussion has begun. I thank you all for your viewpoints.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I think you misread what i said. I said that the animals we CAN'T pick up and hold are not pets to ME. By definition, they are still pets, and you are trying to bend brick. You cannot CHANGE the definition of a word, just because you think the word should mean something else. The definition is the definition. If we separate reptiles from the pet category, people will take them as less important than they actually are. Sure, breeders, and shop owners shouldn't call them pets, because they are not there for amusement or companionship, they are there to make money (for the most part). Those of us out there that keep the animal just for the sake of keeping it, just to love it, and take care of it, THOSE are the people who's reptiles are pets. That is pretty much all i am trying to say. If we stop calling them pets, people will think of them as less than animals as well, thats the way it works with the general public, they assume too much.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

Hey John,

I have no idea where you are going with this line of thought.
What is it that you hope to achieve?

Let's forget the issue of semantics (ie, definition of "pet".

I thought you were against government meddling, regulations and bans. Are you saying we should *promote* the general idea that reptiles are NOT good pets, but dangerous "cold blooded creatures that can put an eye out" and/or carry harmful bacteria??

This will be a huge green light for a ton of legislation, required permits and outright bans!!

I also think your gun analogy is flawed. Here's one that I think is appropriate, though. Some pit bulls are aggressive and dangerous. Does that mean we should say dogs are not pets?

Thanks,
Ed

>>Of course it will. That's exactly the problem. People seem to have some rather misguided conception on what these animals are.
>>They are not cute cuddly "pets" that seek and return affection as the moniker "Pets" implies.
>>They are scaly cold blooded creatures that have sharp claws and teeth and tails that can put an eye out. My iguanas always thrashed their tails at the eyes in defense. It was an instinctive reaction, not some cleverly crafted strategy.
>>These animals routinely harbor bacterial flora that have been known to cause gastrointestinal and other illnesses in humans.
>>Let me return to the gun analogy -- just because there are recreational firearms sportsmen out there, does this mean guns are toys? Of course not.
>>"Pets" is just not a good descriptive term to use when referring to these animals. It's just too far off the mark and leads to so much misinformation, errors of fact and judgment, and irresponsible behavior by the uninformed.
>>jsc
>>-----
>>"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
>>John Crickmer

As I have stated, we need to be a self policing professional organization. Government steps in and does what it thinks best when there is no self policing/regulation.

I also said I believe there should be various grades/levels of sophistication recognized, each with a defined scope and mission.

I also said this professional organization should be self supporting.

No. I do not want Government, the unqualified, uninformed, and those with a different/opposing agenda determining our fate.

I think I'd rather be proactive and be as in control as possible.

Hope this answers your concerns at to where I stand.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

...so instead of the government condemning us to a slow and painful death, you'd prefer that we did it ourselves?
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

I don't think he meant to imply that those animals shouldn't be owned, but is trying to say we need to define what those animals mean to the industry and to personal owners/breeders. At least that is what i took from his last few posts.

I agree, there should be some sort of self-policing within the herp community, unfortunately we cant just make a thread or poll and vote up a group to do such. And that is assuming that the majority of the community wants any such thing around, i think they do but it doesn't make it any easier to bring it into existence.

How does a group go about becoming certified and recognized like the AZA? Did someone just say " Hey you guys can go around the country and figure out who can stay and who should go...you can like take money from them and shut them down and stuff while you're at it." I mean there has to be some serious paperwork and politics involved with this stuff.

I should clarify. I meant that instead of the government coming and giving us all these laws, we should make up our own definitions for terms? Removing it from the pet category effectively removes it from the "soul", and "has feelings" category in the publics eyes, which would hurt us more than pretty much anything else we could do. The public tends to assume stuff, and put 2 and 2 together to come up with 5, so if we start blurring the line for them, they're going to be the ones to erase it. Picture this: Kid walks up to you while you're holding *insert any reptile*, and says "hey that's a cool pet", but then you say "oh that's not a PET, it's a tool that we use in order to make money, and give ourselves enjoyment." What IS that kid supposed to think? Definately not that it's a nice animal to own, and most likely he's going to think that it must not be "alive" (in the soul and pain way), because you're calling it something we "use", instead of calling it a living, breathing animal. And since we were the ones saying it, they would be more likely to believe it, therefor making us the reason that people start treating them less like animals than they already do.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

When it comes to things like cobras and rattlesnakes i think it is best to consider them in the 'HAS feelings, IS alive, deserves lots of respect, IS NOT a pet, and can and will kill or seriously injure you if you buy it category. Anything you hold or would want someone that doesn't already know this stuff to buy should be in the 'pet' category, pretty much anything that can't kill you or remove fingers.

Also I'm not trying to say that cobras or rattlesnakes are out to get anybody or can't be kept safely and responsibly, just that it isn't best to make people feel that anyone can keep them because the snake won't bite them out of the kindness of its heart....

I tend to agree with you, but again, that is just a personal association we make, and we have no right to try to change the true definition, just because of a personal preference. I just want to add something that i've said before, but i've thought of a different way to say it. The day we stop calling reptiles pets, is the day that we "dehumanize" (the animal equivalent, of course) them. That's when people start to neglect them, and treat them like objects, because "they don't have feelings", which we taught them by saying ourselves that reptiles aren't pets. I do agree, though, that those animals that ARE dangerous (untamable, venomous, and the like) shouldn't be considered pets, because you are unable to interact with them.
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

I've been gone for a while.
Here's my story --
I caught my first turtle walking to school one day, first grade, 1958, Lancaster Texas, Mississippi Mud Turtle, Kinosternon subrum hippocrepis.
I had a Radiated Tortoise before graduation High School. I was shipping and trading turtles Interstate. I'd had import boas drop litters. I'd been hatching box turtles (Jr. High). I'd successfully hatched wild caught Green Snake eggs (Jr. High). Joined the Navy after a few semesters of Jr. College. Goal was to breed turtles and sell by species and quality. Very far ahead of the curve. FDA shut that down while in the Navy.
In the 90's I started breeding native Colubrids. Texas Parks and Wildlife got involved and killed that market. Last year I was selling native Chelonians. Texas Parks and Wildlife got involved and outlawed that business.
Now I have a considerable boa constrictor collection. Texas Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are getting ready to decide my fate again.
Ever since my first turtle or snake, I have never considered them pets. People may have called my animals my pets, but I never have.It may be popular, it may be politically correct, it may be a good marketing tool, but they will never be pets in my mind.

Here is more of what I stand for -- I believe if you want to keep Large Cats, go ahead. If you want to keep large Crocks, go ahead. Venomous, OK. Killer Pit Bulls, no problem. All the guns and firearms and weapons you can handle, go for it.
It's a Free Country. Or, at least it was.
The only requirements are 1) Financial responsibility. Have liability insurance in the event your "thing" does harm or damage to another. 2) Do no ecological damage or harm to species. 3) Provide a minimum standard of care and security for live animals. 4) It's all about Personal Responsibility.

Just my opinion, but you seem to be hung up on the use and definition of the word "Pets". So, you're so smart. So there, Ha Ha!! You won that debate. Who cares? How does that help the greater good?
I'm out.
jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

It was never about me winning, it was about what people would think of the animals if they were stripped of their "pet" term. And yes, i am fighting over the meaning of the word pet, because you don't seem to get that you can't just make up your own definition, and call it true. Just because you say "they aren't pets to me" doesn't mean that you can add "and they aren't for anybody else either!" to the end. Everybody carries their own personal definition of terms, but that doesn't make them right! Just because you think that they shouldn't be pets, for a reason that will only hurt them in the end, doesn't mean you should try to push this on other people! Of course, i should lay off. You're obviously not very serious about this, because you posted this in an online forum!
-----
-Jacob

Why do people say .02 cents??? So, what, your opinion is only worth a 50th of a cent?

...been sick so I haven't been on here lately. But snakes CAN BE pets, no way to argue that. The definition of a pet is simple, and easy to understand. ANY animal can be a pet (dogs, cats, snakes, venomous reptiles and arachnids, and even fish). There is no requirements that it must "love you back" in order to be a pet. There is no requirement that it "must be handled" to be a pet. You can't simply refuse to respect the proper definition of words/terms. You can't say "well I learned from so and so that this is what being a pet is, so I don't care about the actual truth to it." Can everyone see how flawed this way of thinking is??? But many insist on living with this flawed mentality. One should always look at the facts before forming an opinion; not "I have an opinion, I just need to throw stuff together to try and prove it". If a snake isn't a pet to you, just livestock, then fine, I have no problem with that at all, that's your preference. But most people with reptiles never plan on breeding them, they bought them solely as a pet.
And to talk about the "original purpose" of this thread, how in the world would calling them something other than "pet" help things???? You never made your point about that at all!
-----
-David

Check out my pet pics at:
http://www.myspace.com/obx_fisherman

1.0 ball python (Pandora - don't ask)
1.0 argentine boa (Prometheus)
0.0.1 colombian boa (Athena)
0.1 hogg island boa (Andromeda)
0.0.1 brazilian rainbow boa (Inara)
1.0 Dumeril's boa (Hannibal)
1.0 kenyan sand boa (Diablo)
0.0.1 normal corn snake(Cypress)
0.1 amel. corn snake (Morgan LaFay) RIP
0.0.2 baby corns (Romulus and Remus)
- 1 normal, 1 ghost
0.0.1 banded cali. kingsnake (Cain)
1.0 tangerine honduran milksnake (Narcissus)
0.0.1 snow corn snake (Valkyrie)
1.1 garden phase amazon tree boas (Pegasus, Lenore)
0.0.1 baby yellow amazon tree boa (affectionately called
Snuggles)
0.0.1 albino san diego gopher snake (maybe Octavian)
0.0.1 sandfish skink (Slick)
0.0.1 fire skink (Phoenix)
1.0 bassett hound/black and tan coonhound mix (Luke)
0.1 Boxer (Zoe)
1.0 bearded dragon (Leonidas)
1.1 ferrets (Ares, Enyo)
1.2 cats (Galahad, Ripley and Sassy)
2.0 rats (Pan, no name yet)

oh, and HydraZulu: It's good to see there are others who use this forum who are willing to look at the facts and keep an open mind about things! I get so tired of the "that's how it's always been" reasoning that several here use. They create their own meanings to words/terms and then get arrogant with you try to prove them wrong, even with all the facts, data, and scientific evidence on your side! One can never go wrong if your opinions are based on these things. Now, that doesn't mean there is always only one way to see things, as there are very often different takes on the facts and what should be done. I can respect anyone's opinion when it's based on facts, even if I disagree with it. It's this kind of of thinking by the starter of this thread that shows a lot of ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.
-----
-David

Check out my pet pics at:
http://www.myspace.com/obx_fisherman

1.0 ball python (Pandora - don't ask)
1.0 argentine boa (Prometheus)
0.0.1 colombian boa (Athena)
0.1 hogg island boa (Andromeda)
0.0.1 brazilian rainbow boa (Inara)
1.0 Dumeril's boa (Hannibal)
1.0 kenyan sand boa (Diablo)
0.0.1 normal corn snake(Cypress)
0.1 amel. corn snake (Morgan LaFay) RIP
0.0.2 baby corns (Romulus and Remus)
- 1 normal, 1 ghost
0.0.1 banded cali. kingsnake (Cain)
1.0 tangerine honduran milksnake (Narcissus)
0.0.1 snow corn snake (Valkyrie)
1.1 garden phase amazon tree boas (Pegasus, Lenore)
0.0.1 baby yellow amazon tree boa (affectionately called
Snuggles)
0.0.1 albino san diego gopher snake (maybe Octavian)
0.0.1 sandfish skink (Slick)
0.0.1 fire skink (Phoenix)
1.0 bassett hound/black and tan coonhound mix (Luke)
0.1 Boxer (Zoe)
1.0 bearded dragon (Leonidas)
1.1 ferrets (Ares, Enyo)
1.2 cats (Galahad, Ripley and Sassy)
2.0 rats (Pan, no name yet)

Thank you. I'm really surprised as to how long this thread got! The reply list thing is almost off the edge of my screen, and i have a fairly high resolution monitor (1680 by 1050) I want it to be understood that i was the LAST person to go towards insults, if i even did at all. I also want it clear that this is NOT just a selfish en devour to make myself feel superior. I care very much about all animals, and think that this would be a very bad thing for reptiles.
-----
-Jacob

"Math counts for gum.. gotta chew something while in math or you'll bloody scream." -Laura a.k.a. Priincezz93

I personally loathe the "gun" analogy....

Wouldn't a tool/power tool analogy be so much more appropriate ?

No herp is as quickly lethal as a gun. I guess some hot snakes come close.

Though, with the tool/power tools, some herps are just needle-nose pliers, and others are tin snips or jig saws ?

People get mangled/hurt what not by power tools all the time - mostly when they do stupid things around them.

IF that's what he was talking about, i would agree with you, but I think he is talking about the analogy of recreational herpers being the same as if "recreational firearms sportsman" treated their guns like toys. I quite honestly have no idea what was going through his mind when he wrote that (along with everything else he's said), so you're better off letting him explain.
-----
-Jacob

"Math counts for gum.. gotta chew something while in math or you'll bloody scream." -Laura a.k.a. Priincezz93

Hi Mike!

Yes I remember you from those days gone by lol. I too have lost touch with Jim-last I heard he was working for a small zoo in Mass.

I now live in Boerne, which is 30 miles nw of San Antonio. South Texas is pretty much paradise for a herper-whatever led you to leave?
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

I lived there from age 9 until 18 once I graduated my parents decided to move back to upstate N.Y. Considering it was 1986 and where I lived was a big oil patch there basically were no jobs so it was either move north or live under the harbor bridge in corpus. I chose the former option obviously. I miss Texas a lot although I do like fl. from a climatalogical perspective it is a lot easier to do herps outdoors here not to mention all the tropical fruit trees I play with. From a legal perspective however it is getting to be more of a pain here than in Tx. Who knows if it gets too much worse I might just try and talk my wife into to moving back to Texas. I can always build greenhouses for the winter lol. I lived just south of San Antonio in a town called Pearsall for about a year and a half. That's really great country(even better up your way) and yes I do miss all the herps I used to find. anyway it's good to hear from you. watch out for those witless wonders lol.