Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Ah, I've certainly missed the 50 responding posts, all off the subject, over the past few days, but it was nice to be able to provide some ideas without all the hooting. As to what a real monitor is, Frank, I don't disagree with what you say here about that, never have. Obviously they are the same living units (and often the same individuals, if you would read the posts) that were living in the wild not too long ago. They are a plane ride away from having been wild, remember?

The difference between real wild and real captive monitors seems to be hard for you to understand. Since I know you love analogies, let's try this: what is a real Australian Aboriginal? Same people, sometimes the same individuals. Nowadays, some of them retain their culture and live on their ancestral lands, using accumulated knowledge to live pretty darn well in a very hostile environment. It has been said with some justification that until a few hundred years ago, Australian Aboriginal people had the highest standard of living on earth, as gauged by the overall health of individuals, and the small percent of time they had to spend simply meeting survival needs (in other words, lots of leisure time). These were and are real Aboriginal people.

Also real are the Aboriginal people who now live on the fringe of white Australian society, eating whitefella food and contracting diabetes, drinking whitefella grog, sniffing whitefella petrol, bashing each other and rotting in whitefella jail. To a certain extent these conditions are imposed on Aboriginals who have lost their land and their culture; many of them do not have a choice anymore, or are presented with choices that are not in their best interests in the end.

Now, monitors in boxes are real, too, and they only get what we think they need. They don't die there (some of them don't, anyway), and you can say "they look fine to me". When you claim its about the stimuli provided, yes, that's correct – but why then do people ignore real stimuli?

It gets dark every day in the real world, and daylength varies – why ignore everything that is known about the physiological effects of light cycles?

UVB does far more than to produce vitamin D3 – why paint that over with dietary supplements?

Individual interactions, pheromones, reproductive cycling, etc., have profound effects on physiology – why claim "that don't matter, lookit all the eggs they lay?"

Yessiree, monitors in boxes are "real", just like Aboriginals in town are "real". What you're telling people is that white sugar, grog and petrol are the stimuli they choose, and that that's "good enough". Ain't, sorry – ask the real Aboriginals.

i have been trying to hear both sides because i honestly don't believe that either of you are completely correct or completely wrong, the answer is almost always somewhere between.

? why do you, having seen 'what is real' keep monitors in a box ?

you live in southern cal, why don't you keep them in 'real' uv?

maybe we would all be able to see where you are coming from sam if you were to answer these obvious hypocrisies (not flaming you, just pointing out the obvious).

for me, i have them in the box so i give them the best i can within those parameters. like frank said, they react to stimuli and so i offer them more of what they react well to. they like mice and moving crickets, i give them to them. they like deep dirt, i give that to them. they like to tear things up, i allow them to. some like to climb, i give those climbing abilities. etc, etc, etc.

really, i would like to see where you are coming from and i don't think i am alone.

here to learn,

andrew

First, Andrew, I don't really see the 'hypocrisy' here -- yes I do keep monitors, and I do try to practice what I preach.

I am very much aware of the differences between "box life" and "real life" for monitors, but I do not think that the gulf is so great that no one should keep them in boxes -- have I ever said that? My point has been to emphasize that many of the standard practices involve imposing physiological stresses that these animals do not live with in the wild, and that they are more or less unnecessary stresses. I simply want people to think about what they are doing, and to understand that we are far from having said the last words on monitor husbandry.

Some species are much more easily kept than are others, and some of those are relatively easy to breed. Why are things like prasinus-group, or especially indicus-group monitors so hard to work with successfully? Who is breeding V. doreanus, V. finschii, V. jobiensis, or V. yuwonoi successfully? Something is not right, what is it? Can understanding the biology of wild monitors give us some clues? If not, we are all of us sunk.

I do keep my animals individually housed, where they can see each other if they so choose, or not, and they can interact (when they choose) on neutral ground that is not a part of the established 'turf' of either animal. I use UVB bulbs and halogen lights on a 12/12 cycle. Otherwise, I follow many of the other standard practices. I always want much larger enclosures, and particularly taller enclosures for arboreal species, than I currently have.

My goals are partly the same, partly different. I enjoy monitors, and keep them for that reason. I also know (despite some rather foolish claims recently) that captive monitors are 'real', and when I can, I keep individuals of species that I later hope to study in the wild. I know from direct experience that properly kept, caged monitors can tell you a lot about species characteristics, things that are exhibited both in cages and in the field. By having captive crocs, for example, I think I may be able to cut several weeks, or even months, off the "start-up time" that a field study will require – I can at least formulate ideas, and test some, about what wild crocs are likely to be doing, how they react to various situations, how I am likely to be able to catch them vs. what will not work at all, and so on.

Lastly, keeping animals outside, even in S. Calif., is not necessarily the best practice. It is actually cool and foggy here much of the summer, and too cool for any tropical monitor almost any night of the year. Lots of other factors come in too, including ants, predators, security, noise and commotion, etc. A half in, half out option might work well, but I haven't the physical arrangement for that yet – don't think I haven't considered it.

I am not sure that I see "obvious hypocrisies"?