Vegetarian snakes

[CaveDave]

I admit that I am also biased to dogs and to some small extent cats. However I think too each his or her own. If you like snakes then cool. The only thing I expect or hope anyway is that a person will only take a pet if he or she is willing to take appropriate care of it. Some pets take more care than others. I'm no expert, just don't go getting exotic pets (or any pet for that matter) and then turn them loose in some empty field. This from a guy who always takes PETA to task.

I could not agree more. These are very specialized pets, not suitable for getting on a whim or to "one up" your friends. Most tropical fish are also a bad choice for dilettants, for example.

I keep only cats, for now. (OK, I also let arachnids share my cave, but they find their own food, and I don't try to tame them.)

Dave

 

[luchog]

I don't actually think they do need to be fed live food. I know people who buy frozen mice to thaw for their snakes...

To me, this is like buying a painting because it matches the sofa.

Why would someone want a snake, if they do not want something that behaves as snakes behave? To me, such a person wants a snake-substitute, and not a snake at all.

No one who truly cares about their snake will feed it live. It's simply a bad thing to do, for several reasons.

1) It is healthier for the snake. Mice, rats, rabbits, birds are all capable of carrying parasites which can be transmitted to the snake. External as well as internal. Even if you have a good source for clean animals, there is always a significant chance of the animals aquiring parasites at some point. Particularly with mice and birds (live feeder birds are almost guaranteed to have mites). Freezing the animal kills any parasites that it might be carrying. Parasites for any reptile are a rather more serious issue than they are for dogs and cats; and treating them is never easy, and can result in creating further health issues for the snake.

2) Mice and rats have been known to injure, and even kill, snakes. I know, personally, one person who had her snake blinded by a mouse; and have heard plenty more about rats outright killing snakes. I suggest bringing the subject up at your local Herp society, and you'll get plenty of similar info.

3) It promotes aggressive behaviour in the snake. Snakes fed live animals tend to be more aggressive and harder to handle than snakes that are fed only Frozen/Thawed. This may not be an issue for you if you're only keeping the small colubrids -- corns, milksnakes, etc. -- but with boas and pythons, most of which get to at least 6 feet and are much bigger and stronger than colubrids of similar length, this can be a problem once the snake reaches it's adult size.

On top of that, though I doubt anyone sadistic enough to consider that sort of thing entertainment will care, it's very inhumane for the food animals. It's a very slow, painful death. Yes, it's "more natural", but so are a hell of a lot of other things that we don't do because they're simply unecessarily cruel.

 

[luchog]

[BWould a snake, or a lizard, frog, or axolotle (sorry Zep, but it had to be said) do that? [/B]

Green Iguanas have personalities and demeanours which are very cat-like. They're intelligent and if raised properly, are also very personable and social. They can also be litter-trained (well, tub-trained, but the principle's the same). Unfortunately, they're also like cuddling a sheet of 80-grit sandpaper; and are far less graceful, while being more destructive, than cats.

They're also vegetarians, so in that respect are good for the extremist "ethical" vegetarian sorts. I wouldn't recommend them, however, since they are very diffcult to care for, having some very specific and difficult to meet dietary and lighting requirements. Plus, they typically get 4 to 6 feet long (1.3 to 2 metres) and like to climb.

 

[luchog]

I had good-sized pythons and boas, fully capable of defense against incautious humans. They exhibited unmistakable signs of attachment to me: if loose, they would seek me out rub their heads against me. When I took them to the park and let them explore, they would go off 20 or 30 yards, double back on themselves, come back and explore all over my body and face, wander off some more, then come back and coil around my arm or leg or body, and remain until their next exploratory venture. They always sought me out in any circumstances they were in.

I don't know what anyone else calls this, but it felt like affection to me.

I have a red-tail boa that currently lives over at my partner's place, because I lack space for it at the moment. I got it from a friend who was moving about a year ago, and it's been with her the majority of that time. I see it maybe two weekends a month at most. But for some reason, he seems to like me better, and reacts differently to me than he does to her.

 

[Jas]

I think that snakes know their keepers, whether it's affection or not, I'm pretty sure that they can at least identify them by smell. My snakes seemed to behave better with me (not curling up into a ball, not squeezing my arm), but maybe that's in my head?

My last snake (Brazilian rainbow), was a bit bitey. But he was pretty, so that made up for it Granted, they aren't very bitey snakes, so it wasn't like he bit me all the time or anything. A friend of mine has a white lipped boa that's super nasty, and can't be handled at all. But absolutely gorgeous.

 

[mumblethrax]

The reason an ethical vegetarian might try to create a vegetarian diet for their pets is the same reason they might attempt to prevent a hungry dog from eating a baby--the goal is to produce better outcomes for sentient animals. If this is "forcing your morals" on a pet, it's presumably justified to the extent that it does not create more suffering than it prevents.

Dogs can be vegetarians happily, cats cannot. Synthetic taurine is readily available (and A and D and B12 and so on), but vegetarian cats will usually develop urinary problems (because of the difference in acidity in a vegetarian diet, if I remember correctly), which then have to be treated with other supplements. As a practical matter, it's probably not worth it.

As someone pointed out (forgot who, sorry), the pet food industry is largely a by-product of meat production for human consumption, so an ethical vegetarian might be able to console themselves with the notion that they aren't creating any new demand for slaughtered animals. Or, hey, he could volunteer to be ground up into pet food after his untimely death.

A vegetarian would-be snake owner might want to look into whether there are any breeds of insectivorous snakes available (there aren't many in general), provided that she thinks insects are less morally relevant than mammals or birds. Seems like a pretty bad idea to me.

 

[Nex]

The reason an ethical vegetarian might try to create a vegetarian diet for their pets is the same reason they might attempt to prevent a hungry dog from eating a baby--the goal is to produce better outcomes for sentient animals. If this is "forcing your morals" on a pet, it's presumably justified to the extent that it does not create more suffering than it prevents.

What do you mean by "better outcomes for sentient animals"? I have an idea, but would appreciate it if you rephrased a little.

To be honest, if someone is vegetarian for physiological reasons then they most likely would not attempt to adjust their pets' diets along with their own. It would most likely be the moral vegetarian to do so, and to do so is, by design, forcing one's morals upon another.

I do not see forcing one person's morals on another person as justifiable, so why would it be justifiable to force one person's morals (i.e. moral vegetarianism) onto a dog or cat? Does that not defeat the purpose of moral vegetarianism in the first place, by disrespecting the right to life and well-being of an animal? Because an animal's right to life and well-being includes a diet they are suited to and built for, whether that animal is a carnivorous cat or an omnivorous human or a vegetarian iguana.

I would go so far as to say that if preventing animal suffering is the prime goal of denying an animal their natural diet, one would be better off hunting the pet's food humanely rather than trusting a slaughterhouse, and NOT messing with the animal's nutrition and physiology by denying their proper diet.

 

[mumblethrax]

What do you mean by "better outcomes for sentient animals"? I have an idea, but would appreciate it if you rephrased a little.

I mean that, presumably, an ethical vegetarian recognizes that cruelty to animals is morally unacceptable, for whatever reason. He would then want to reduce or eliminate his pets' consumption of animal products for the same reason he'd want to reduce his own. Since he is tasked with providing food for his pets, the ethical responsibility falls to him.

I do not see forcing one person's morals on another person as justifiable, so why would it be justifiable to force one person's morals (i.e. moral vegetarianism) onto a dog or cat? Does that not defeat the purpose of moral vegetarianism in the first place, by disrespecting the right to life and well-being of an animal?

I think you'll find that if you take the position that forcing your morals onto someone else isn't justifiable, you'll very quickly be prevented from acting at all. If I'm hiking along a path and I'm attacked by a mountain lion, I wouldn't say, "Well, hello there furball! Whoa, you just took a swipe at my abdomen, didn't you! I'd prefer not to be eaten, but who am I to force my morals on you! Go ahead and tuck in, you little devil." Since morality governs how I interact with others, I am "forcing" my morality on them almost by definition. Further, since non-human animals are not moral actors, it doesn't even make sense to talk about forcing them to adopt my morality.

The argument is particularly flawed in this case, since I am bound to consider the ethical impact of the food I buy for my pets, by virtue of having taking responsibility for them. If I decide not to buy clothing from sweatshops, for example, am I really forcing my morals onto my children if I also do not buy sweatshop clothing for them? For that matter, am I forcing my morals on them when I tell them not to punch another kid in the nose?

The only real question, then, is whether I can reliably create a vegetarian diet for my cat that is nutritionally equivalent to a carnivorous one. I think I can't do that at this time, so I then have a dilemma: how can I provide a diet for my cat that meets his nutritional requirements (because I would not like him to suffer through illness or die), while also recognizing that I don't want other animals to die in the process of feeding him?

The best answer, I think, is to recognize that cat food is largely a by-product of human food, and that this is a question we don't really have to deal with until such time as that is no longer true. Hopefully by that point, we'll have some way of creating cruelty-free meat.

I would go so far as to say that if preventing animal suffering is the prime goal of denying an animal their natural diet, one would be better off hunting the pet's food humanely rather than trusting a slaughterhouse, and NOT messing with the animal's nutrition and physiology by denying their proper diet.

If preventing animal suffering is the goal, you'll have difficulty justifying the pile of animals you killed in order to keep your cat alive and healthy during his life. You'd be much better off killing your cat humanely. But that's not likely to be a satisfactory solution to any pet owner.

 

[luchog]

(a bunch of stuff)

That shows pretty well the inherent contradictions and hypocrisies of ethical vegetarianism/veganism. By their philosophy, owning pets of any but the completely vegetarian sort is a violation of their own principles. For some vegans, owning pets at all is an evil in and of itself (eg. PETA nujobs).

And, while dogs can survive on a completely vegtarian diet (unlike cats); they cannot do so "happily", but will eventually develop health issues because of it.

Rats can do just fine on a fully vegetarian diet, but that is because they are opportunistic omnivores. Humans and pigs can eat a fully vegetarian diet, but it has to be a carefully controlled one, or supplemented with certain necessities that are difficult (but not impossible) to obtain from fully vegetarian sources.

 

[mumblethrax]

That shows pretty well the inherent contradictions and hypocrisies of ethical vegetarianism/veganism. By their philosophy, owning pets of any but the completely vegetarian sort is a violation of their own principles.

While this may be true, it is not a contradiction, and there's nothing hypocritical about it. If an ethical vegetarian doesn't want to own a carnivorous animal, just where exactly is the problem?

What would be hypocritical is keeping a pet and feeding it a meat-based diet because you don't want it to suffer, while ignoring the suffering of other animals that goes into producing your pet's diet.

And, while dogs can survive on a completely vegtarian diet (unlike cats); they cannot do so "happily", but will eventually develop health issues because of it.

They certainly can, with an improperly designed diet. As I said above, I don't think it's a problem that needs to be addressed by ethical vegetarians until such time as the production of meat for humans stops casting off waste meat. Until then, it would be best to design a diet which includes some offal and bone meal.

 

[Nex]

I think you'll find that if you take the position that forcing your morals onto someone else isn't justifiable, you'll very quickly be prevented from acting at all. If I'm hiking along a path and I'm attacked by a mountain lion, I wouldn't say, "Well, hello there furball! Whoa, you just took a swipe at my abdomen, didn't you! I'd prefer not to be eaten, but who am I to force my morals on you! Go ahead and tuck in, you little devil." Since morality governs how I interact with others, I am "forcing" my morality on them almost by definition.

Red herring logical fallacy -- your example has nothing to do with morals.

Further, since non-human animals are not moral actors, it doesn't even make sense to talk about forcing them to adopt my morality.

Which is my point exactly.

As for the rest of it, Luchog pretty much summed up my own judgment on this issue.

If preventing animal suffering is the goal, you'll have difficulty justifying the pile of animals you killed in order to keep your cat alive and healthy during his life. You'd be much better off killing your cat humanely. But that's not likely to be a satisfactory solution to any pet owner.

But this can be quickly reduced to absurdity:

What is to stop us from humanely killing all carnivores, and even omnivores, in order to prevent animal suffering? A huge purging of the meat-eaters. Great idea! Glad I thought of it.

 

[mumblethrax]

Red herring logical fallacy -- your example has nothing to do with morals.

It absolutely does. If it makes it easier to understand, imagine that the mountain lion is attacking someone else. Ask yourself what action you would take there, and why you consider it to be right.

Which is my point exactly.

Then why would you accuse ethical vegetarians of forcing their morals on someone else, when that is clearly not what they're trying to do and it doesn't even make sense?

But this can be quickly reduced to absurdity:

What is to stop us from humanely killing all carnivores, and even omnivores, in order to prevent animal suffering? A huge purging of the meat-eaters. Great idea! Glad I thought of it.

The most obvious answer is that it would result in an ecological catastrophe that we lack the capacity to manage: the results would be far worse than the problem we would be attempting to solve.

A slightly more complex answer is that suffering is not the only morally relevant condition.