New "Dr K Exotic Vet" show

It's playing on NatGeo channel, usually after the Dr Pol vet show.

So far I think I've seen about 3 episodes, at least partly each. And I think on every episode she says how she basically doesn't approve of exotic pets at least once. I mean, I'm sure she's a decent vet(although I'll mention some stuff on that), but if you don't approve of people owning the animals, don't freaking go into the specialty in my opinion.

As far as "good vet", she treated a ball python who had simply belly rot, well on the way to being healed from the look of it. I believe she gave an injected antibiotic, with more to follow. Then she put on ointment and bandaged it. Yes, she wrapped the poor snake in bandaging. Probably half to 2/3s of the length. And then promptly began to say how it was a burn from it's heat source. Instead of mentioning a thermostat, she started explaining how ball pythons don't have heat sensors on their belly so belly heat was bad for them.

Eye twitch.

After things like that, it makes me wonder how accurate any of it is, and when I see her losing patients I start going "Well, why?" All vets lose patients, that's normal. Animals die. Reality shows make simple things look dangerous and dramatic, I understand. But it just seems like little things here and there just are Wrong and that makes me wonder. With the attitude that people just shouldn't own these animals in the first place, I don't think I'd really want to use her as my vet honestly. Maybe she's great in real life. Maybe she's the best ever. I'm only judging on the show.

I hoped it would be pretty cool, but I can't stomach it.

Ugh, more disinformation spoon-fed to the uneducated public. Lovely. Makes me happier than ever that I ditched both DISH and CATV.

I haven't seen this one yet although I know someone who takes ferrets to her and seems to think she is a good vet for them. I know my ferret vet is no snake expert and it definitely pays to get a vet experienced in your particular species. My local vet will see/treat ferrets and snakes, but they are utterly clueless in their care or common illness which is downright scary but probably common in the industry. If owners would educate themselves first it would help a lot but most just trust whatever a vet tells them. Some of the stuff on that Dr. Pol show is nuts too, he seems good with farm animals but if I had a cat or dog, I wouldn't use that place.

Dr. K is an avid supporter of the Humane Society of the United States, for what it's worth. Keep that in mind.

Melissa Smith, probably one of the best online authors in regards to the subject of exotic pets IMHO, wrote about Dr. K three weeks ago. Despite the fact she profits from treating exotic pets, Dr. Kelleher is very much against keeping them, and the show is filled with B.S. messages as such. What a hypocrite.

I'd like to put in my two cents regarding her being against owning exotic animals and it making her a hypocrite. A friend of mine is a parrot lady. She's not just into parrots, parrots are her entire life, her whole being revolves around them and I don't exaggerate even a tiny bit. She pretty much lives at a parrot rescue, has several of her own, she does talks and educates, she brings her parrots out for pulic viewing (again, education). Her entire being is dedicated to parrots. And she is 100%, completely against owning parrots and thinks they shouldn't be captive ever, at all.

It seems hypocritical, yes, but hear the reasoning. Her view is that people often do not and can not give a parrot what they need to live happy, healthy lives. They don't have the time for a bird with a knife for a mouth that will act like a very destructive 2 year old for its 80 year lifespan. They don't have the patience to deal with a screaming bird. They aren't home enough to give it enough out of cage time. They don't have the money to give it a big enough cage or the diet or specialized vet care it needs. And so they suffer, because of poor husbandry, and they start to have a whole slew of problems and pluck and become aggressive and all that, they get released to die, they get abandon, they get shut into cages alone in empty spare rooms.

But, parrots are always going to be a thing. They're always going to be popular. So instead, she takes in the ones she can rescue and give a wonderful, full life to, and she dedicates the rest of her time to educating and helping where she can to give the already captive birds the best life they can have, and speaking out about people adopting pet birds on a whim and urging people to reconsider, because parrot mills are the ones who profit, etcetc. I think in a way it's similar to Dr. K, that she feels against having exotics as pets, but as long as someone's already owning them it's not like they can be released, so you might as well do the best you can by them. It doesn't make it okay for her to tell her clients that to their face, as obviously if they're taking it to the vet they're trying to take good care of it, but just a possible thought behind the mentality.

I do agree that some of her knowledge has me raising an eyebrow. I won't argue there!

Anyways... Sorry for the novel. How's that for a first post introduction? lol! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

I'd like to put in my two cents regarding her being against owning exotic animals and it making her a hypocrite. A friend of mine is a parrot lady. She's not just into parrots, parrots are her entire life, her whole being revolves around them and I don't exaggerate even a tiny bit. She pretty much lives at a parrot rescue, has several of her own, she does talks and educates, she brings her parrots out for pulic viewing (again, education). Her entire being is dedicated to parrots. And she is 100%, completely against owning parrots and thinks they shouldn't be captive ever, at all.

It seems hypocritical, yes, but hear the reasoning. Her view is that people often do not and can not give a parrot what they need to live happy, healthy lives. They don't have the time for a bird with a knife for a mouth that will act like a very destructive 2 year old for its 80 year lifespan. They don't have the patience to deal with a screaming bird. They aren't home enough to give it enough out of cage time. They don't have the money to give it a big enough cage or the diet or specialized vet care it needs. And so they suffer, because of poor husbandry, and they start to have a whole slew of problems and pluck and become aggressive and all that, they get released to die, they get abandon, they get shut into cages alone in empty spare rooms.

But, parrots are always going to be a thing. They're always going to be popular. So instead, she takes in the ones she can rescue and give a wonderful, full life to, and she dedicates the rest of her time to educating and helping where she can to give the already captive birds the best life they can have, and speaking out about people adopting pet birds on a whim and urging people to reconsider, because parrot mills are the ones who profit, etcetc. I think in a way it's similar to Dr. K, that she feels against having exotics as pets, but as long as someone's already owning them it's not like they can be released, so you might as well do the best you can by them. It doesn't make it okay for her to tell her clients that to their face, as obviously if they're taking it to the vet they're trying to take good care of it, but just a possible thought behind the mentality.

I do agree that some of her knowledge has me raising an eyebrow. I won't argue there!

Anyways... Sorry for the novel. How's that for a first post introduction? lol! :D

---

I'm sure someone could say similar thing about cats or dogs, or even the myriad of reptiles out there, beginner or advanced. There are numerous cats, dogs, ball pythons, bearded dragons, etc that improperly cared for, that are neglected, that have health issues because of improper husbandry, and there are numerous people out there who are dumb and should not own such animals. But does that mean they don't belong in captivity at all, whatsoever? No. It just means that neglect and bad care is inevitable. Why? Our world isn't perfect, and it never will be. There is plenty of grim and negative things that happen on this planet, and there always will be until the world's end.
But there are things that us dedicated animal lovers could do to reduce such bad cases, through responsible moderation, reasonable regulation, and animal education, and there are plenty of animals that can be helped by running or supporting rescues. There will always be bad in this world, but there's also plenty we can do to counter it with good. It's just the way this world works.
So should the keeping of exotic pets be condemned just because of all the irresponsible keepers out there? No. Should we just allow people to irresponsible keepers? No. What we can do is continue to be the good guys, and to continue to educate people and advocate responsible animal keeping practices, and have our impact by saving animals without taking people's rights away.

I'd guess because dogs, cats, horses, etc are domesticated, where most large birds are not and are either wild caught or have wild caught in their immediate history and thus are not at all adapted or suited for home living the way most people provide it. (I suppose the 'non domesticated' part is the same for reptiles, but the needs of birds and reptiles differ SO much it's like two ends of a scale!) I am not saying I agree or disagree with the mindset, just offering a possible explanation for it and giving an example from my personal knowledge. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

I'd guess because dogs, cats, horses, etc are domesticated, where most large birds are not and are either wild caught or have wild caught in their immediate history and thus are not at all adapted or suited for home living the way most people provide it. (I suppose the 'non domesticated' part is the same for reptiles, but the needs of birds and reptiles differ SO much it's like two ends of a scale!) I am not saying I agree or disagree with the mindset, just offering a possible explanation for it and giving an example from my personal knowledge. :D

---

I know there's reptile rescuers who end up saying the same thing. There's just so many animals in bad shape out there, and they constantly have to deal with that - albeit many of the rescuers signed up for it - but because of the fact they just see so much of the neglected animals and hardly ever any of the responsibly kept animals, that it's all they ever think about and they come to the conclusion that hardly any animals ever receive proper care, which isn't entirely true. I hear some people just call it "Rescuer Syndrome."
Domestication isn't entirely meaningful to the whole equation, and many birds in addition to some reptiles are often captive bred these days. Domestication doesn't have anything to do with how well they do in a home environment or not either. That varies from species to species - regardless of social status - and varies from individual to individual, in addition to who's keeping it, and what environment they provide it with. I would go so far as to say the term 'domestication' is scientifically meaningless when it comes to providing insight and understanding an animal. (A 'domestic' dog has more in common with an undomesticated wolf than it does with a 'domestic' cat. You also wouldn't keep a 'domestic' cat like you would a 'domestic' dog. A captive bred, "puppy-dog" tame pet Boa constrictor will most likely be a better pet than wild-born, aggressive feral "domestic" cat as well. People have also been keeping and breeding many 'undomesticated' animals longer than you'd think too. The list goes on...) I'd say that if an individual wanted to keep an animal, they should learn about the specific species (and possibly subspecies) and it's requirements before considering keeping them, all while ignoring the social status (but not laws!) associated with them.

I disagree, I absolutely believe domestication has a big part in how well an animal does in a home setting. That was the whole purpose of domestication. We can keep a dog much easier and happier with us than a wolf, because they are a domesticated species. Horses are easier to keep than zebras. Cats are easier than cougars. I used to know all the "points" or factors that make animals a good domestication candidate, as not all animals fit, but I sadly don't remember - but the whole purpose of domesticating anything is to make it a good household animal, make it easier to keep around. captive bred does not necessarily mean domesticated, not at all. A captive bred lion in the zoo may be tame, but they are by no means domesticated.

I 100% agree that regardless of animal, regardless of 'domestication' status or not, people should look into the needs and care of an animal before buying. Sadly, many people don't, and with the exotic species it's harder for a clueless idiot to keep them happy and healthy than a more traditional pet. Many people can get a dog with no prior knowledge and keep it just fine, but lots of the exotics have more refined and special needs that don't get met.

I sure do wish, though, that people would stop buying animals on impusle. It kills me to look at animals on Craigslist. :( Take the time to research, don't just go snap up an animal. There should be a test you have to take and pass before buying animals, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

There should be a test you have to take and pass before buying animals, I think.

---

The same can be said for having kids...

Quote:

---

I disagree, I absolutely believe domestication has a big part in how well an animal does in a home setting. That was the whole purpose of domestication. We can keep a dog much easier and happier with us than a wolf, because they are a domesticated species.

---

You left a giant piece of important information out of your statement, how is this wolf cared or in captivity? Wouldn't you say that a pet wolf with a large outdoor run and a knowledgeable owner would be 'happier' than an impulsively bought 'pocket pooch' that is routinely abandoned and ignored?

You don't keep an animal in such a way that it is not meant to be kept. You don't keep a horse in a living room, they belong outside with plenty of space. Similarly, you don't keep active exotic pets in small spaces, you give them the proper outdoor run. Horses are domesticated, yet we know that it would be cruel to coop them up. Why are you viewing a wolf or zebra differently? Zebras are skittish but to my knowledge, they do well in captivity, living longer than their wild counterparts for obvious reasons and they are far more relaxed in the same way our ball pythons are more tame than wild ball pythons. I would guess that the zebra is 'happy' in the RIGHT care, just expect a more difficult time riding them. This same exact rule goes for dogs.

Quote:

---

Cats are easier than cougars.

---

Because cougars are dangerous. Shrink them to the size of a cat and your statement probably wouldn't be true. It's not domestication, it's the fact that the animal is potentially deadly.

Quote:

---

I used to know all the "points" or factors that make animals a good domestication candidate, as not all animals fit, but I sadly don't remember

---

Flexible dietary needs, lowered 'flight level', and that they reproduce well in captivity. But domestication is a mostly useless word that only describes animals that are modified genetically to suit a human use. For instance, cows can be 'domesticated' to suit our needs in a factory farm, but that doesn't mean a factory farm is a good environment for them. Domesticated minks are terrible candidates for typical captivity yet they survive and fit the human use that is fur farming. Domestication has little or nothing to do with animal welfare.

I firmly believe that a wolf cared for in captivity even with a big run and knowledgeable owner would not be as happy as an impulsively bought pocket pooch. A wolf needs a pack, a wolf wants acres to run, they roam and hunt and are very social. You can replicate that as best you can, but it won't be the same as the wild. A pocket pooch has been bred and domesticated to be perfectly happy living in a human world with easier needs.

yes, animals like zebras will be happy with the RIGHT care. That's what I'm getting at - their care is more difficult and special, so they very often do not receive the "RIGHT" care. Domestication has little to do with animal welfare save for the level of care they require. Undomesticated generally need more specialized care. Yes they can be perfectly happy if they get that care. IF. It's not a huge part, but it's an important part. Exotic animals can live very happy and full lives in captivity, I'm not saying they can't, just that an exotic bought impulsively is going to suffer far greater than a dog or cat. A person who buys a cockatoo is going to have more problems with the bird than a person who goes out to buy a cat. A person who buys a hedgehog is going to have more trouble than someone with a hamster. Because when it comes down to it, in general the needs of the exotics are greater to keep them happy in a human environment.

Quote:

---

I firmly believe that a wolf cared for in captivity even with a big run and knowledgeable owner would not be as happy as an impulsively bought pocket pooch. A wolf needs a pack, a wolf wants acres to run, they roam and hunt and are very social. You can replicate that as best you can, but it won't be the same as the wild. A pocket pooch has been bred and domesticated to be perfectly happy living in a human world with easier needs.

---

I am willing to admit that I don't know indefinitely which animal is better off, but I am 100% confident that the idea of an animal being bred "to be perfectly happy living in a human world" is completely unfounded.

One trait that is consistent among most domesticated animals is lowered stress levels, so it's not that they are 'bred to be perfectly happy with humans', it's that they are bred to be 'perfectly happy', period. Non-domesticated animals generally have higher stress levels, in and out of the wild. You have to get a grasp on what is actually occurring when an animal is selectively bred. Traits are being selected for that make animals better pets for us, but that doesn't negate their basic needs. That means we like traits such as good bathroom habits (no spraying), increased cooperation with humans, and overall ease of care. Because many people think like you, domesticated cats are sometimes neglected. They are actually quite demanding when not let outside (letting them outside is completely unethical by the way). They often suffer from similar cases that poorly cared for wild animals do. People tend to not notice because they believe the myth that a cat has been bred to persevere inside a house. It simply isn't true. Dogs do very well because they get what most other animals don't; access to the outdoors and walks, plenty of interaction, and ect. Wild animals thrive when they get this (catered to their species-specific needs).

You said wolves are social. Are dogs any less social? Of course not. I see ample evidence that dogs do experience distress when their owners leave. They are not 'genetically selected' to deal with this, but they do. Wolves do not need to run for acres. Let dogs return to the wild, they will probably run for acres too. That doesn't mean they need to. Wild animals travel long distances because they need to in order to survive. We already know that cats travel much further than a house will permit. A cat is domesticated. Horses will often travel further than the space many of them are kept in. Horses are domesticated. Feral goats will travel further, they are domesticated. Don't you see? What is the difference? If what you said were true, the keeping of ball pythons in anything smaller than a realistically designed 1/2 acre enclosure would be cruel.

"Because so many people think like you, domestic cats get neglected" - I'm sorry, what exactly is it you're insinuating here? That I treat my animals poorly? I work rehabilitating wildlife, I know more about animals than a significant portion of the population, and I damn sure take care of mine properly. You have nothing to go on as to how my animals are kept. Nowhere in my post did I say keeping animals in anything less than a replica of their outdoor natural living space is cruel. Yes, animals have been selectively bred to be perfectly happy period. For us. They're bred to have lower stress levels so they can be happier with humans. For us. And I'm not sure where you are thinking I'm saying we're negating their basic needs. I'm saying that different animals - exotics vs. animals considered non-exotics - have different basic needs. Some have more than others. As it stands I believe we are pushing two separate points.

I don't think I wish to continue the discussion with you. That's my opinion on the matter, that is where I stand, and I don't care to go on with someone who is insinuating about the care (or assumed lack thereof) of my animals.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, what exactly is it you're insinuating here? That I treat my animals poorly?

---

It seems like you already decided what my answer is but the answer is no. How you keep your animals is irrelevant to my point and I obviously don't have any clue how you care for your animals or even what animals you have. I'm speaking about a mentality, that of which you expressed to me to a tee with this statement:

Quote:

---

I firmly believe that a wolf cared for in captivity even with a big run and knowledgeable owner would not be as happy as an impulsively bought pocket pooch. A wolf needs a pack, a wolf wants acres to run, they roam and hunt and are very social. You can replicate that as best you can, but it won't be the same as the wild. A pocket pooch has been bred and domesticated to be perfectly happy living in a human world with easier needs.

---

Having that mentality doesn't necessarily mean a person doesn't take care of their animals, but many people who do neglect their pets do so because of that mentality. You spoke of 'easier needs', and that an impulsively bought dog (of which I specified as abandoned and ignored) fares better than a wolf with a knowledgeable owner and outdoor run. With that statement you validated the idea that domesticated animals have less of a need for quality care-taking, and that is the reason cats are thought by many to be animals you can ignore and they will be fine that way.

I argue that the animal doesn't have "easier needs", that the animal will merely survive but not thrive if they are neglected. You've also said "a wolf wants acres to run". Where did that idea come from? I have no choice but to conclude that because wolves run in the wild, you think a human-socialized wolf needs that too. If you have some other reason for saying that I'd be interested in hearing it, but if you're fed up with this discussion that's fine too.

"and that an impulsively bought dog (of which I specified as abandoned and ignored)"

My apologies here, I must have missed the neglected and ignored part, I only apparently registered the impulsively bought part.

Easier needs, maybe not, but different needs that are easier to meet. Because they are easier to meet, they will fare better than if that same impulsive owner bought an exotic.

Regarding running wolves, I am basing this off of a documentary I watched at one point that had said wolves sometimes run just for the sake of running, with no discernible reason the people studying them could pinpoint. Of course they may have been reason, just because they couldn't see one doesn't mean there aren't any. Similar to huskies needing to run or expend energy daily or they will suffer from it (course, that is because they were bred that way). Maybe that is wrong, I didn't go and fact check after watching.

No problem, I have no doubt in my mind wolves love to run, which is not unique from their dog derivatives. My question is how much a wolf 'needs' to run. Huskies are a great example of an animal that we've selected for a pre-existing trait and modified it for our needs. Yet it should be noted that most huskies are also just pets and do just fine without long trekking.
I brought up a similar criticism against Dr.K in my article and her comment about a fennec fox being from a desert, making them unsuitable for South Florida's climate. Both domesticated cats and golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) (they are actually not domesticated) originate from desert climates and no one judges the keeping of those animals in all 50 state's climates. Many exotic pets are 100% difficult to care for various reasons. I think a wolf requires similar care to a dominant, active, independent dog breed. As far as exotics go I don't think they are 'difficult', they just require more than what the average owner is willing to provide. I honestly feel like green iguanas are not difficult despite people claiming such, I think the issue is it's more care than what most people are willing to provide for a $15 animal.
For people like me who are obsessed with exotics those aren't issues. Snakes are an exotic that are very easy to care for, space-wise, maintenance-wise, ect. Since we are on a reptile owner's forum, I feel it is important to understand why the criticism that animal rights activists use against us is largely invalid.

Lots of huskies don't need the long trek, but they DO need a way to burn off their energy and something mentally stimulating or they can and will become destructive out of boredom. They're definitely not low maintenance in the way of dogs. My aunt and uncle got sucked into the cute husky puppy trap and a few months later I see the post on Facebook: "Does anybody know any good dog trainers?" And at this point the dog has been rehomed. it's really too bad, they can be wonderful dogs. And some definitely don't need the maintenance as much. I absolutely agree that a lot of animals are more care than people are willing to provide for a cheap animal - that is sort of what I was getting at with my "basic needs that are harder to meet" bit. Lots of people don't even know the proper care at all, let alone being willing to provide it or not. I would say that a chameleon is hard to care for because of the amount of needs that need to be met. Individually they are not bad, but lump them all together and it looks like quite the job.

In my original post, I wasn't agreeing with Dr. k. I think she is rather narrow minded with that view. I was just using said friend of mine as a possible example behind the reasoning, and elaborating follow up posts based on said post. I think she can do what she does and believe what she does without being a hypocrite. As long as people are going to own the animals, she probably wants them to be as healthy as possible, so even though she isn't exactly supportive she might as well do what she can to help sort of situation. She doesn't want them kept as pets but that's not a reason for her to refuse treatment and make the animals suffer for it.

I don't necessarily think that exotics should be banned. Regulated, couldn't hurt for some species (of course it's not that easy at all and is its own can of worms). I wasn't kidding when I said maybe people should have to pass a test to own animals - exotic or not. As it stands anybody with money can buy just about any sort of pet, and lots of animals of every kind suffer for it. There needs to be more exotic vets in the world, so I'm glad she does what she does regardless. She's probably the only option a lot of people have.

I haven't seen the show but I'll try to check it out. I have, however worked for several vets and with several rescues. In both situations you see SOOOO many people bring in a pet that they have no business having and they either want you to "fix" it or they want to dump their problem(s). I'm not talking about ignorant, misinformed people. I love them, as long as they are willing to listen and try. I'm also ok with people who give up an animal because they've gotten in over their head or when circumstances change and can no longer care for it. But all too often people get animals and refuse to care for them properly because it's an inconvenience.
I don't think it's good to have a tv vet saying that people shouldn't have exotics, it's a bit of a broad statement, but I can definitely relate to why she would. It's frustrating to have to constantly clean up after people when there is another living being involved, but she could use that as an educational tool. Point out the "negative" aspects of the animal's care, such as life span, housing, maintenance, special requirements, temperament/handlability and potential vet costs. I for one, would be delighted if there were programs that gave equal weight to the "cons" as well as the "pros" of having the animals they talk about.

Quote:

---

but they DO need a way to burn off their energy and something mentally stimulating or they can and will become destructive out of boredom.

---

Exactly, the same is done with zoo animals, although no one needs to worry about their destruction since they have their own enclosures. I would pretty much do the same if I had a pet like wolf, they shouldn't be trusted to free-roam the house without supervision and should have their own space. Again, it depends on the person. Some people absolutely love to exercise with their dogs so they probably don't see those aspects as maintenance.

I'm not sure a test is going to do much since talk is cheap. People can be trained to answer questions but that doesn't mean they have the experience, money, or space for certain animals. Although I can't think of anything else that can be done for non-dangerous animals. I favor more aggressively raising awareness and not supporting their sale in pet stores. Breeders also need to be responsible in who they sell to. I did write an article that has my own recommendations for how regulations should be shaped for animals that are 'dangerous' or extremely high-maintenance.

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe the average person shouldn't own an exotic pet.


When I worked at a local pet store I lost count of how many people came into the reptile section and just wanted a pet that looked cool, without any regard for its care or well being.

People impulse buy pets constantly because it's "different" and many will plain not listen to any sort of advice on how difficult an animal may be.

1. Dr. K should be saying "you should carefully consider the needs of an exotic before buying one and not all people are suited to owning an exotic" instead of saying "they shouldn't be in the pet trade."

2. I agree that some exotics require a higher level of knowledge (diet, caging, vet care, etc.) than most "domestics", but that can in part be attributed to "common knowledge". Everyone grew up around a dog / cat and thus knows basic info on diet, care, etc. and vets are easy to come by. Not so with exotics and this can lead impulse buyers to not have proper husbandry (but the same is true with domestics that are neglected too).

3. Based on what you guys said about her, I wouldn't support Dr. K... You shouldn't make money off of clients and then say they shouldn't keep their animals. If she has that stance, she should not treat exotics. Now, granted, there could be editing involved and maybe only her most extreme negative comments (that follow the "script") make the cut.

All in all, I would be curious as to whether or not she knows how others are viewing her. If she has a blog or something it would be interesting to post some of these points there and see what her response is.

I don't have NatGeo Wild, but saw the show once while at my parents' house. She did make the comment about the animals not belonging in the pet trade in that episode, but at the time I thought she just meant "that species" and not all exotics. She has a reef tank in her waiting room... and I'm sure some of it's inhabitants are wild-caught, so I'd say that would make her a bit hypocritical. :/

Agreed, agreed artgecko. I was also taken aback by that tank because marine fish are definitely the most prominently removed from the wild exotic pets. They also have an immense mortality rate, just the facts.

Quote:

---

I agree that some exotics require a higher level of knowledge (diet, caging, vet care, etc.) than most "domestics", but that can in part be attributed to "common knowledge". Everyone grew up around a dog / cat and thus knows basic info on diet, care, etc. and vets are easy to come by.

---

This is particularly true. Going back to what I said about cats, it all boils down to culture. Our culture knows and understands what dogs need, but for some reason we fall short on other species. Cats are seen as independent, but in the past most people let them out of the house. Now that many are (rightfully) indoors, they are in a very large enclosure, and they still need enrichment like a zoo animal. Some individuals should have outdoor access that is supervised or enclosed. I think domesticated cats need just what their wild counterpart would need (Africa wild cat). If you look up that animal you will see physically there is no difference between the two species at all.

Quote:

---

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe the average person shouldn't own an exotic pet.


When I worked at a local pet store I lost count of how many people came into the reptile section and just wanted a pet that looked cool, without any regard for its care or well being.

---

Not all people are 'pet people'. Unfortunately our culture has a view of these animals as being low-maintenance. If people considered reptiles the same way they do dogs, enclosures would be larger, and more attention would be paid to essential elements. I don't agree with selling exotics in stores, or even dogs for that matter, but if they are going to sell them, I think a great idea would be to display them in the right-sized enclosure so people can see right off the bat that iguanas need a 6 foot enclosure or ball pythons should have at least 4 feet.

I think vets and rescuers alike become blinded by what they see on a (perhaps) daily basis. They often see the worst of the worst, without seeing the best of the best, and that becomes their world view. For example, many veterinarians are strongly against raw diets. Their training from pet food companies tell them raw is "bad". They see people who don't know what they are doing feed their pets a raw or homemade diet, and have to fix the issues that result. They don't see the people who DO know what they are doing and have no need to come in because they have no issues. When I had pet rats, I would take them to the vet if they had a need, I did not take them for a routine exam. My vet had the idea that "all" rats gets tumors, "all" rats get respiratory infections, and "all" rats die by about 12-18 months of age. He didn't see the numerous rats I had over the years who never got sick, never had tumors, and routinely lived to 2 or sometimes 3 years of age. He only saw the worst, so that became his world view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

I disagree, I absolutely believe domestication has a big part in how well an animal does in a home setting. That was the whole purpose of domestication. We can keep a dog much easier and happier with us than a wolf, because they are a domesticated species. Horses are easier to keep than zebras. Cats are easier than cougars. I used to know all the "points" or factors that make animals a good domestication candidate, as not all animals fit, but I sadly don't remember - but the whole purpose of domesticating anything is to make it a good household animal, make it easier to keep around. captive bred does not necessarily mean domesticated, not at all. A captive bred lion in the zoo may be tame, but they are by no means domesticated.

I 100% agree that regardless of animal, regardless of 'domestication' status or not, people should look into the needs and care of an animal before buying. Sadly, many people don't, and with the exotic species it's harder for a clueless idiot to keep them happy and healthy than a more traditional pet. Many people can get a dog with no prior knowledge and keep it just fine, but lots of the exotics have more refined and special needs that don't get met.

I sure do wish, though, that people would stop buying animals on impusle. It kills me to look at animals on Craigslist. [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Bmills\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png[/IMG] Take the time to research, don't just go snap up an animal. There should be a test you have to take and pass before buying animals, I think.

---

Speaking as a biologist, "domestic" really is a useless and almost meaningless word. Many have tried to come up with a true definition, but really, there is none. It is arbitrary. There are animals who may fit most of the definitions that are typically used, but when you truly examine them, they don't, or they fit some traits, but not all.

Currently snakes are not considered “domestic”. I keep ball pythons, kingsnakes, milksnakes, and rosy boas, and I will tell you those are far easier to house and care for than my dogs, cats, horses, or goats. The snakes require far less space, and are perfectly content living in what essentially amounts to a box, as long as they are provided with the proper temperatures, humidity, water, food, and hides. My dogs would not be happy living in a box or cage, nor would my cats, horses, or goats. Even though my four legged animals are considered “domesticated”, they have specific needs that must be met, particularly needs for exercise and stimulation, which my snakes do not have. This makes my snakes far more suitable for an apartment than my dogs, cats, horses, or goats. Of the dogs, cats, horses, or goats, the cats could survive in an apartment, if provided with enough stimulation. My dogs could potentially survive in an apartment, if I took them out running for miles every day. Not walking, running. My goats and horses, forget it.

Domestication isn’t solely about making an animal suitable to be a household pet either. Domestication is about making an animal fit a human need. Poultry and livestock were not domesticated to be household pets, they were domesticated to fulfill a need: a need for eggs, milk, meat, fiber, and draught. They aren’t household pets even today, and they should never be considered household pets – their natural, biological needs make that impossible. Really, even dogs and cats shouldn’t be considered household pets – they too have natural, biological needs that make it impossible. They can survive, and even thrive, as household pets, but ONLY if certain arrangements are made for them: provide cats enough room to run, play, jump, and climb, provide them with toys and play time to release their energy, provide them the ability to use their natural instincts. For dogs, you need to provide them with exercise and stimulation, whether that mean taking them out in the yard to chase a ball, or putting them on a leash and taking them for a 5 mile job. Neither of those animals can survive in a house without meeting those needs for exercise and stimulation. Animals that CAN thrive as household pets, without any requirement for extra exercise and stimulation: small rodents (like hamsters, rats, or mice), some fish, some reptiles, and some amphibians. And yet many of these animals are not even considered domestic.

EVERY animal has a need. MANY animals, domestic or otherwise, do not have those needs met. I used to think that certain animals shouldn’t be kept as pets, but over the years my views have changed. In fact, being a wildlife biologist has helped change those views (ironically). I study animals, their biological needs, and their behaviors as an every day part of my life and career. I see things many people don’t, including neurotic, anxious, stress behaviors in what are normally considered domestic pets. My career has helped train me to see these subtle behaviors, and the body language that describes what the animal is thinking and feeling. Many dogs and cats are not actually as happy as their people would love to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaS

Not all people are 'pet people'. Unfortunately our culture has a view of these animals as being low-maintenance. If people considered reptiles the same way they do dogs, enclosures would be larger, and more attention would be paid to essential elements. I don't agree with selling exotics in stores, or even dogs for that matter, but if they are going to sell them, I think a great idea would be to display them in the right-sized enclosure so people can see right off the bat that iguanas need a 6 foot enclosure or ball pythons should have at least 4 feet.

---

I was particularly impressed when I went to my localish reptile store this last weekend. Their enclosures were pretty great for the regulars - snakes and lizards and what - but they had a whole room dedicated to their larger animals (as in, the room was their enclousure), even though they weren't large yet. They had a few baby sulcatas with a huge sign saying how big they get and how fast, and how much room they will need. Likewise with iguanas and monitors. And then you go to Petco seeing boas that will get to 20 feet being sold in a little tank, the only indication of their size being (sometimes) the little tag that is stuck on the tank. Sometimes there isn't a tag at all. When I went down when I first got my ball, on some of the animal tanks there was a little "Perfect with X pet kit!" and would direct you to an 'all in one' starter kit - and the boa display had a "perfect with" kit recommended. It was a 10 gallon tank kit. I was very disappointed. Yeah, it's a "starter kit" that would work for a time, but it really insinuates that that is all you'll need for the snake. Came with a (crappy) hide, some bedding, a basking light, and a plant if I remember right.

I'd just like to throw in the Russian silver foxes case. I think it points to interesting aspects that relate to this. After just a few generations of selecting for the calmest, most people-tolerant foxes on their fur-ranch (or farm, whatever the correct term is) they ended up with foxes that produced foxes with "domestic" traits like dogs... And this is just in a few generations, mind you, not thousands of years. These foxes acted more like juveniles or baby foxes, were less aggressive, and less reactive than the ones not selected for temperament. Interestingly enough, they also started showing other dog-like traits (floppy ears, white patches, etc.).

I guess a better way of looking at "domestication" is the keeping of animals for multiple generations selecting for traits that make them more suitable to live around humans... Particularly, more "juvenile" behaviors like affection, lack of aggression, and being less reactive (flighty). Thus, the common dog, bred for these traits, might be an easier animal to keep (under standard conditions) than a wolf, who has not been selected for generations for these traits. Similarly with cats, a domestic cat may tend to less "extreme" needs and behaviors than an f1 hybrid bengal.

All that said, if reptile keepers and other breeders (of rats, birds, etc.) are selecting their stock also based on what we would consider good temperament, then we are currently in the process of "domesticating" them.. If we are following the definition I put above.

It all really boils down to knowledge, realistic expectations, and ability to provide for the animal you have chosen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

When I went down when I first got my ball, on some of the animal tanks there was a little "Perfect with X pet kit!" and would direct you to an 'all in one' starter kit - and the boa display had a "perfect with" kit recommended. It was a 10 gallon tank kit. I was very disappointed. Yeah, it's a "starter kit" that would work for a time, but it really insinuates that that is all you'll need for the snake. Came with a (crappy) hide, some bedding, a basking light, and a plant if I remember right.

---

The store does that because that "perfect" kit makes their bottom line look a lot better so it can stay in business, not because it's the best enclosure for the animal.

That said, BP's don't need a huge enclosure and many won't want it. I moved a 1000 gram female up from a 15 qt to 34 qt recently, she went off food, started pushing (not retic-level face smooshing but obviously unhappy and stressed), lost a bit of weight, etc. I threw up my hands, put her back in the 15 qt, which is only big enough for her and a water bowl, and she settled down and went back to eating immediately. I hate seeing her cramped in there, but if that's what she wants, that'll be what she gets.

I hate those starter kits, and what's worse, they are usually a rip off because they throw in a bunch of cheapo materials and make it look like a great value. It is solely to make money, and the manufacturer has probably researched nothing. There are also those notorious tiny 'Nemo tanks', and this recent nightmare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IGsHSnju3U

Quote:

---

I guess a better way of looking at "domestication" is the keeping of animals for multiple generations selecting for traits that make them more suitable to live around humans...

---

The only acceptable definition is a selectively bred animal with a genetic difference that better suits a human use, which I assume is what your definition means for the most part.

If the animal has a genetic difference but does not suit the purpose better than the wild starting point, it isn't domesticated in my opinion. Ball pythons for instance look different, particularly when they are morphs, but I think they are the same animals found in the wild. The key difference is the environment they are raised in. What many people don't consider is that animals are drastically different based on whether or not they are socialized with humans. Even domesticated animals can return to the wild. Here's something else to consider, domesticated dogs are often neutered and spayed, so we remove a chunk of their natural drive. Unneutered dogs are known to be roamers. Non-castrated camels are dangerous during the rutting season.
I theorized that many zoo animals have issues with pacing for being intact, and their sexual hormones are on fire. When an animal is fixed also plays a part. My vet told me if I didn't neuter my spotted genet early it might not make a difference if I do it later. I ended up not neutering him and thankfully he doesn't spray but he has extreme energy levels.

With my narrowed down definition I was finally able to understand which animals are 'domesticated' and which aren't. Cockatiels, parakeets, hamsters, gerbils, snakes, aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoons

And then you go to Petco seeing boas that will get to 20 feet being sold in a little tank, the only indication of their size

---

Just an off-topic correction, but Boa constrictors do not get that big, ever. There's even Burmese pythons that will never be that big. Just throwing this out there. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

Just an off-topic correction, but Boa constrictors do not get that big, ever. There's even Burmese pythons that will never be that big. Just throwing this out there. :gj:

---

I know, exaggeration on my part. doesn't come well through text. :) I meant it in the same way that people react when they hear something like the kind of dog I have (English Mastiff) - "How do you feed that? They get to be like 500 pounds!" :D

My bad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaS

The only acceptable definition is a selectively bred animal with a genetic difference that better suits a human use, which I assume is what your definition means for the most part.

If the animal has a genetic difference but does not suit the purpose better than the wild starting point, it isn't domesticated in my opinion. Ball pythons for instance look different, particularly when they are morphs, but I think they are the same animals found in the wild. The key difference is the environment they are raised in. What many people don't consider is that animals are drastically different based on whether or not they are socialized with humans. Even domesticated animals can return to the wild. Here's something else to consider, domesticated dogs are often neutered and spayed, so we remove a chunk of their natural drive. Unneutered dogs are known to be roamers. Non-castrated camels are dangerous during the rutting season.
I theorized that many zoo animals have issues with pacing for being intact, and their sexual hormones are on fire. When an animal is fixed also plays a part. My vet told me if I didn't neuter my spotted genet early it might not make a difference if I do it later. I ended up not neutering him and thankfully he doesn't spray but he has extreme energy levels.

With my narrowed down definition I was finally able to understand which animals are 'domesticated' and which aren't. Cockatiels, parakeets, hamsters, gerbils, snakes, aren't.

---

I agree. Simple genetics isn't enough, because you have genetic variation in wild populations, as well as captive populations. For example - among birds and reptiles you have numerous subspecies, and one way subspecies are determined is by genetics as well as geographic isolation. When enough genetic, morphological, and geographical isolation exists, then a subspecies may be graduated to full species level. Seems every year there are taxonomic revisions being made, and more so now with more emphasis being placed on genetic analysis.

When you look at captive populations, "domestic" animals, you also see these differences. Arabian horses, for example, come in different "lines", which each have their own genetic differences that help create some (often minor) morphological differences. These different bloodlines are also often used in different sports or purposes, although you can still mix and match. Same thing happens in dogs ("working" lines versus "show" lines, though some integration between the two may occur), and other species I'm sure. I've recently read a few complaints on different forums from chicken people complaining about the poultry shows "ruining" different chicken breeds, and that what you see today are no longer recognizable for what they once were (kind of the same arguments I hear about dog shows). These differences in appearance are due to genetic differences, and may or may not serve a purpose, other than being more asthetically pleasing to the human keeping and breeding that animal.

And hormones DEFINITELY play a HUGE role in an animal's behavior. A good stallion makes a better gelding, because the hormones running through a stallion's body can make him unpredictable and sometimes aggressive. Sure, it isn't true for every single individual, but it is true for enough of them that it is a huge consideration. I used to work at a horse ranch, and there was a HUGE difference between the stallions, geldings, and mares. Each of them had their own individual quirks, but the intact animals were definitely different from the gelded animals. I've never kept intact dogs to make a comparison there, but I have goats. Although I don't have a whether right now, I do have an intact buck (and intact does), and he is currently in rut. Those hormones don't make him aggressive toward us, but he is definitely more "high" (for lack of a better word) than my pregnant doe (and of course pregnancy hormones create a whole different animal!). Previously we were letting him and the doe roam the quarter acre horse yard, until we found out he was ramming and breaking the fence. There are no animals on the other side of the fence, and even with the ability to leave the yard he stayed in, so his intent was not escape and was not challenging someone on the other side. He's got room to roam, he's got another goat to run with, as well as horses (and he does rear up and bluff with the horses, of course they don't "play" the same way), so really the only thing that makes sense is the pent up energy from all those rutty hormones surging through his body. He unfortunately chooses to take it out on the fence instead of the toys, sheds, and other objects he has to play with. I'm sure if he had another buck he'd be fighting with that buck instead! These are innate behaviors that are unlikely to be altered through selective breeding, unless you select for an entirely different animal. These hormonal behaviors (peeing on himself, ramming objects or other animals, basically showing off how virile he is) are important for sexual selection. Goat breeders have reported that when they prevent these behaviors by keeping the male clean and shaving him (so he no longer has long hair to collect urine), females are less receptive. So in order to selectively breed against those behaviors, we would also have to selectively breed the females to be attracted to less masculine behaviors, or basically create a whole new sexuality in goats. That may not even be possible. These are "domesticated" animals who still display very wild behaviors, despite their domesticated temperaments.

Quote:

---

Simple genetics isn't enough, because you have genetic variation in wild populations, as well as captive populations. For example - among birds and reptiles you have numerous subspecies, and one way subspecies are determined is by genetics as well as geographic isolation. When enough genetic, morphological, and geographical isolation exists, then a subspecies may be graduated to full species level. Seems every year there are taxonomic revisions being made, and more so now with more emphasis being placed on genetic analysis.

---

This is the one thing I don't understand that well, maybe I shouldn't have skipped taking genetics. I'm not sure how much 'percentage of genetics' it takes for an animal to be considered a sub-species, species, ect. All I know is that any selectively bred animal that is more suitable for the human use and a genetic shift accounts for this change could be considered domesticated. I'm not sure if that should include color variations though. I don't considered ball python morphs domesticated. Thanks for the useful information about your livestock, I know very little about them and just recently learned about the rutting season thing from a story about a camel that killed its owner recently. Also I just learned that cows are de-horned to make them less dangerous on the Dr. Pol TV show. How far does that domestication definition go if animals are mutilated to be better suited for human use? I could de-claw and de-fang a tiger (cruel obviously) and that would make it a lot safer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelissaS

This is the one thing I don't understand that well, maybe I shouldn't have skipped taking genetics. I'm not sure how much 'percentage of genetics' it takes for an animal to be considered a sub-species, species, ect. All I know is that any selectively bred animal that is more suitable for the human use and a genetic shift accounts for this change could be considered domesticated. I'm not sure if that should include color variations though. I don't considered ball python morphs domesticated. Thanks for the useful information about your livestock, I know very little about them and just recently learned about the rutting season thing from a story about a camel that killed its owner recently. Also I just learned that cows are de-horned to make them less dangerous on the Dr. Pol TV show. How far does that domestication definition go if animals are mutilated to be better suited for human use? I could de-claw and de-fang a tiger (cruel obviously) and that would make it a lot safer!

---

I don't think there's a specific percentage of genetic differences that's looked for, but rather a combination of what genetic differences, isolation, etc. Color morphs definitely are NOT a good measure of domestication. Morphs can occur in the wild too. There are always going to be "odd balls" that pop up now and again: leucistic, albino, pied, etc. I've seen some of those variations in birds too (when I was an assistant checking bird traps, I found a leucistic version of a bird that is normally black and brown for males or all brown for females, someone else found a pied version of that same species, and for the endangered bird I study I've seen ones with isolated white patches). Some species have more variations than others, and sometimes those variations are not even genetically determined (some red coloration in birds). Rosy boas are known to have MANY different locality morphs, and those are naturally occurring in the wild without artificial selection.

And mutilating animals to make them more manageable in captivity is definitely a good point. How domesticated is the animal really if it is going to try to kill you?

I forgot to put this in one of my previous replies...

But technically speaking MOST of our captive pets are actually "exotic", when you go by the biological definition which means something "alien" or not native to the area. All dogs, cats, livestock, rabbits, rats, mice, many reptiles, many fish, and most (all?) captive birds would be considered "exotic" under that definition. Being a biologist I really default to that definition. "Exotic" is not the opposite of "domestic", something can be both "domestic" and "exotic". Likewise a "native" species is not necessarily "domestic", but a "native" species can never be "exotic".

Quote:

---

I don't think there's a specific percentage of genetic differences that's looked for, but rather a combination of what genetic differences, isolation, etc. Color morphs definitely are NOT a good measure of domestication

---

The reason I was thinking about that is because of animals like this:

http://thefeaturedcreature.thefeatur...py-470x375.jpg

I wondered what the genetic difference is and if the behavior is any different aside from how they look. It does suit the human use in that humans want things to look weird and showy.

Ha, almost no one seems to go by the actual definition of exotic. Most use it as a word that means 'unusual' in the pet trade. That's why I hear reptile people say "I know this isn't that exotic" when posting reptile photos on exotic mammal groups. I think the only domesticated animal native to the U.S./N.America would be turkeys and ducks. Even more reason why it is just irrefutably invalid to say 'exotic pets make bad pets' or 'exotic pets are dangerous'. The word is meaningless! You might as well say 'animals are dangerous'.