Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Uh oh, I felt like writing today.

It is humorous, the amount of resolve this forum has put into discussing single whole-prey diets, considering that two “groups” of squamates that are fed little if anything other than the exact same dietary staple in the US (mice for bigguns, crickets for littluns) have shown us that single item diets can work through many generations in many, many species.

I’ll put that into simpler terms. Captive generalist colubrid constrictors eat mice and nothing else (boids go for rats and up). When they’re small, they eat little mice and when they’re big, the sizes of the mice go up accordingly. This has been done for years to the point that it should seem safe to assume that the method is appropriate (for all reasons of practicality). Even many lizard-eating specialists have been successfully broken onto a mouse-only diet.

Small squamates such as leopard geckoes and many chameleons are supported on diets that consist of little to nothing other than crickets. Crickets aren’t even a very good (dietarily) whole prey item due to that calcium/phosphorous imbalance thing. However, herpetoculturists did not select crickets among all other prey insects. Much like lab mice, they made use of a commodity that was preemptively available for ready supply. So, I guess we can get over the metabolic shortcomings crickets provide for (especially with supplements now available in every corner, for the species that need it).

I think that most of those who emphasize variety in captivity don’t have a grasp on the concept that it is unnecessary for the animals’ metabolisms, so long as an appropriate food species is selected (or a slightly inappropriate one such as crickets are supplemented for the species that prove to need such). Most of these people also seem unlikely to have large numbers of animals, as anyone who maintains a multitude of species/specimens will know it is impossible to provide variety with any consistency (i.e., other than the occasional treat, which should do little to alter the metabolism, positively or negatively). I am assuming that most of the insistence upon variety comes from how enthusiastic monitors are to eat whatever. Again, this is an adaptive radiation. It is the opposite of specialization and does not similarly constrict the species that subscribe to it. It is much easier to support a generalist on a basic one-species diet than it is to break a specialist onto a one-species diet outside of the specialization.

Now, as diet is not the main concern of this post (Wow) I’ll bleed into the other part –currently more cryptic aspects of husbandry that continue to be suggested as bigger potential problems.

As with food, many of the shortcomings with regards to monitor maintenance stem from inabilities to sieve and apply appropriate data in a correct and practical fashion. In short, as plenty have said, it’s the keepers’ faults.

The faulting in turn stems from keepers wanting to over-complicate the variables (as we’ve seen recently with food). It has been stated on this forum that monitor behavior is the complicated part. I disagree unless we’re talking that heavy word as of late – theory (or if we’re discussing the intraspecific relation of one specimen to another/others). Theory (here) pertains to sorting out the fine details of natural history (of species, populations or single specimens) that we don’t have enough cumulative data to make proper sense of yet, and then applying those details to captive husbandry. However, the most important aspects of behavior that pertain to physiology in each and every specimen equally are understood. We have a fair grasp on thermoregulatory processes (behavioral and physiological) and consequential water balances, and how “hiding” affects both of these. Wow, behavior is intertwined with metabolism.

It is always curious to see such inquiry as, “What basking temps are needed?” and the response “This species shows a preferred temperature of 92F in the reference ‘Cutiest Monitors for Home and Garden.’” This is irrelevant. A brief lesson in economics as it relates to biology… Opportunity costs are the biggest challenge for all organisms each day. Organisms constantly choose among tradeoffs. Bask exposed to feed and digest well, or hide safely with metabolic inefficiency? To avoid elaborating on this part, monitors, and all thermoregulatory ectotherms (basking cold-blooded animals), know their set-point temps (optimum temps for operation), and they choose their use of spaces and heat based on this. Provide a big gradation of temps and they’ll find and use the right ones. This has been discussed before (multiple bulbs, hide racks, etc.). It hasn’t to my recollection been discussed here as so integral with the animals’ natural behaviors in the wild, exactly as it is in captivity. This is part of the wild you want to take home with the animal. Temperature choices. You see, these “cold-blooded” animals are not controlled by their environments so much as they control themselves based upon available parameters. They control their surroundings outside the body, and they control their circulations inside the body. Now some would say that the surroundings control them, by way of what temps, humidities, hides, etc., the environ supplies on any given day.

Perhaps nowhere is this thought more sensible than for animals in captivity. When keepers provide improper parameters (temp, humidity, and hiding that permits proper regulation of both), the animals are indeed negatively controlled by the environs, as caged animals cannot escape the negative restrictions. Provide the proper parameters (i.e., close enough such that you don’t fail on every front) and the animals can’t help but to succeed. You see, that is the thick of the biological ingenuity in all organisms that lets them persist. Sole goal = succeed. Wowie wow. The blade of behavior/metabolism cuts both ways.

Other sources of failure, nesting substrate, incubation, etc., are also based upon fine details. That’s a hard part only if you try to apply comprehensive-deficient data to captive animals. So-and-so’s paper on rudicollis said that specimens laid clutches in abandoned dome nests of Przevalski’s giant fur-soled dipterocarp tree squirrels, so, I need to simulate that. Wowie wow WOW. Two problems. A lack of ingenuity on behalf of the keeper, and a fear of change/experimentation. “Being scientific” is often used by some on this forum in a derogatory or chiding fashion. No wonder many people are still failing with monitors. Being pragmatic begets experimentation with which to find answers. Answers equal understanding the path to the goal, and the goal, if you recall, is success. Maybe that’s too long an equation? Okay, we’ll try it this way. Don’t be afraid of change. The animals aren’t, at least with regards to stuff that doesn’t work for them. When sand doesn’t work, instead of bringing moisture up from -500 kPa to -150 kPa with Abita Springs bottled water since this or that reference implied very moist sterile substrate for the species, try bringing in some construction grade soil (with the reasoning of smaller grains facilitating more moisture?), or go dig your own soil. Try putting leaves over the soil/sand. Pack the substrate tighter. Loosen it up. Change it again to something else. Sink a log to give a point of anchor. Do a rain dance without embarrassment. Try stuff and the animals will let you know. It’s their behavior that actually tells you whether you’re close enough or far away. Nothing hard about that unless you are too busy reading cumulative-deficient data sets to read the animals. Or to learn how to read the animals. That shouldn’t come overnight; remember how long it took you to learn how to read the words in the data sets? There’s not a monitor paper or care guide in the world that can strike a perceptive ability towards application into readers. You can tell the person it has a brain, but you can’t make it think. I’m going to copyright that last line, all you analogists out there. Thanks for reading.

I really have no need to pursuade you or others of anything. But it seems your trying to pursuade me. Or to bait me? perhaps.

The point is very clear. The history of monitor husbandry is very very poor, that is, its rare for varanid keepers to allow life events. This was and is, to this day, very true.

Arguements arise of many sorts, which is better which is worse, etc etc etc. The point is, what has shown better results now. Not what is perfect or best twenty years from now. What is better then yesterdays results?

Those who commonly show satisfactory results, are not so concerned with such petshop and scientific paradigns as UV and suppliments, and such. The reason is, we have satisfactory results.

Until results from those who back all this and that are expressed to equal or exceed those who do not use UV or suppliments or varied diets, then there is no merit for discussion. You can theorize until your blue in the face. Look up theory(unproven)Once complicated results meet these basic approaches, ones such as mind, then I would consider entertaining them as valid. I have been waiting patiently.

Also, it seems you refuse to read carefully, you often cite extremes, like only mice and only crickets. While those were tested and have worked(still testing). I do not recoment that or do that on a widespread basis. I have said that a million times. But of course, if you actually read what I have said, then you would not have such an extreme example to compare too. You would lose your shock value.

You also forget the questions asked. If the question is, are mice alone a successful diet for medium monitors, the answer would be yes. But if the question was, what diet addresses both the physical and mental needs of medium monitors, the answer would be different. It would be as I recomend, a base diet of whole rodents, with the addition of whole prey items is very good. You see, thats what I do.

The real question is, for beginers, wouldn't it be eaiser and better for them to understand something that works and is easy and could expand upon later. Then have to experiment with all sorts of things they do not understand? You know, mostly from theory.

But then, hey, its not my problem. And what you do is also not my problem. To be sure, I don't have a problem with diet with my monitors. They grow big and strong with no bone desease and experience life events. So all this typing is only to help others, if they want help, if they don't, then again, its not my problem either. They don't have to consider any of this. Consider= think about in some depth. After all, anything on this board is only food for thought. FR

I wouldn’t have expected you to give response to this post, as I don’t think it really detracts from your approach. Similarly, it’s not trying to impress any thought upon you that you don’t likely already have or disagree with. Once again, you’re taking me in the wrong tone. Unfortunately, I can’t always render enough tone for clarity in type font.

The point of that post was to stimulate more actively independent thought in many of the people who don’t keep quite so many animals or experience full cycle success with their inkeeps. As you put it, food for thought. It was a discussion of physiological and behavioral generalities as they relate to captive maintenance and how understanding such principles can help avoid at least some shot gunning. In other words, a breakdown of less accessible principles that can and do make the difference in husbandry. Whether each reader (who actually had the patience to get through it) took anything from the post or not is up to his/her discretion, although I did manage to steal a good bit of time from those who took nothing, hahaha.

You seem to interpret my words as implying that single species captive diets are preferable rather than practical. They are often preferable because of being practical. As I mentioned in a post to mrcota, consistently varied prey items do influence the animals, mostly beyond metabolism (the two of you discussed that briefly, too). Feed a lizard or bunny to a monitor that normally gets mice, and you might get a more vicious feeding response. That’s a different natural behavior. Not a better one, just different. Metabolism might speed up very temporarily on behalf of such behavior. That may seem preferable to some keepers, to do that all the time (instead of on occasion, which is not that much different than never at all). However, as I would assume you understand, it’s usually not practical. Impractical for keepers are many, many food items (more different kinds of prey than can most readily be procured). Conversely, impractical in the wild would be to rely on a single prey species. Both ends of the spectrum work in their applied fields; no attempt at shock value there. It is only the time and financial practicality of single species diets in captivity that can make them preferable as well.

True, it is always a good idea for beginners to have something concrete (or nearly so) with which to work, but you can’t offer that in all areas. What’s the best nesting substrate for rudicollis? There isn’t a concrete answer for that one (is there?). As you already mentioned, you yourself encouraged the person that bred them (with repetition) up north to figure it out from the animals. I was expounding on a starting point for such specimen-reading. Many care guides and papers and books encourage keepers to go with certain allegedly species-specific details (hence the squirrel nest joke), which are usually incomplete or inapplicable to the species as a whole, but rarely exposed as such in the respective titles. By giving explanations on more basic principles (not theories) as they apply to squamate physiology and resultant behavior, perhaps readers will be better able to weigh such publications and in turn gain ideas of their own. Then again, the average attention span likely precludes reading a post so long as the one above to try to get what the point is, rather than shooting straight for the short mandatory basking temps chapter.

You ring the bell of simple results. That (surprisingly) often proves ineffective news here in a way, as it’s not enough for many people’s detail appetite. Some want dramatic news. They want details, but seemingly, not the kind (basic principles rather than theory/concrete specifics) I write about (the explanatory half of the equation, opposite of results, as you put it). The species-specific details that are often not fully worked out (or not consistent enough to ever be fully worked out) seem to be the ones commonly sought out for application on captives. That approach is preferable to many, but has proven practical for few. Neither of our discussion styles will likely guide everyone away from this ineffective mode of thinking (you offer the simple that comes with a pretty picture, yet not everyone clings to your cufflinks; I submit too many hard words and the drawn out reasoning for the simplicity, and I doubt anyone would cling to those cufflinks even if I wore them). I don’t really care, since as I already said, success is determined by the perceptiveness of the individual keepers. The posts that try to stimulate principle-based approaches (rather than with theories) often go least noticed. Oh well.

Its not about preferable or practical, or all this and all that theory is so much simplier. In a world of failure, this have worked extremely well. As simple as it is.

In a world of extreme practical failure, just look around. Many seem to talk an advanced scientific language with complex analogies, of this and that, how it should fit in with this and that theory or how it shouldn't.

The point is simple, very few things have worked, and this is one of them that has worked, no need to explain it, or catagorize it. It simply works well.

Look at the pics above, a baby, then in one year an adult, that adult is a vibrant, as healthy as robust as any on any diet. End of that story.

I think people like to talk theory for lack of experience, they want to talk scientific to sound complicated and intelligent. The fact is, these are small animals(reptiles) not so much different then canaries, or parakeets, or cockatiels, or hamsters, you feed them, care for them, supply what they need and they succeed. Its simple not complicated. OK, nesting is a bit complicated but no different then parakeets. FR

The average keeper has bought their monitor from a local petstore, they have the stores advice, the horrible books they sell, and some really bad forums with many other butchers and newbies telling them what works and doesnt, although they themselves are failing at keeping monitors.
These people in many cases read the 2 examples (how they should be kept, and the easy cheap route), which way are most going to decide on, the easy cheap route, simply because they do not understand the animal at all, therefore they do not understand what makes it right or wrong and the easy route sounds better.
They read is 1-2-3-4-5 books that recyle the same info on captive care (all bad) that variety is what works, rodents are bad, etc etc, now they belive the rest of us are high when we tell them they are wrong and need to make changes. The way many start to listen is the animals suffers, gets sick, or dies, now they either change their husbandry, or they disappear into the oblivion where many others went after failing and never getting another monitor again.
The simple diet sounds as mentioned boring, simple, too easy, not exciting enough, so why not start throwing everything they will stuff down at them, they eat it right, well the problem again they dont understand whats good or bad for them as they dont understand the animal or its needs, hence shot gunning begins. After all what was different when the animal got sick, well that day they fed them one type of food, so its got to be it, not the conditions they live in, thats too expensive or difficult or too much work to change.
We could go on and on about why these animals fail all year, you point out a thousand examples from the forums every month, but it doesnt change the keepers attitude about doing what needs done. You can predict many other these animals failing with a 75% accuracy or higher, but this has to do with the difficult part the keeper, the hardest part of the husbandry to fix.
I guess the best way is to show a new keeper before they get the animal the right way in person, and explain then and there why this works, and why something doesnt. I think it sets in and makes a better and longer lasting impression, unfortunately that first impression has to be a good one or getting through to them may be a long difficult road.
Ive been keeping these creatures a long time with some sucess in many examples, but then again I like to learn the hard way sometimes, and to find out for myself too many times. I will admit what FR and a few others have showed or told me about over the last 4 years got me trying for myself some different methods and it showed me whats worked better by trying these things out, more of that guys advice, darn you FR, lol.
Now if you could only teach new keepers from the start the right way.

Your a bit long winded fellow but your very good at summerizing the discussions on this forum.

I found this to be a good explanation and one of the reasons many disagree on diets. Some look at the steps backwords some look at them forewards, others might be looking in from the side or some such thing.

I am not sure if my approach is the forwards or backwords, guess it depends who I ask. From what I took from this post it seems I look at it in the same aspect you bring up. Or atleast it appears to be that way from what I gather from your long winded post.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

First, it does not matter what your conclusion is, your premise was wrong.

That is the problem with theory, you start your post on theory, by calling monitors oppertunistic feeders. When in fact, they are not, at least not always. Not in capitivity or nature. I know, your shocked.

In captivity, monitors realistically choose a food item. And stick to it. That is not about the species, and in many cases the food item. They behaviorally are like people. They have cultural or behavioral reasons to do so. An example, if raised on mice, they will ignore other prey items until they run out of mice. If raised on crickets, they will ignore other insects, again until they are extremely hungry. For instance, I raised hundreds of ackies and other odatriads on crickets, then a new insect food source appeared, roaches. Many said their ackies loved roaches(they must have been really hungry), but in an attempt to add another prey item, I tried roaches, my "spoiled" monitors would not touch them. I have also fed many assorted wild grasshoppers, cicadas, crickets, while on occasion they would nibble at them, they would not eat them in a fashion they consumed crickets. In fact, there were only two prey items ackies consumed with equal gusto, crickets and lizards, the rest were not perferred.

What is interesting is, this is only particular to my animals, the reason is, One, crickets and mice, filled their needs, and I did not let them starve. So they only had need to seek the common food items in their enviornment. Mice and crickets.

In nature, I found monitors keyed on prey types, that is, their stomach contains, contained a vast majority of one prey type. For instance, the gouldi complex, seems to key on lizards over a large part of their active season. Don't get me wrong or take this out of context, I did see starving individuals, eating anything they can find. But my task was to compare apples to apples, that is, compare healthy successful wild monitors, to healthy successful captive monitors.

This brings up your statement, starving individuals become very oppertuntistic, while normal successful individuals are very honed in on a few successful prey types. That is, they are not very oppertuntistic. I am sure, this changes season to season and year to year, IF NEED BE. Which indicates, their feeding mode depends on individual condition.

If you understood wild reptiles, there are always a wide range of individual conditions, But indeed they mostly reflect the average supportting conditions. For instance, a population can be judged healthy, with a high recruitment rate, the majority if the individuals in good weight. But for sure, their are superior individuals and inferior individuals. The more successful individuals, have found and use a successful pattern of exsistance, the unsuccessful individuals have not found such a pattern and become oppertuntistic and in most cases later perish(fail).

On a different year, that same success non-oppertuntistic population will become unsuccessful and have to become oppertuntistic. By need.

The problem is, field studies, most do not study populations over many normal and natural conditions. The problem lays in, speed, the methods used, the goals are, to do this quick and move on to another subject. While their findings are not really wrong, they are not right either.

Did they study a progressive population, that is, one that is involved in heavy recruitment, expanding? did they study a population in decline. Did they study a population barely holding its own. And lastly did they study indivuduals envolved in life events? These questions are not normally asked, but are indeed part of all populations. As populations are always expanding, contracting or holding steady. They never stay the same for long periods. In captivity our goal is to maintain a healthy population, so its this information that is important.

In the past field researchers or readers of their papers would say, FR your temps are wrong, this paper says this, and you say that. They said the body temps averaged 30.8 C. Of course I have to ignore that, the reason is simple, reptiles use a range of temps for different tasks, they commonly include a set high and set low, in all their daily activies. So the authors or readers, 30.8C, is effectively useless. That temp mostly likely represents what a wandering individual will maintain its body temp. at. I would indeed like to see what a gravid females BT is at, both high and low. Or a feeding individual digesting a large food bolus is maintaining its BT at, again both high and low.

You see, one set temp has little to do with reptiles, as they do not maintain set temps with metabolism, but depend on the enviornment or better yet, the useage of their enviornment for maintaining their working and resting temps.

I bring this up, because, you must understand, a preferred food item or hunting mode, is not based on species and prey type alone, its based on temps, need, condition, season, and lastly availibility.

Yet, most only consider availibility.

One last parting thought, WHY do monitors and other reptilian pests, invade chicken ranches, barns and other mademade structures? They normally do not consume chickens in their diet, yet, they surely think of chicken ranches are a very good oppertuntity. What about barns and such. Hmmmmmmmmm they seem to be a good home for mice and other rodent pests, which monitors and snakes take advantage of, even thought mice may not be part of their natural diet. Also, garbage tips are a favorite home for lacies and perenties(other species as well), and if you actually go thru the junk, all sorts of smaller monitors. Not only do they eat the human garbage, but are more attracted to the rodents and insects that thrive in such places.

In the end, monitors prove to be, choosy as to what they feed on, if food is abundant, or oppertuntistic if food is scarce. While understanding this is important. ITs not, heres why.

The reason, I want my monitors to have a steady food supply, so they do not have to be oppertuntistic. We have control over them being successful or not. So why keep them unsuccessful? to be that is the question of the day???????? FR

Dietary opportunism does not preclude any organisms that subscribe to such a tendency from having preferences, even strong preferences, that can and do vary on a temporal scale.

There is nothing wrong with claiming monitors as opportunists any more than claiming grizzly bears (which also eat tons of things yet vary them specifically throughout the year according to many factors) as such, meaning, break "opportunist" down further and we're arguing nuances of a word to the point that any meanings become very hazey. Perhaps we can clarify still. Based on your observations, many monitors show themselves to be facultative opportunists rather than obligate opportunists. Then again, do we really know of any species that is an obligate opportunist (i.e., no preferences allowed)?

With regards to mention of set-point temps, a set-point temp is not a single measurement (i.e., a "set" temperature); it's a set of measurments within a range - an animal's optimal operational temperatures (e.g., from 30.2-34.7C), and it was this that I was referring to with regards to the importance of basking provisions within captivity (allowing the animal to achieve temps within the set-point range on it's own, rather than giving it one arbitrary measurment in the middle to facilitate optimal metabolic processes). If the animal wanted to fall below all set-point temps (towards the bottom of the total temp range used, thus slowing many body functions to achieve a standard metabolic rate), all it would have to do is withdraw from basking. I thought I made clear, the ability to pursue temp regulation-for-efficient metabolism (i.e., behavioral linkage with metabolism) factor in the first post.

I didn't think that initial post was very cohesive when I hit the submit button, but then, I only hit the submit button because I figured it just might get some people thinking about those principles (again, not theories) I made mention of within it, applied to a captive agenda. Fortunately, it did here. This post of yours, although it mistook a couple of parts of mine and (from my take) over-scrutinized the meaning of opportunist, was very cohesive and will hopefully be noticed by a sufficient number of readers. I enjoyed it. Thanks.

The point I am trying to make is not whether your right or wrong, its more about why are you making the statements you do.

Most here do not understand much or any of what your saying, and there is no need to(including me). Your discussion is aimed at another group of people. The people here(including me) are simple people, give me something that works. When i don't have something that works. There really does not need to be a scientific explination, as I/we are going to apply it and it will either work or not. Keeping monitors is applied principles.

Your summations seem to be meant for the academic types, which in most cases do not practice, only theorize. Your mode of language fits them, but not us. The reality is, it does not matter what they think or if you convince them anyway. The reason is again simple, they do not apply it. They would rather move on to another theory.

Again, your words seem to be what someone like them, wants or does not want to hear. Depending on their viewpoint. They are not really appliable.

I know, I often switch forth and back from suedo-scientific babble to keeper jargon. Please understand, thats a curse and only an attempt to comunicate. In reality and for the purposes of this forum, I am a common keeper. As such, our solutions for problems, not theoretical problems, but real problems, are real solutions, not theoretical solutions. I think most of us, do not need fancy words to discribe a solution. For instance the common questions are, what temps, not in theory, in applied reality. What kind of cage, not to think about, but what I am going to build. What to seal the cage with, again something to build. What food items, again, something to apply and use, not theorize if it will work.

Your discriptions are aimed at those who mostly do not really care if it really works, because that is not important to them. Whats important to them is, that all things we think, fit their theoretical language based idea of what each species of monitor is. Mind you, not what the real monitor is. But what a paper based monitor is. Also mind you, it seems that monitors on paper are not the monitors with meat and bones(the real ones). Consider, those who believe in paper monitors, do not need a real solution, particularly if its simple, because simple detracts for their complicated theoretical beliefs. Consider history academics have failed miserably at keeping monitors.

That sir is my belief why there is constant bickering on the basics of varanids. As a successful keeper and apparently field person, I find varanids to be simple and easy. Which is a direct challange to the academics beliefs that varanids are complicated and difficult. In other words, I am attacking their world and they do not like it. The reality is, I am not attacking anything, I keep and breed monitors very successfully. My world and their world are not the same. Mine by nature and difinition is reality based, I practice it. Theirs by difinition is theory based. Why are their doctors of medicine and other doctors who practive medicine?(just a side thought) Why are their classes, and a different class on the same subject called a lab?

Which again takes us back to the top. I do not need words to solve problems, I need real appliable fixes, as do all of us who actually keep monitors. Thanks for posting and really It does help me think(theorize) about how people relate to monitors. FR

Hi Frank sure glad you posted this , he was starting to take the fun away.I sure like to keep it simple..have a good day

The real truth is, the academics do not have to be right or wrong. Its not about that. Its about whether if what they think(theorize) can be applied or be effectively applied.

For instance, years ago, an ozzie lacie keeper and now breeder, agrued that lacies need termite mounds to lay eggs in. Science showed that in nature, lacies had laid eggs in them. The reality is, we do not have termite mounds and neither does that person(unless he builds a cage around a living termite mound). So that input was useless for us to apply. Not about whether its right or wrong. For us keepers without termite mounts, that information is wrong.

Were we able to nest lacies without termite mounds, yes, no problem. Lacies have a range of methods to nest. Our task is use one that we are able to successfully supply. Not pick one we are not able to supply.

The sneeky part of this is, right or wrong is not what is(theory or not) its what can be successfully applied by the keeper. This is a very important aspect to understand.

But as you have seen, academics do not like to think of themselves as wrong for any reason, so they smoke screen and switch subjects, and theorize and all other diverions, in order to win a debate. Problem is, its not about debate, it goes back to the reality of being applied. What can be applied and show successful results is what is right. FR

Aaaw, I might use longer-than-average-monitor-keeper sentances, but, only because I like to encourage consideration about the same base factors you tend to state as irrelevant since results have been acheived, even though those results are from applying those very factors I discuss. Whups, another long sentence already. There I go taking the fun out of things, haha. It seems almost as though you feel people shouldn't think about what works. Don't think about WHY whole prey works, just know, it DOES work. That being the case, I wouldn't say I'm taking away any fun, since these are all just words. All of the real fun is in watching successful animals (captive or no) and we can't do that while looking at a computer screen. I know, I know, we read your results on the screen and are coached on how to get those successful animals to watch, grin.

Achieving an understanding for thermoregulation (and other such crucial non-theoretical principles) is more easily achieved by reading about how it applies across the board to all heliothermic (basking-prone) animals (bear in mind, as always, I'm not referring to any group- or species-specific papers) rather than starting with no self-understood base and trying to acquire one from watching cluelessly-maintained monitors. No one successful with monitors started from such a true ground-zero point. The better a base knowledge foundation of physiology/behavior people have for why monitors can prove the "simple" captives they do, the fewer misguided detail questions will be asked as new problems expose themselves. As you know, new little wrikles come all the time.

The significant difference between my approach for discussing captive animals and your approach, as it seems to me, you don't (initially) elaborate on much. Do understand, my posts are not about me trying to say something contrary, or using a roundabout regime of guesswork to try to re-invent the wheel of successful captive monitor husbandry, or making rules, or trying to prove myself infallible all the time. It seems more of a communicative difference than a true difference in applicable approaches.

You center on that which shows itself to work; I focus on that which repeatedly proves to need correction in many monitor keepers and discuss where that correction originates. Many people seem to rest comfortably in letting you do all of the problem solving for them. The more people who can answer (reason) their own basic husbandry questions, the fewer emails you have to send containing a price plus an explanation about temperatures, or humidities, or, you pick it. Then again, it's your time, not mine. While you're doing that, I can be busy gleefully "theorizing." Better yet, if people would just try to comprehend and apply the principles that I run so many words over, you would have far fewer questions to answer and consequently more spare time to post pictures that are worth a thousand, no, a million, of my words.

First, your discussing building a double decker jumbo jet, with new areodymanic and propulsion technologies. while most here are trying and failing to build a model of the wright brothers plane. The principles may be the same, but the ability to absorb them and use them are not.

The reality is, learn to crawl, then walk, then run, then fly. There is an order, very few can skip parts of this order.

I had a falling out with Jeff Barringer over the progress of these forums, he wanted to and did divide up an already slow forum in divisions of species, when I wanted to divide them up by experience levels. For instance, beginer keepers, advanced keepers and theoretical possibilities of varanid principles. He won out and no advancement has taken place.

About your discussions, I am left handed and do not see real things as words(how obvious is that?) I see them as pictures and scenes. How about showing us pics that express your thoughts. Or don't you keep monitors and all this is only words? A point I make many times over. Keeping monitors is not words, its results. Words can never be right or wrong, they can only be mouthed and then disappear. Results are real and here to see, feel, and observe. This is a keepers forum, just read up above on monitor home page. Not a theoretical forum. While theory is fine, its only value is when it proves to not be theory. Unfortunately, the ones who spout theory, do so because they have no intention of turning theory into reality. Again, because keeping monitors is a reality, you have to start with little steps.

You seem to want to verballing spar, or swordfigh. Which is great, what what good is it? other then fun for us. Does it help those with problems? I think you should consider that question. Most skip right over our conversations, they cannot relate. We are still discussing a new fuel for our propulsion system, and they are wondering if it will take over one horsepower to get there crate off the ground.

Back to you, you are stirring the pot, which is good because it brings part of the stew to the surface for keepers to see. But in your case, do they know or understand what they are seeing? Heck, half the time I don't have the foggyist idea what your getting at. So if your right or wrong, it does not matter, If I cannot understand it. Back your dang self up and speak a little S L O W E R. Results, we all can understand. It(results) are not all emcompassing, They (results) are just easy to understand. And emulate. Understanding can and will come later. But at least it will be on something real.

The biggist problem with newbies and academics is being forgetful, they forget monitors are reptiles and as such are ectotherms. If they would remind themselves of that, each and every minute, they would open to window to understanding and advancement, in their keeping. I am a reptile, I depend on enviornmental conditions to achieve my daily activities. I am a reptile, I invented the amniote egg and allowed life to leave watery confines. I am a reptile, I am an ectotherm. I am a reptile, I have behaviors somewhere between the fish before me and the birds after me, I have behavior. I am a reptile, I live, I do, I participate in life. I experience life events. I am a reptile.

Funny how academics know reptiles advanced the egg, but forgot about where they put eggs(nests) I think the problems are far more basic then your wordy sentences. Cheers FR

Especially the last part. That gave me a real kick. The defining point with regards to the differences in what we approach when it comes to captive monitor applications is how I got started and then progressed with my (successful) group.

Meaningfully, that start was from reading kingsnake forums since the care guides and vet's advice proved unrealistic; I was too young at that point to be theoretical on my own, so that wasn't a, er, handicapp.

The forum voice back then that I particularly liked (as so many other beginning keepers do) was that which ran under a big F and R, because it was easy to understand. The messages given were very blunt, to-the-point. This is a writing characteristic that I've never had and am always intrigued by. I don't mean outright flattery by that, it's just different (to me), and as in many cases here, different is good. Many of my bottom-line understandings came from reading of prior experiences and, yeah, the results. But eventually, since I was intent on breeding these monitors, the detail difficulties became too frequent and I had to figure out how to sythesize complete thoughts for application on my own.

I went to the library since no concrete answers seemed to abound online. I don't know where I got the notion that an archaic public library would have more to offer about varanid reproduction. It would not have, were I not in possession of a little common sense and an ability to apply by way of thinking in the same fashion that you summarized nice and humorously in that last post. Neat thing is, I figure that was possible because I was young enough not to have a bunch of theoretical "halfway technologies" already imbedded in my head (I had a helpful form of innocence, which is often synonomized with purity; okay, maybe that's getting a bit too poetic). The book that really helped out my way of thinking was "Herpetology," the '93 one by George Zug. It was great because it presented behavioral ecology and physiology not group to group but rather across the board. This was a simple format, and similarly, helped me keep applications simple, even though the text was much more grammatically and topically "advanced" than your (basics) discussions here. From it I gleaned that the monitors were truly not that much different, insofar as captive applications, than the very distant reptiles I bred in large numbers at the same time. So, I guess in a way, the scientific reference that could cloud the minds of some, actually unclouded mine.

My subsequent success encouraged me to figure that a properly-dosed applied principle approach does prove beneficial. However, such an approach is best starting off from simple, proven captive-based basics. I think that part should be underscored. Similarly, advancing those basics need the applied principles to help with some of the more advanced problems down the road. You stated this more concisely with the crawling-walking-flying progression analogy.

That is a problem on this forum, the lack of the meaningful division you mention. My way of communication would be a lost cause on a beginner forum. That's where elaboration on how to understand the avoidance of problems is not needed, but rather, a brief explanation on how to simply, correct the problems that are occurring. You see, I don't disagree with what you discuss, or how you approach the topics. What I have to say, similarly, does not at all fail to apply to captive monitor maintenance, it just emphasizes understandings instead of proofs. Understandings (physiology and consequent behavior) is where the groundwork for the proofs (captive results) lays. Beginners don't tend to like the elaborate part. I didn't until it seemed necessary. Regardless of which part of the approach seems more palatable to the masses, I don't think encouragement should be given for not having such discussions, as at least I've taken from this one. Thanks.