# something to talk about but no fights



## adamntitch (Jun 17, 2007)

ok av been thinking :lol2: how come people moan and say dont keep monkeys on there own but then most people keep dogs on there own and there a pack animal most people keep descented skunks but then does that mean they agree with removing large cats teeth to stop them biteing and snakes fangs to stop them invenomating when its the same its there devense people keep one cockateil budgie or parrot when there flock animals so whats so diffrent and i know people will say o but the people become the parrots flock and the owners are the dogs pack but then i hand reared monkey would think of the people as its troop so come on whats so diffrent


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

1) I don't think it is a case of a monkey bonding with a human and thinking he/ she is its troop, I think it is a case of humans not being able to socialise with a primate and fulfill its social needs eg grooming, scent marking, playing, 'talking' etc. Personally though, I don't think a human can replace a same species companion for any social animal. 

2) Skunks do not need their scent in captivity. They are thought to rarely use this defense in the wild. It is a last resort defense mechanism that they would not need in captivity because hopefully, they would not be presented with a life or death situation!


----------



## georgieabc123 (Jul 17, 2008)

i think its because dogs hhave been domesticated over hundreds oof years but monkey have not


----------



## adamntitch (Jun 17, 2007)

Pouchie said:


> 1) I don't think it is a case of a monkey bonding with a human and thinking he/ she is its troop, I think it is a case of humans not being able to socialise with a primate and fulfill its social needs eg grooming, scent marking, playing, 'talking' etc. Personally though, I don't think a human can replace a same species companion for any social animal.
> 
> 2) Skunks do not need their scent in captivity. They are thought to rarely use this defense in the wild. It is a last resort defense mechanism that they would not need in captivity because hopefully, they would not be presented with a life or death situation!


ok but then what about parrots no one says o you cant have only 1 altho most parrots that pluck scream what ever due to not having a flock so to speak and be coming stressed and then if skunks do not need there scent why remove it how many skunks prolapse and ad bet most are descented skunks if you agree with descenting skunks you must agree with big cats being de clawed and fanged (as you said they wont need them in captivaty like skunks dont need theres) then defanging snakes as well also surpose they dont need theres ether ??????


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

well i can say nerh nerh nah nerh nerh i keep a pack of dogs an not a dog on its own :Na_Na_Na_Na::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:


----------



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

my word adam talk about throwin the cat among the pigions! you brave brave boy :lol2:


----------



## adamntitch (Jun 17, 2007)

not brave lol just want to understand


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

Here's my opinion...

The difference between descenting a skunk and defanging or declawing a snake or cat is because skunks dont use their scent to feed. Without its claws or teeth, a cat couldnt feed, and likewise a venomous snake couldnt digest its food without its venom. There's the difference, in captivity, the cat and venomous snake still need the things you mentioned to eat... therefore survive. whereas a skunk, given a safe captive environment should not need to defend itself with the spray. ergo, the skunks defense mechanism becomes redundant in captivity where it doesnt need to defend itself

I wouldnt keep a bird as a pet full stop, not that i have anything against anyone who does keep them, i just prefer to see them flying around free rather than in a cage or someones house. 

As for the point on monkeys, i think its because primates are so much more intelligent and complex than the majority of animals we keep as companion pets. Therefore the psychological damage that is done by not having interaction with other members of its species is far greater. It's the same with most, if not all species which actively suffer brain damage and self harm without conspecific interaction, like rats and degus for examples. Its not just a matter of the animal being unhappy without playmates, its that in some species (monkeys included) it does actual harm to their health. A domesticated dog may indeed be happier with other dogs to interact with, but so long as its fed and exercised it wont suffer health wise due to the lack of conspecifics.


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

adamntitch said:


> ok but then what about parrots no one says o you cant have only 1 altho most parrots that pluck scream what ever due to not having a flock so to speak and be coming stressed and then if skunks do not need there scent why remove it how many skunks prolapse and ad bet most are descented skunks if you agree with descenting skunks you must agree with big cats being de clawed and fanged (as you said they wont need them in captivaty like skunks dont need theres) then defanging snakes as well also surpose they dont need theres ether ??????


I think Art Gecko pretty much nailed it. I believe a sugar glider will self mutilate and chew its own leg off if kept alone (due to stress) and animals this highly sociable suffer mentally. That is not to say that dogs don't suffer from no interaction with other dogs because we cannot perform the subtle ear movements, body postures and make the same noises another dog would but some would argue their dog gets that fulfilment at the park or when out walking. 

The domestication was a good point too. If primates were domesticated over 10,000 years like dogs, maybe they would adapt too. I think a single wolf kept as a pet would be miserable.

I agree with descenting skunks because I can't see how such a small and inobtrusive op causes such fuss anyway. If done correctly by a vet with experience, it should not cause prolapsing. Besides theres is no proof that descenting IS the cause of prolapsing. Lots of descented skunks have never prolapsed and some fully loaded have. 

It is not comparable to declawing a cat or defanging a snake for the reasons Art Gecko covered. I dont believe my descented skunk KNOWS she cannot spray anyway! She behaves exactly the same as my fully loaded and turns her raised tail towards me, threatening to spray, just the same as the loaded does. This warning is as far as it gets. Unless they felt their life was threatened they would not spray anyway.

So 1) You could say what is the point in descenting anyway? and 2) You could say you may as well descent as it is a simple op and it would put the owners mind at rest whilst not affecting the skunk which in effect would improve the skunk's quality of life. 

For example, I have a toddler. Koko is allowed in the sitting room when my little boy is up but Bear is not _'just incase'_. Even though it is highly unlikely that Bear, a well socialised skunk, would spray my toddler and temporarily blind him, I don't take the risk. A simple op when Bear was a few weeks old would mean he had free run of the house ALL the time and not shut out of the sitting room when my toddler is in it. 

So you can see how being loaded does not really benefit a pet skunk. In fact being descented is a benefit in some households. If I did not have a toddler, it wouldnt make any odds to how I keep mine.


----------



## adamntitch (Jun 17, 2007)

aww ok i see now but why did they make it illegal if its not cruil and does them no harm


----------



## Emmaj (Dec 3, 2007)

adamntitch said:


> aww ok i see now but why did they make it illegal if its not cruil and does them no harm


 
because it was the next best thing to having them banned as pets which they didnt do 


just a theroy lol 


but they probs thought that if they could no longer be descented then noone would buy them...............so people would stop breeding them 

but it didnt work how they planned it out 

thats just a theory lol so dont go thinking i know why they decided to ban descenting as i dont know really cos i agree its not harmfull to the animal


----------



## Buriram (Jul 17, 2006)

adamntitch said:


> ok av been thinking :lol2: how come people moan and say dont keep monkeys on there own but then most people keep dogs on there own and there a pack animal most people keep descented skunks but then does that mean they agree with removing large cats teeth to stop them biteing and snakes fangs to stop them invenomating when its the same its there devense people keep one cockateil budgie or parrot when there flock animals so whats so diffrent and i know people will say o but the people become the parrots flock and the owners are the dogs pack but then i hand reared monkey would think of the people as its troop so come on whats so diffrent


1000s of years is essentially the difference. Domestic dogs are not pack animals (although their ancestors were). Dogs are simply human domesticates. Primates are not.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

when i was a teen, my best friend had a squirrel monkey. it did just fine. he never had any problems and the thing wasn't mental at all. but monkeys aren't IMO to be taken casually. they are sofisticated, thinking creatures, not something aquired out of impulse.


----------



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

Art_Gecko101 said:


> I wouldnt keep a bird as a pet full stop, not that i have anything against anyone who does keep them, i just prefer to see them flying around free rather than in a cage or someones house.


 
do you not prefer to see lizards in their own habitats rather than in glass tanks or vivs then? its your opinion and im in no way havin a go at it but if freedom to a bird is flyin around, isnt freedom to a lizard scrambling around in its own natural surroundings and not in an exo terra or viv? i dont disagree with keeping anything as a pet purely for the reason that i would feel very hypocritical as i keep many things and wouldnt feel right sayin i dont think you should keep one thing as a pet but yet agree that you can keep another. The RSPCA woman asked me did i not think it was tight keepin a skunk as a pet.....yet in her next breath she said she had 2 african greys at home :lol2:

dont think im havin a go art, im merely debatin cos i find it interestin what you say and am even more interested in your answer, or anyone elses in general who agree with keepin one thing but disagree with keepin another


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

Hi Cat, just saw your reply! Yea, I can't really explain my objection fully, as you say, its not significantly different from keeping lizards in vivs. I think it stems from the fact that the species i tend to keep dont appear (through the research ive been able to do through my uni at least) to have massive home ranges. Most reptiles tend to be pretty secretive and not travel great distances so as to conserve energy (of course there are some that do like with everything there are exceptions!lol) whereas many birds migrate, and flock and fly together in big elaborate displays, and i think its knowing that they can't exhibit those natural behaviours that stops me wanting them as pets. Also this feeling's been compounded by the numerous parrots i've seen caged in petshops that are basically bald and bleeding from plucking their own feathers from stress. That really saddens me, its as bad as a monkey being kept alone IMO. 

As I said before, i've no objection to other people's decisions to keep them, so long as theyre kept right of course. I guess to summarize, i feel that the way I keep my lizards and frogs still allows them to exhibit most, if not all of the natural behaviours they would normally... they hide in the day in real plants and branches, hunt for their insects and find their fruit (in the form of CGD admittedly) using their smell, interact with one another in the group and climb and jump around the viv (which isn't as big as they'd have in the wild no, but they apparently don't travel great distances normally anyway). With a bird, especially those kept singly, i guess i can see that caging it is stopping a lot of its natural behaviours, like the flocking etc i mentioned before. 

with regards to the RSPCA woman, i cant see her argument at all, keeping a skunk is no worse, IMO better, than keeping African Greys as pets. Neither are domestic, neither can be kept in a 'realistic' natural setting, etc. Skunks dont seem to adapt badly to home life, it wouldnt surprise me if they become as common as chinchillas before too long, but African Greys are extremely intelligent and often end up with disorders from being kept.

Just my opinion Cat, I hope you dont think i'm meaning any of this toward you! just explaining myself and my opinion like you asked! lol




xXFooFooLaFluffXx said:


> do you not prefer to see lizards in their own habitats rather than in glass tanks or vivs then? its your opinion and im in no way havin a go at it but if freedom to a bird is flyin around, isnt freedom to a lizard scrambling around in its own natural surroundings and not in an exo terra or viv? i dont disagree with keeping anything as a pet purely for the reason that i would feel very hypocritical as i keep many things and wouldnt feel right sayin i dont think you should keep one thing as a pet but yet agree that you can keep another. The RSPCA woman asked me did i not think it was tight keepin a skunk as a pet.....yet in her next breath she said she had 2 african greys at home :lol2:
> 
> dont think im havin a go art, im merely debatin cos i find it interestin what you say and am even more interested in your answer, or anyone elses in general who agree with keepin one thing but disagree with keepin another


----------

