Yup. Resident Fire Starter here. Can't RESIST this topic.
So---snapping turtles. Or, I guess, specifically, Alligator snappers. Dangerous animal that should be left in the wild? Or acceptable pet?
Personally, I have no qualms about keeping them in captivity. When cared for correctly, they live long, healthy lives. And I'm sure their behaviors are a joy to observe, just like any other species of turtle, or reptile.
Just because their bite is more powerful than say, a musk turtle, why should that fact alone deem them unkeepable as pets?
And along this trail of thought--what about keeping venomous snakes? Or large constrictors? Or poisonous insects? Gila monsters? Monitor lizards? All of these have the capacity to do serious harm. Even a docile Argentine Black and White tegu can do major damage if the situation were right.
Should one biological characteristic deem these animals unworthy of private collections?
Should we all stick to sweet little Russians and Stinkpots and leave the "wild" animals, in the wild?
To have that sort of view IMO is completely hypocritical. Are not all species of reptile innately wild? Isn't it true that all species of tortoise and turtle thrive best in an outdoor, naturalistic enclosure away from extensive human contact? Does a less volatile nature make our reptilian pets ANY less wild? One of my tortoises is a wild caught, long term captive. He was never "tamed" by any sense. His docile nature is the same that he would have exhibited in his native country of Jordan.
But does that make him domesticated?
Any less wild than an adult, ornery Alligator snapper?
Just because biting to defend himself isn't in his nature??
I'm all for keeping any species of reptile---if they are cared for correctly, WHY not?
So---snapping turtles. Or, I guess, specifically, Alligator snappers. Dangerous animal that should be left in the wild? Or acceptable pet?
Personally, I have no qualms about keeping them in captivity. When cared for correctly, they live long, healthy lives. And I'm sure their behaviors are a joy to observe, just like any other species of turtle, or reptile.
Just because their bite is more powerful than say, a musk turtle, why should that fact alone deem them unkeepable as pets?
And along this trail of thought--what about keeping venomous snakes? Or large constrictors? Or poisonous insects? Gila monsters? Monitor lizards? All of these have the capacity to do serious harm. Even a docile Argentine Black and White tegu can do major damage if the situation were right.
Should one biological characteristic deem these animals unworthy of private collections?
Should we all stick to sweet little Russians and Stinkpots and leave the "wild" animals, in the wild?
To have that sort of view IMO is completely hypocritical. Are not all species of reptile innately wild? Isn't it true that all species of tortoise and turtle thrive best in an outdoor, naturalistic enclosure away from extensive human contact? Does a less volatile nature make our reptilian pets ANY less wild? One of my tortoises is a wild caught, long term captive. He was never "tamed" by any sense. His docile nature is the same that he would have exhibited in his native country of Jordan.
But does that make him domesticated?
Any less wild than an adult, ornery Alligator snapper?
Just because biting to defend himself isn't in his nature??
I'm all for keeping any species of reptile---if they are cared for correctly, WHY not?