Reptile & Amphibian Forums

improper categorization? - casichelydia, Oct 4, 2005
RE: improper categorization? - FR, Oct 4, 2005
Heh, I like this - casichelydia, Oct 5, 2005

His last post;

Posted by: casichelydia at Wed Oct 5 00:37:23 2005 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

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.

As you know, I have a precieved dislike of science, but that is in error. I love science and use it and read it all the time. I do have a dislike for suedo-science. That is why I call some suedo-scientists. That is, when a biologist or like, Mask their arguements with their knowledge of words and writing. Instead of using successful experience.

I understand when they do that, its not about science, its about debate and the precieved notion that they can win an arguement. The problem is, its not about the arguement, its about the reality of keeping monitors and the success experienced. So yes, I have done very well using books and literature with keeping monitors. To clear it up, using literature that is pertinent. Apples to apples, not apples to polar bears.

I have also done very well using bits and pieces from nature to solve captive problems.

Like you, I found monitors to be no different then other captive produced reptiles, and heck, even mice and crickets(which I also produce) You give them the necessities and they react positively. The necessities are very simple.

The hard part is maintenance. You must keep it up on a day to day basis. With our mice, I touch each cage less then two minutes a week. That is by design(the mice are about making money). With monitors, that would indeed be impossible. You must apply husbandry of a consistant basis. This is where I believe the theory boys fall out. There minds do not allow such boring tasks, day after day. They must have something to theorize about, something magical, or they become bored. So they solve problems on a theoretical basis only and move on to the next problem.

Which takes us back to the start. Start with simplicity, then move to complicated, not the other way around. What do you think? FR

Learning only stops voluntarily, and strangely enough, some people opt to allow that. Defensiveness expressed through overly-complex discussion is a common trend here. The habit of masking even a small degree of ignorance with extra-educated ness abounds in the scientific community, not just herpetology, or biology, but, all science. All of it. It is unfortunate that many seem to like the debate more than the subject of his or her study, to the point that arguments become the best-covered part of his or her experience, hey? That misfortune almost convinced me out of science when I was in college - why pursue something in which many people I met couldn't, or wouldn't, meaningfully discuss anything (i.e., listen and consider in addition to speaking)? Then I woke up. Wait, that's a universal human condition and is found in all walks of life. Darn.

I think many people who have read my run-on sentences figure I'd fall into the above category I just denounced. They're wrong, for the simple reason, I don't wish to spend time on that. I do share here, but my main cause is applied selfishness - to take (the listen and consider parts). Sorry to embrace a vice. My taking goes for understanding monitor info and people's modes of thinking alike. Both can and do alter my perceptions.

The one thing I've not figured out is how debate (instead of potentially dually-educating discussions) became more interesting than the subjects for some people. Scientists and keepers alike can express this condition. I'm still thinking on that one, and probably will until the day I die since I'm not fanatically interested in human psychology. Some of the debates do add a flare, and some do expose useful info, but since exchanges of that nature are often shared by people who don't intend to learn anything or even fear doing so, they usually don't offer much learning opportunity for the readers, either.

I don't like to spend time on that. Fun for me is fun for you - watching the monitors. Or other reptiles, or animals in general, or staring into their spaces outdoors. There are people who debate and there are debaters. Which one do I sound like here? Funny, THIS is all theory and I certainly seem to be overemphasizing my take on it, but I'm referring to the monitor stuff here. My run-ons are a product of being didactic. I’m not the best summarizer, so my writing can come across as debating.

Another factor that hasn’t come up here yet is many keepers’ outright aversion to hard (often complex) science. I think this might be where the perception of your dislike for science comes from – it’s a means by which many keepers can identify with you. What you don’t believe (the pseudo-science) some other keepers don’t understand. The end product seems to be the same, but the message carried away by many is that, literature is inapplicable. Most people don’t have an ability to weigh literature for captive application potential. This isn’t surprising. Some of the subject matter that many texts approach is itself extremely complex, so, even the simplification provided by such lit will likely be only a little less complex. The cause of science is to make understanding possible, and the process of simplification is always relative.

So, back to that. Yes. I think so, too. Everything should start off simple, since the simple has already been proven possible. Why make beginning heads spin if they don’t have to? Those who don’t want heads to EVER spin can scream and grab a cross or a garlic clove and fling holy water whenever they see my screen name adjacent to a post. Those people don’t have to read what I write. And, it’s not my job to clarify my approach for them. Their common senses and perceptions are their own responsibilities. If they don’t intend to get what I’m discussing, they should not read it. An even bigger waste of time than abject debate is to read something drawn out (or run-onny or long-winded or however you’d describe the way I write) without intention of re-reading if need be, but rather to follow up with a post that says no fun or paralysis by analysis or whatever. Rookies feel confronted if addressed as beginners and people who can’t apply common sense to my wordy concepts would feel as though I were implying them stupid if I called them out on it.

Again, I don’t say stuff that differs from your views; I just take an alternate (explanatory) route. If my writing style naturally took the same route as yours, what sense in my taking the time to type posts would there be? Those who need a short’n’sweet road can simply aim for the FR-shaped bull’s-eyes. You’d think everyone could figure that out and proceed silently and happily, hey? Still, I hope others can make use of this exchange as have I.

Hi, if I may ask,can you tell me if your keeping any monitors at this time and what and how many?thanks

Tibor, hi,

Don’t take any of this to heart, but, I’m curious whether your post actually has any point at all. I don’t think you care about the answers to any of your questions, since you’ve already posted to detract from my discussion in this thread as it was below.

You prove to have paid little attention to my posts in the past, since I have already made mention of a meaningful group of animals that I maintained (success), plus a negative group (failure begot learning). Having kept the “good” group in the past signifies experience just as much as it would was I still in possession of it, so your request for currency doesn’t hold water here. Please understand this. If (for a strong example) FR quit keeping monitors tomorrow, you would not begin to question his words, since his then-past experience would justify his words well enough for your ears, er, eyes. Having made success yesterday might even be better than making mistakes today. I know, you weren’t up for all this length. So, as a mid-way treat, no, I don’t currently have monitors. I’m not great at multi-tasking and work with too many other species for my own practicality at this time.

You ask which kinds and how many, why? Are you suddenly curious? Which part of my post made you curious? I am jumping to the conclusion that you are instead being either attention-deficit or antagonistic, and I hope it’s the former since that one isn’t voluntary. Your questions are those frequently asked when someone is hoping to challenge “credentials.” How about this, my understandings of monitors are not proportionately more extensive than my understandings of general reptile ecology/physiology, meaning, I understand some of the specifics, for some species, but the main factor of importance I have to contribute is a general understanding and a history of (a little) success. Hopefully, those are meager enough “credentials” to lessen your irritation/intimidation?

I know, you’re tapping your foot already, since you expected a checklist, if anything (heh, shows how little you know me). But, those were big questions that you didn’t justify with regards to context. You didn’t ask any questions that had anything to do with this thread. I know, I know, you’ve given FR a lot of money for some pretty Aussie goannas and we’ve all been pleased to see the pictures of them. This doesn’t mean that you must question the words of others in terms of species and numbers in possession at the time of writing. Instead, try reading what I am writing and see if that tells you anything (it might) or just don’t read at all (as I already said, maybe you skipped that part).

Now, for the count, what will please you? I’ve kept seven savannah monitors and each one lived a good five years minimum. I kept a successful group of two ackies and they laid eggs twice – the second time she laid twenty seven of them. I’ve also kept a couple of water monitors and right now I love a nile and he eat lots of fish. No, wait, that’s what you might have been expecting. Wordy guy with little or no track record of success, since this forum has a habit of exposing those fellows.

Truthfully, I’ve kept a group of Argus in the past (to reiterate) and they did very well. I am actually vain enough to still see my progress with them as an achievement, particularly since I was young. I kept a group of mangroves, and they failed completely, for reason of a spatially inadequate setup that couldn’t be altered at the time. The other couple of species I’ve kept were maintained independently, so, even though they “did well,” it was only the non-reproductive part. They were, essentially, pets. So, as I’ve said before, I’m batting at 50/50. That’s not as good as some, maybe not as good as you. But, who said I wrote on this forum to best anyone? Consider staying even slightly within context of threads like this in the future and you might just get something out of them. This isn’t about me and no one, including you, wants it to be. Perhaps, pay attention or don’t participate. Thanks.

Maybe he is just curious?

If he was asking in order to get some sense of your experience working with monitors, is that so bad?

Yes, but why would questioning his experience matter? I mean, it's a moot point, considering captive monitors are sterile. I learned this from a man who has read many, many books--thus saving me the hassle of attempting to breed monitors.
-----
To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody asks, "Hey, can you give me a hand?" you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks." -JH

Wow,sincerely I just wanted to know what you were keeping..really hoping for aussie keepers..but oh well.also as you pointed out your knowedge really does not help with your success.You really talk long winded, for really.. its a short answer to what your saying...and heck I surely don't want trouble on the forums just trying to have fun..this is one hobby I partake in..the other is falconry..I do muti task..heck doesn't every one? And all 13 monitors 3 different species that I keep..I did not buy from FR..I like to read his posts to learn..like we all do,
well good on you for your interest in monitors..it will help others..but your a non keeper so buy something!

You bought your original lacies from me, then sold them. Then you bought the ones you have now, from ben, who I sold them to. So in both ways, your lacies came from me. I think that is what he was getting at. FR

Hi,thats correct! your the king of ozzy monitors here in the US..to bad you had to wholesale them to Ben...I'm sure my glauerti and flavies parents came from that goanna ranch also,I'm sure if you worked on customer service better..you would be better off...just my opinion..I'm looking for a male lace shortly..

I am sorry if you do not understand me. I have always said, I am not a commerical breeder, I am just a breeder.

Also, customer service is based on the customer too, some are great and a joy to work with and others are a pain in the hind end. I will say this, working with Ben has been a pure joy, hes a man that has done what he says. No wishy washing around. I really respect that.

The good part of being non-commerical is, I don't have to deal with "odd" customers, I can let others do that, like Ben. They are pros at that. That allows me to work with my animals and deal with their odd behaviors, which I enjoy.

So please understand, I am a reptile keeper and breeder, I do this for the joy and learning of keeping reptiles. If I have excess and someone wants them, I have no problem selling to them. If they take the fun out of it, I have no problem not selling to them. Thats what dealers are for.

By the way, one day when you were here, you told me, you could make far more money then I have doing this. Hows that working out for you? FR

I see nothing wrong with it either. As you said Ben is great to work with. I have sold him my clutches in the past as well. Numbers of course plays a big role in it. Small numbers are easy to handle large numbers are not. Once people do this enough (breeding/selling) they will realize what all is involved. It is not always fun as people are involved, some are good some are bad.

I did say I was jumping to the conclusion. It's nice to know I was wrong and equally nice you didn't re-react (like me). Thanks.

Hoping for Aussie monitors? Argus are just that. They are the panoptes that stayed in the north country when sea levels crept back up. I brought that up in a recent post, but, I was contradicted that they originated in (south?) Indo only to migrate to Australia. To me, that soundes like it came from a paper that was striving a little too hard to please a funding commission, perhaps minus a complete fossil record and plus a lot of speculation. Aah, look at me - this theory is better than that theory - I can play the hypocrite role.

The mangroves are definitely Aussie (even though mine came from IJ). But, the ones I had went to ruins, so until I free up more time and other factors, I'll just look at your (pics) Aussie monitors, among others.

As there is no way of knowing for sure. Yes, there is hard data(fossils)(get it, hard data?) but its all theory as to how it all relates. So yes, have at it.

Really in this case, what differences does it make? south to north, north to south, east to west, etc etc, then consider, so much time as gone by, the forth and back most likely should be added to that. Extinctions, reestablishments, over and over. isolations, then re-establishment. A simple migration is probably long gone.

As I have said, theory is only weak when used in a discussion against realtime hard data(results) Then one has to wonder why someone highly educated would use theory against results? That counterdicts being educated. But indeed theory vs. theory is absolutlely what discussions are made of. This is why academics love theory, its fodder for so much discussions and further theory. Results are so final, you know, like a period at the end of a sentence. Cheers FR