Reptile & Amphibian Forums

"The Information: Domestication of animals

By Meredith Haaf

Published: April 25 2009 02:04 | Last updated: April 25 2009 02:04

Humans and animals began to live together about 15,000 years ago, when dogs were domesticated. Cats and men began a coalition of interests around 8,500BC in the Fertile Crescent: cats liked hunting mice around the humans’ grain stores and humans were happy to be rid of the rodents. It’s a relationship that has only got better – in the UK, a 2007 survey by Cats Protection found that 26 per cent of male cat owners and 40 per cent of female owners would rather change partners than give up their pets.

Recently, researchers at Exeter University established that horses were domesticated 1,000 years earlier than previously believed. According to their report, published in the journal Science News, archaeological findings in Kazakhstan, including horse teeth bearing the indentations of bridles, suggest that horses were ridden by the Botai tribe as early as 3,500BC. Also discovered were pots containing ancient traces of horse milk – to this day considered a delicacy by Kazakh horsemen."

Source: The financial times weekend magazine
- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ca6295b2-2d73-11de-9eba-00144feabdc0.html

In Norway AR activists use this destinction between domesticated and non domesticated animals to ban the keeping of all non domesticated animals, since wild animals have a right to be free, while domesticated animals have adapted well to life in captivity.
On the basis of this, only domesticated reptiles should be considered to be a part of your positive list.

I know alot of domestic reptiles exist, but I can´t find any domesticated reptiles.
According to wikipedia, there exist none.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

It would be great to find some expert oppinion on domestication of reptiles. Marshall meyers brought up the topic briefly in his speach in congress so I get curious..
I have followed the domestication debate vaguely in Norway and not at all in the US.
Where does domestication stand in the US reptile community?

Kind regards
obeligz

Oby,

The plan should be to defeat the idea of a positive list to begin with. It would be tough to argue the domestication of any herp. Let's say you could, then only those few would be allowed. That is the wrong approach. The idea should be that you are allowed to keep any herp as long as it was legally acquired, proper husbandry is being given and reasonable safety against escape is assured. On top of that make it illegal to release any non-natives, allow for tracking and inspection by qualified wildlife officials.

We need to set our arguements in science, logic, common sense and freedom from radical agenda.

Many folks who push an AR agenda actually keep pets. I read the petition that the box turtle people started to outlaw turtle harvest, sales and breeding in Texas. Most of the people were signing to protect their pets "relatives" in the wild. Not realizing that if one day they wanted to breed their turtle it would be illegal. Or if their turtle died and they needed to get another one it would be illegal.

We need to stand on principles. If zoos safely keep pythons then so can we. If zoos can safely keep primates and big cats then so can we. It is all how you set the standards. We need to set the rules not the AR groups.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

The plan should be to defeat the idea of a positive list to begin with, I agree, just thinking out loud though..
In order to effectively defeat the positive list, we have to construct a convincing argument with scientific basis.
I brought up the definitions because right now we are in the black until jeff and the other god guys at the front get some confirmation for us regarding HR669.
Until we get some confitmation or the guys at the top issue some statement which may direct our efforts towards something, we have time to wait, or time to covers other things which we normally wouldn´t have time to.
This is why I brought up the topic of definitions. Martial Meyers thought they were important enough to mention but not important enough to waste time on in Congress.
There are many definitions clouting this topic, not only domestication.
Next time the AR group announces a "knee jerk" ^_^ piece of legislation we would be better prepared to form a strong defence right from the start.

Right now the plan is to defeat the positive list in respect to invasive species, but as I understand you also have a positive list in regard to dangerous animals in the horison.
The definitions debate would perhaps be a good transition to the next piece os legislation we address.
I just spill my thoughts here, no filter, maybe the above is not a good idea, you descide.
In the opposite case, which definition of "domesticated" does your congress use?
What is officially understood as a "dangerous animal" and how dangerous does an animal need to be in order to be considered "dangerous to humans"? with out a stable definition one might argue that the notion of dangerous animals has no merit to it at all, since even small spiders are dangerous to fruitflies..

In the british definition of "dangerous animals" I think not only the ability to cause physical harm is included, but to some degree also the ability to frighten the fellow citizen, correct me if this is wrong.

One could argue that a rattle snake is no more dangerous than a golden retriever, in the hands of a responsible keeper. Though, both the rattle snake and golden retriever can be very dangerous in the hands of "the wrong keeper".
Still, venomous snakes have been kept in Germany for more than a century and during the past few decades they have even grown much in popularity but the german society still doesn´t seem to think that venomous snakes pose a danger in their society and also statistical data show that venomous snake keeping in Germany doesn´t amount to a lot of damage, in fact very little. Which would suggest that americans also have a potential to be responsible venomous keepers, without posing a danger to society. Yet bans against venomous animals are existant in several US states.

There is also the topic of "exotic", in contrast to "domestic"? animals, but "wild" is also opposed to "domestic", and we enter the wishy washy of unstable definitions where we are forced to argue with words withjout scientific basis.
In the other thread there was a call for scientific advice.
In my oppinion it would be great to shed some scientific light on the definitions of the bans who pose a threat to us.

If we can punch the breath out of certain definitions in a bill, the whole content may start to loose meaning, and then it´s back to the drawing board for them and another victory for us to keep. If we get lucky, some definition may be a vital part to several of their bills, in which case we gain ground against several of their bans, both those in place and those under construction.
Or maybe this hunt for clearer definitions with stronger rational basis will yield no fruits but from my perspective it´s tempting to investigate further. I´m no expert on definitions so this is also a possibility for me to educate myself in preparation for the next fight back home.. ^_^

I think that by claiming the right to keep reptiles just because the zoos do so, is a weak offence. Zoos are already pressured by the AR movement, pushing the law to ban primates and big cats from zoos. We are adding pressure on zoos by hiding behind them in my opinion. If zoos were banned, what principles do we stand behind then?

oby

Domestacated Reptiles.I think you could say yes if,You put your say snake in the back yard with a water bowl and hut,would it be their the next day!lol Your right about words,they could lose their case on a bogas defination if were are ready to prove its wrong.Any flaw in their case,point it out.Of cource there is always the life liberty and persuite of happyness,IN THE CONSTITUTION idea for an argument.Vic........

Hate to sound like a jerk, but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is a compelling argument.

Your right my mistake. Vic

Consider the comodo dragons at London zoo. As the curator explained, they are big lizards and they can be dangerous, so we invested resources into taming them, I can´t remember his name but the reptile curator at that time explained how they tamed their Comodo dragons to the point where they behaved more like dogs than normal comodo dragons really.. Eager to engage in positive communication with the zoo keeprs. This is clearly not normal behaviour for a wild comodo dragon.

domestication is the process of taming. If your turtle is tamed, it is domesticated to some degree. Leopard geckoes are domesticated into a hundred different varieties and their behaviour is different from wild ranging leopard geckoes in Afghanistan. Also their size may be different.

A couple of years ago I worked as a kindergarten and there we kept a terrarium in which I would argue that we domesticated hissing roaches to some degree.
Together with the kids we set up a 30x30x30cm vivarium with some plants & substrate.
We ordered giant wild madagascar hissing roaches and true to the ad, the critters were big, and unaccustomed to people and especially children. They were hissing a lot in the beginning and acted realy frightened, so we put them in the vivarium and stopped handling them for a while.
Given a little time the plants in the viv grew and the roaches tamed down to the point where they would come out in broad daylight to eat bananas in front of many 3,4 & 5 year old kids who are trying to stay still and be quiet. When responsible 5 year olds handled the roaches, they wouldn´t hiss. A few times some kids would squeeze a roach to provoke it to hiss in front of their parents, who would react in compassion to the poor thing and urge the kids not to hurt it. or put it back in the terrarium.

I would argue that domestication unavoidably happens to all vertebrate species who live in vivariums in peoples homes. Maybe I make a weak point, can you strengthen it?
From this point one could argue that domesticated animals really belong at home in the natural environment provided by their owner, even if they should be reptiles, and even if they have a lot of wild element in them.
Unless invasive or dangerous, it is in the domesticated animals best interest to be offered room for existence also in the US.
The line between domesticated and wild is very subjective. In this post I´m advocating my understanding of the term. If you have adapted an AR inspired definition then of course my understanding of "domesticated" would seem twisted and extreme to you.
To me it sounds quite extreme to ban nice domesticated frogs under the pretense that they are mean wild toads. Granted all domestic frogs and toads have some wild element in them. they adapt to the best of their ability to their terrarium and terrarium-keeper.

Taking two ball python hachlings, If we gently handle one with compassion for 30 minutes before feeding while taunting the other towards agression in the same time span before feeding, we should expect to see a significant difference in behavior them as adults.
Reptiles try to the best of their abilities to adapt and survive in their environment. They make active efforts to adapt to the domestic terrarium and in that effort they really domesticate themselves in interaction with their caretaker.

Reptile keepers need to find out if their wild herps are wild or domesticated.
Maybe we need to make some compromises to our argumentation, and realise that wild reptiles almost do not exist any more. The only wild reptiles in the US are free ranging ones and freshly wild caught ones.

I regard my loved gecko like a book of genetical and individual diversity. Valuable to me both as a piece of wonderful diversity and an animated individual who has certain valuable traits.
I would argue that the AR activists have twisted our normal understanding of the phrase towards recognizing only an extreme minimum of animals as truly domesticated (to a "high enough" degree).
An animal-friendly understanding of the term "domesticated" is perhaps to grant most animals in companion animal husbandry admission to this circle of "truly domesticated (to some degree) animals"?

What other, positive or negative consecquences do you imagine, should we broaden our understanding of domesticated animals?

Regards
oby

A quick word here. I agree that it is all how you set your standards, but it is also about setting your limits. I'm a zookeeper at an AZA institution and I personally work with not only our herp collection; but with medium sized felids, small primates as well as ursids. I can personally attest that to meet AZA standards (which many could consider minimal) for large carnivores you would need extensive resources (both personally and financially) that I will go ahead and say 99.999% of individuals who purchase large carnivores (ie felids, ursids, wild canids, hyenas, etc.) simply do not have. We have had tigers in the past. They cost 50 bucks a day to feed each. That is why we no longer have them, they were not drawing a crowd to make it worth it. I will not say no one should have large carnivores, but I will say 99.999% of people who buy them should have bought something else. To compare pythons with large carnivores or primates (an issue that I feel falls in the same category as large carnivores) is somewhat of a stretch in that a lot more individuals are capable of properly housing and caring for a python than a tiger or a chimp. I have seen the darker side of our industry--people who bought things they simply could not care for and try to dump on our zoo (usually in piss poor shape I might add)--this is what we need to change to get the AR idiots off our backs. As an industry we nned to set standards for care of our exotic species and make sure that information ( our good, standardized info that is) is made available to the general public via the internet, swap meets, trade shows, even (perhaps especially) large chain pet shops (to replace the crappy care sheets they distribute to people). This is a category that a growing organization like USARK could lead the charge on. If we show we know what we are doing and actively encourage smart pet ownership while simultaneously discouraging poor pet decisions we will gain a ton of credibility. Right now many folks simply view us as a bunch of weirdos who like to play with snakes. We need to change that--we need to be viewed as smart, conservation minded individuals who have not only animal welfare, but huiman welfare at the core of what we do. By setting standards we can deflect knee jerk legislation when someone doesn't do what they should--and another thing we should do as an industry-set up a series of herp animal shelters to take in all these unwanted animals--this will help curb wild release. HSUS and the ASPCA do not generally accept herps into their shelters because they are not capable of caring for them nor do they believe people should have herps in the first place--they are part of the problem in my opinion for not being more helpful in this department. These are things we must do to survive. Not compromise legislation, not debating domesticity--but educating and providing an outlet for those who get in over their heads so they do not inadvertantly destroy our hobby. We need to put our heads together, go species by species and set up minimum guidelines for acceptable husbandry--I realize the scope of such an endeavor, but I think that as a community we could do it, and this site, along with USARK's; would be good places to start with as far as making this database accessible. There is my two cents, take it for what it is worth.

Aquick,

I would have to disagree. Having been in the zoo field (former head of herps at CFZP), SFCC grad and lived in Florida where many exotic keeping privates live, there are many folks who have the skill, knowledge and the resources to keep exotic primates and felines. Don't let AZA hype about big cats and primates sway you. Yes, they take some cash but many folks who keep them keep them correctly. FWC also has good caging requirements and inspections that are kept current. I know there are yahoos that give the rest a bad name.

As for the rest of your comments I agree. We need to set standards of all types. The rules should be the same across all jurisdictions. Anyone with the proper caging and skill should be able to keep anything they want. This is America after all.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

I never meant to say no one should have primates or big cats, as I agree many people do so in a responsible manner (although there is evidence to support a large portion nationally do not, perhaps due to lax or nonexistent laws governing such things); I was trying to say that there is a big difference between most herps and felids, namely cash necessary for proper upkeep--thus herps are much more realistic for many folks who want so-called exotics. I'm sure many more people keep felids/primates responsibly than any anti-ownership org would ever let you believe (just look at our industry). As long as the animal does not suffer or endanger people, keep on I say. I also beleive there is more expertise (in the herp and bird fields at the very least) than there is in zoos--so zoos are in no way a gold standard; they just provide fancier housing than many private keepers (who could be just as fancy if they had exhibit designers working for them too) But like I said, if there is one thing we should copy from them , its standardization.

There should be some minimum standards in respect to most animals but most animals also have different minimum requirements.
A home made vivarium may be much better or much worse than a commercial mass produced vivarium which also may be good or bad.
To be honest I don´t really like the plastic tub commercial american terras but when the animals living in them are healthy and do not show negative unnatural behaviour, I can´t find a rational basis for my oppinion. I may think they are ugly, but a coat of metalic green paint with a layer of candyflavored clearcoat on top and a new vegetated substrate will change all that, add a couple of pinstripes and the thing goes bling bling. Ugly and beautiful put aside, terra should be suited for the species.
The environment within, size, temperature & humidity gradient, substrate, vegetation. Sweden and some other countries in Europe has draconian minimum requirements regarding terrarium size for some reptiles.
It matters little if a species is legal to keep, if the minimum size requirements are absurd.
On the other side some reptile species have very high tolerances in respect minimum size requirement. Some can spend 8 months of the year brumating in a cold hole and most of the rest of the yeas sleeping under or on top of a stone.
Otherwise, in other species too big or too few shelters, or too small or too cold basking spot, or the lack of substrate may be stressful and unhealthy to any reptille in the long run.
Standardisation in minimum requirements is perhaps best expressed by the sea of authors in herpetocultural literature, I diverse exotic herpetofauna has a diverse set of minimum requirements. Despite the lack of minimum requirements reptile welfare standards in the herpetocultural community have risen to the degree where some keepers have fully automated terraria which are connected to the net and gather climadata from animals natural habitat, granted there may be some delay in real time.
Advances in technology have made it fairly simple for the beginner to set up a naturalistic vivarium.
In 10 years we may have advanced climate controllers similar to those found in PC´s which can assist the owner in getting the right climate for the reptile, provide seasonal variability and even beep when something is wrong. In 20 years such gadgets may be fairly cheap.
However, if reptiles are outlawed in the mean time through unrealistic minimum requirements, or if the pet industry has to spend too much resources defending themselves from bans, there is little money left to invest in product development.

I think minimum requirements should primarily exist to minimise frequency of escapes and reduce risks in reptile keeping, not in respect to animal welfare.

While I do believe that my frogs have the right to sleep in my bromeliads, I fear that minimum requirements in respect to the well-being of Invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, as well as smaller birds and mammals are not good to put in legislation unless the right to responsible animal husbandry is secured in advance.

Ethical considerations of higher mammals like big cats and dogs, bears and primates require more attention to minimum requirements in respect to their kognitive ability and need for activity.

Small reptiles have a different perception of the environment compared to big cats and primates who have a more developed brain. Cockroach breeders don´t need minimum requirements in respect to animal welfare since cockroaches can´t feel mistreated and I would argue that many reptiles and amphibians fall in the same category. They generally function as clockwork at the same time as every individual has it´s very own consiousness, perception and understanding of the world.
Many snakes believe the best in the world is a cramped dark warm place with a and on demand free rat delivery service.
As long as the snake is healthy, eats and can´t escape from the house, I don´t really see the need for minimum requirement or standardization by law.

I also argue one should be allowed to live in a responsible vivarium, unless some species within are irresponsible to keep in the area, due to risk of introduction of invasive species in the environment.
In my case so far that amounts to sharing my bathroom with geckos roaches and fruitflies. Roaches live in a box where geckoes have access to them. GEckoes live in crevices and hides on the walls. So far no roaches have escaped but the gekoes laid eggs in the roach box. Still, if they do escape from the bathroom, the rest of the apartment is my quarantine area. If they escape from my quarantine area they still can´t do any significant damage.

If I ignore my duty to respect the peace to my neighbors, and some of my roaches or geckoes escape, I will perhaps be forced to abandon some of my animal husbandry or take additional measures to prevent escapes, but as long as I am not a danger to my neighbors or the norwegian environment I don´t see any reason to keep some of my geckoes confined in a smaller vivariums, when it is within my rights I believe to place my bathroom at their disposal and decorate it according to both their and my needs.
In constructing minimum standards for reptile keeping, we should not make impossible the keeping of certain free ranging reptiles, in room sized vivariums which have been adapted to meet the needs of the reptiles and humans living within.
As long as my geckoes stay healthy, lay eggs and sing for me in the evening, I don´t see a problem in letting them live freely in my bathroom, and I don´t regard my herpetoculture as less responsible than the keeping leopard geckoes in racks or ballpythons in relatively small plastic terrarium tubs.

Ho can standardization give consideration both to a large breeder and to a private hobbyist and a Zoo who are all keeping the same species of a certain reptile?

Great Post!

Randal Berry