Reptile & Amphibian Forums

In a nutshell, we have two very different schools of thought here. The academics are constrained by their own rules and assumptions which tend to keep their thinking inside the box.

Frank, on the other hand, is able to read all of the "in the box" data and then figure out where it is right and where it is wrong and then apply it in the real world.

Frank's ability to think outside of normal parameters really pisses academics off because you can't teach or learn this type of thinking. Frank's success further pisses off the academics because it is difficult to refute success and it forces the academics to rethink their own approaches.

Frank is beating his head against a rock trying to get academics to think outside the box.

I learned more about monitors in 2 days at Frank's house than I did in twenty years of collecting them in the field. Their are some academics that could learn a lot in a two day trip to Frank's place if they were open to actually learning something new.

Unfortunately, most people are two constrained by their own rules to open themselves up to new ways of thinking.

Speak for yourself, mate, please. When it comes to boxes, what's truly inside the box is your poor monitor. Next I think would have to come all the closed minds of the keepers who don't want to know anything about the real monitors, the ones who live outside the boxes.

Most keepers are looking for formulas, if I read the posts here correctly. When they go outside of that box, people here climb up their patooties until they quit posting or join the others in the box. It's sorta like a bunch of yahoos in a bus on the way to a ball game, hooting out the windows at everyone else for being "outside of the box". Now, of course those bus fellas would never consider themselves inside a box, no sir, they are just RIGHT. Right enough that basic biology, the kind that holds true for everything alive, is somehow irrelevant to correct monitor-keeping.

Scientists can be in boxes too, no question about that. However, science by its nature is about asking hard questions, and overturning accepted views if new evidence requires it. As a rule, science leads society, often kicking and screaming, to new ideas. So, be careful while you're flailing around so as to not hurt your fingers on the edges of your box, OK?

Right on Sam! If we did not have Science, NONE of the objects you have in your house would be there, the car you drive, the medications you take, etc....Afterall "Science" means'knowledge' and that is all it means. The Scientific Methods helps scientists, and many others figure out how to equate the things around us into logical, defineable things, whether they be mathematics, astronomy, how fast an egg falls from a building, how far Superman can jump, or how far Mr. Incredible can move!

Obviously you do not understand what 'Science' is or even does.

If it was not for Science, people of Komodo would still think Komodo monitors were venomous, and would not know they have a commensalistic bacteriums living with them. The people of North Africa Bedouin tribes beleive V. griseus is venomous - and currently a prof. in Colorado is finding out why they believe that, and if there is any validity to their superstitions or whether they have merit - I believe there is merit to what the North Africans feel about V. griseus, but 'Science' will find out via investigation, collection of data, testing, collating and summation of these results and will publish it for all the see, rebuke or agree with = until another 'idea' comes up to support, disregard this idea about V. griseus. This is how Science works.

What fr sees is merely what he sees, and perception of what he sees, nothing more. He sees alot, and says a whole lot, but how much of it real science? That is where contention comes in, and now and then, tempers flare....but more often, laughter ensues...

Cheers,
mbayless
Think about it.
Cheers,
mbayless

I can't believe I am getting in on this one.
Science is good if applied correctly. What Frank does can be called science. Sorry Frank, you are one of "Them".
Frank tries different things and encourages others to do so also to find out what works. That my friends, is called experimenting. Isn't experimenting part of science?

Scott
-----
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

That is why I find it so amusing that some academics feel the need to attack him, in part because they don't understand what he is telling them.

If breeding monitors and hatching the eggs was so easy, "scientists" would have done it in zoos across the country well before Frank figured out the necessary details.

It is easy to write a book full of assumptions, it is quite another thing to successfully implement your thoughts and prove that you are right.

Frank has proven that he is right.

Well, if you do not read, you do not know what questions to ask do you....and as for writing, I do it for "fun", and my own self enlightenment, nothing more....what I find fascinating, others have too, or at least that is what they tell me...and that is gratifying. It is not that hard to write, but to write well, and with zest and enthusuiasm is not so easy...also, what is written is in black & white, and can be referred too time and time again; what is said or posted or e-booked or whatever they call it is here today, gone tomorrow = meaningless/useless to future investigations. The pen is mightier than the mouth, no matter how big it is....

Cheers,
mbayless

np

He will have to put all his findings on paper to be reviewed first. If his veiws differ from the viewers, then they will be ignored.

Scott
-----
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

I ask you, what is "correct monitor keeping"? Which way is the "correct" way to keep animals captive for selfish reasons?
I keep many reptile captives myself...

Thanks,

Ian

Don't ask me, that refers to the boys on the bus. All I seem to be able to do is describe incorrect monitor-keeping, remember?

Ah, I see your intention in that particular sentence now.

Nevertheless, it seems that you feel some of the methods used by others on the forum are "not correct". Correct me if I am wrong. So my intention was to start a conversation about how one defines what is "correct" in the keeping of captive animals. Especially considering the irony? in asking how do we "correctly" keep animals prisoner for our own enjoyment or livelihood perhaps. What influences a person's version of what is correct? How is that standard measured?

Not trying to be vauge but I feel that some of these things may be significant in explaining differences in views, understandings and ultimately the way one approaches the everyday logistics of monitor keeping/breeding, for instance.

Thanks,

Ian

Fair enough. I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'correct' here, but I'll give it some thought and see what I can offer.

Sam stated, " I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'correct' here, but I'll give it some thought and see what I can offer."

Too many academics don't want to be measured by a definitive yardstick. They just want to pontificate and appear as though they have it all figured out.

For decades, nobody could breed monitors in captivity because nobody had it figured out. Nobody was correct. Then, FR came along and made it simple enough that even an academic could do it if he would just listen carefully to the instructions.

Sam, there is such a thing as "CORRECT". Correct is producing baby monitors generation after generation. If you don't see that, you are possibly too far gone for help.

Oh, OK, you're just a troll. Had me fooled for a minute, and I was going to try to give you a serious answer. Thanks for saving me the time.

Hi,

Your scope is very limited in your assessment of "nobody could breed monitors until fr came along" = HAHAHAHAHA.

Obviously you do not know of the successes of Bernd Eidenmuller of Germany, Gerard Visser of Rotterdam, Dr. Hans-Georg Horn of Germany, Wolfgang Wicker of Germany, and many many others who were breeding Varanus BACK IN THE 1970's - present!! I guess you did not about them do you? Do your homework.

If you speak of within the USA, fr has bred some Varanus, yes. But he is not 'the' most successful, nor by far the 'first successful person' to do so...he is the only one who has NOT written about his successes, only bragged of them on a regular basis.

cheers,
mbayless

My understanding of European breeding of monitors is that it was occasional and spotty at best.

I'm quite sure that FR probably utilized some of this european info in his breeding projects.

FR took what was a black art and turned it into a science.

My understanding of European breeding of monitors is that it was occasional and spotty at best.

TAKE A LOOK AT H.-G. Horn and G. Visser papers Parts I-II:

Review of reproduction of monitor lizards in captivity. International Zoo Yearbook 28:140-150, 1989.

Ibid. Ibid. 35:227-246, 1997.

SEE HOW RANDOM THOSE BREEDINGS ARE - AND WHAT DOES BLACK ARTS HAVE TO DO WITH VARANUS?

IS BLACK ARTS OCCULTIST STUFF LIKE THE "EVIL EYE"? VOODOO? WITCHCRAFT? ETC...???

mbayless

In my book, "correct" would be reaching the ultimate goal of breeding monitors in captivity and hatching the babies and then raising them up and doing it again.

Failure is simple.

Until Frank figured out the details, the world of herpetoculture was filled with many failures and very few partial successes.

A lot of academia doesn't like to be judged by results.

Results are too black and white.

The focus of most of the people that hang out on KS is "results oriented".

Results are relative....compared to what? Fr? Then go ahead and compare them to him if that is what you wish to do? Then why ask Sam or me or others? Ask fr.

Results are best when the animals are healthy, agile, kept adequately, and (hopefully) able to ensue/engage in natural behaviors seen/not seen in the wild...like tick grooming, courtship/mating behavior, sleeping with the lights off, able to properly thermoregulate, and live as natural as they can in a box. Some of the things we see our varanids do you will 'never' see them do in the wild, and visa-versa, but in you take both aspects and combine them, appreciation for them increases many fold - but in order to do that, one much open their mind to books, passion for the animals, understanding that they are not merely a cool reptile kept in a box fed on cheese pizza and frozen pinky mice, but highly didactic creatures, if one watches them, both in the field and in the home, one can learn a hell of a lot from them, about them, and will appreciate them more... do you know how many people treat them merely as a novelty, 'cool pet' that crushes mice like a steam-shovel does to a car? Too many to count, if one reads just a little more than a care sheet one will appreciate more of these animals than apparently so many appear not too....living with monitors does not mean living with them for 1 day, 1 month, but if you're serious, try doing that for a 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 years and it really gets fun!

When you try to fix a car, you do not simply go out and begin removing nuts and bolts, you look at guide books and mechanic manuals and alike = reading about what monitors do in the wild, in other captive scenarios around the World is like beginning to work on your car - a life-long experience that can help you know and learn and appreciate more about your (car) or goanna than previously did before....and with experience, one hardly ever sticks with 1 manual for their car, or goanna alike....

cheers,
mbayless

"When you try to fix a car, you do not simply go out and begin removing nuts and bolts"

I just got done going out and looking over my car, then started removing bolts, loosened the drive belt, then removed and replaced the power steering pump. I did not read a manual or a book on how to do this. Guess I must just be lucky that it works. So does not reading the book make how I fixed the car wrong? It is working or does it only count if I read how to do it first?

Maybe I am just a genius, oh no never mind no PHD's in my name.

I do use the same approach with my monitors. It seems to be working fine for me.

HAHAHAHA - I was referring to a new car with all the computer crap in it = the basic parts that make a car run are still there, but at least in CA anyways, there are all kinds of superfluous crap under the hood for this, that and other tax/fees to make the head spin....I don't even recognize a car engine anymore with all the junk in there...where is the engine?

Comparatively, to me anyways, it is like looking through a dirty glass to find the goanna - it is in there somewhere, behind all that dirt...just have to clear the dirt away and wallah! There is the engine....and I do not have a Ph.D. either...I teach Pre-K. where abc, 1-2-3 are the least of our concerns....we have to test these little fellows via "All kids left behind" crap every 3 months, 4 other testing batteries/year. When is there time to 'play' and encourage 'play, getting along, and using language?'

As Admiral Nimitz said before he retired, "I am not a sailor anymore, I am a five-star paper-pusher messenger"
cheers Jody,
mbayless

well 2002 anyways, your right they do not look like the engines of old thats for sure.

I still do not see a problem with not reading manuals, if it works for you then read them if you don't want to don't.

I believe we the people still have that choice to make on our own?/ well maybe until tom. atleast haha