# Is Captivity Wrong?



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

This thread can in reality only be placed into this section Hobby Issues and Information [surrounding the hobbies].

For it is a prime example of political legislation looming upon the fraternities now and in our future as keepers.

The Anti Brigade, the RSPCA, the regulators are all for better conditions of all animals and in most cases some of these are completely against the keeping of any animals in captivity which is obvious when you read statements such as 

"Better off dead than in captivity!"

Is captivity wrongful imprisionment or is it in reality just down to plain old Mans' Corruption of the planet?

If the species we maintain, are kept in the correct husbandry, with the best diet we can provide, in the most suitable if not most efficient habitat, provided with the right stimulation - is it wrong to keep animals in captivity?

Are we REALLY conserving species for mankind?

Could we REALLY release our species into the wild again, if we are conserving these species?

Primates are considered politically sensitive, do we as keepers have the rights to keep them?

Reptiles are another emotive and political species, do we have the rights to keep them?

So there we go, 

Is Captivity Right? or Wrongful Imprisionment? or Mans' Corruption of the planet?

What makes for a specialist caring and responsible keeper?

Rory Matier
Pro Keepers Lobby


----------



## slither61 (Nov 18, 2006)

HI all,

I think a lot depends on the animal someone wants to keep, I like Tigers but there is now way I could keep one, I do not have the land.

I know Licences are required I am talking hyperthetical

But if someone could supply all the Tigers needs and enough land to live on, and has the relevant qualifications, was open to inspection any time I would have no problem.

But I think some animals are to dangerous and should be in game parks and ordinary publick should not be able to get these animals.

I dont see why anyone cannot keep snakes and have nothing against that, the average snake any housold could provide the correct environment, it is up to the knowledge of the snake owner.

So I would vote yes

slither61 :snake::snake::snake::snake:


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

theres a guy that posts on another forum with a tiger, pretty cool "pet".

I think that its going to be a white wash of people saying its right, because after all this is a forum for animal keepers.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

i don't like the term captivity...i prefer the term..."the good life".


----------



## Moshpitviper (Oct 21, 2005)

I heard earlier this year that the tsunami had wiped out the entire wild population of sri lankan pythons. i cannot name who it was that told me but i consider them a very reliable source. personally i have found no evidence on t'internet to support this claim but then the groups that support this kind of census work dont spend all day on forums, they are out making a difference so its unlikely that this information is readily available in the public domain. and if it is true then... its keepers one, antis nil. the reason i state this is that providing they pass a DNA test to PROVE they are the species in question then there is no reason why CB neonates can't be released for future generations to enjoy. and the beauty of snakes compared to other more 'domesticated' animals is that they have lost more or less no instincts at all and released babies that haven't been offered any convenient defrost prey will have the instinct to hunt for food. and of course many will get eaten along the way, or die for other reasons, but there is no harm in trying now is there?

We are in a position now where we can use our hobby to benefit the wilds of this planet. and what do we do? play with genetics.... seems like a waste to me.

sorry i keep morph bashing. :2thumb: it just comes out.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

The reason that l did not offer multi choice on this poll may have been an error. I don't think so however, the three questions are clearly significant.

For all are true.

1] Is captivity right?

Yes, as long as what we are doing is correct. If we are preserving species that as an example of the post above this states, natural disasters wipe out species, then yes what we are doing as keepers is right.

If the husbandry and all conditions are met, then are we really wrong? If governments can not cease the constant destruction of natural habitat then who else are we to look to? We can not control mother mature, no one can, and if she decides to obliterate a species by choice then we should be thankful that we are in respect preserving something.

2] Is it wrongful imprisionment? 

A typical anti statement, but if the animals being kept are not being kept in the right conditions and are suffering as a result of captivity then yes it is wrongful imprisionment and those whom oppose the keeping of animals would be correct.

3] Mans corruption?

Well mans greed, certainly plays an all too important feature here for not just at governmental level. Mans greed and need for improvement and expansion is responsible for countless deaths amongst species, flora and fauna alike. Environments crumble before their wake.

Personally l could find myself ticking all three.

I am not a supporter of Monkey World in Dorset, but l did listen to an interview with Alison Cronin last night, and despite how l feel about certain things that they are capable of and in the process of undertaking, l could not help but see light in certain things she was saying.

There are some species right across the board that we should not keep, ever keep and should be left in the natural environments, but mans corruption of the natural environment is so continuous that l do not see options.

We will destruct our own planet in time, for we are doing that now.

It was more a philosophical question, but its political because the anti brigade are using significant points like this to help win the vote of confidence against us by those in power.

Rory Matier
Pro Keepers Lobby


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

I don't think i would personally link a "pet" snake and a breding program snake. For me they are totally different - on eis there ofr the enjoymant of the keeper, the other is there for a deeper purpose of conservation and for the future of the natural world.

I thikn it is pretty sad that people still see captively kept animals as being "imprisoned" -especially where rpetiles are concerned seeing as most of them will at somepoint have kept cats, dogs and fish - all originated form "wrongly imprisoned" wild animals to begin with.

I do't beleive captively kept animals are wrong in any way - I do agree htat the term is very loosely used though. Captive would suggest a minimal living space for me - something which some ofthe larger mammals in parks and zoos don't have - they have large natural environments which often support thier own needs. Plants and such which will benefit the animal's living space etc.

For those against pet keeping, it may seem that our animals are being held captive. What would they suggest then? Release them all into the wild? Ship them back to thier native countries where the natural environment their relatives once lived now host an airport or have been chopped down to print up RSPCA flyers!

I agree, I could possibly tick all 3 if I sat and thought long enough about cause and effect and the reasoning behind each option - but I will stick with "no it isn't"


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

my opinion on it is its not black and white theres many factors for and against captivity I dont think its wrong as long as care requirements are met


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

How do others view the reptile keeper?

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/factfiles/reptile.pdf

Or the pet trade

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/pettrade.pdf

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/factfiles/petshops.pdf


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> How do others view the reptile keeper?
> 
> http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/factfiles/reptile.pdf


that article doesnt appear to be written on fact at all, more on animal rights propaganda idealogy


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

That is right Simon, 

But the problem is that those who keep no pets, believe what they write.

Empathy voters will believe it more, because its easier.

Monkey World [primates] ran a petition to stop primate keeping and received 55,000 signatures through their attraction alone, and presented that to 10 Downing Street. Empathy voters signed this, because it was there and there was no support for the primates for them to disbelieve or challenge what MW had said.

55,000 signatures, a stopping judder really - for what do primate keepers do to help their own plight?

R


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

that is alot of signatures, who are animal aid, who are they linked to, are they totally anti pets?


----------

