Interesting Question

[Scott&Nikki]

Someone asked me a question yesterday that I found interesting. The question came up when I was talking about leos and he was saying how its odd to have pets so far from their natural habitat. His question was:

If there was some way that you KNEW your leos were unhappy being captive pets, what would you do with them? Keep them anyway? Bring them to their natural habitat yourself? Free them somewhere by your house, even though they probably wouldn't survive?

I just thought it was interesting and wanted to hear some opinions on it.

 

[moosassah]

Being captive bred, the leos we have as pets are about as Pakistani as I am Irish (can't even count how many generations ago my family came to America). There are so many generations between them & their wild ancestors, that I doubt any of them would survive in their homeland.
Their survival skills are limited to a 20 gallon.

But if my leos ever speak up & let me know that I'm not doing them right, you can bet I'll be posting to let everyone know about it. After all that's what forums like this are about...making the best environment for your leos. Nope, I wouldn't set them free unless they signed a written consent form

 

[Scott&Nikki]

Being captive bred, the leos we have as pets are about as Pakistani as I am Irish (can't even count how many generations ago my family came to America). There are so many generations between them & their wild ancestors, that I doubt any of them would survive in their homeland.
Their survival skills are limited to a 20 gallon.

Well, I know that. But the point of the question is more "what if". Assuming they could survive in their natural environment. The question isn't "would they they survive" or along the lines of if they are still "Pakistani". It is basically, would you appeal to their desires even if it meant getting rid of them all together?

 

[scl363]

Hmmm this is interesting I dont have a leopard gecko yet but say i would have some and i had to choose, i would let those of my Gecko's that are not so tame ( or not as used to human handling)free , cause i think that it doesnt matter how many generation are bettwenn them and their wild ancestors they will never lose their hereditary animal instinct !

Hope my english is ok here

 

[marula]

If there was some way that you KNEW your leos were unhappy being captive pets

first thing: geckos don't have this complex emotions...so is put human emotions in them considering them able to be "unhappy"..they can be stressed for a not right care or a not right handling...thay can't be "unhappy" because they can't be able to know if there are any different kind of captive life...
secondo thing: animals like leos know only simple emotions...and i think take captive breed animals for introduce them in a natural habitat (any natural habitat) will be put them in a really stressful condition and condamn them to died really soon...

 

[Sandra]

We sometimes have to make unpleasant decisions for the well-being of our geckos, for example, putting down an animal that we know is suffering. I think this is pretty much the same: if they were intelligent and sentimental enough to be homesick and prove it to me, and I had the guarantee that they would be all right, I would probably let them go.

I wouldn't enjoy owning an animal that it's constanty unhappy because of me.

Ps: Marula, he's only making suppositions. We all know that reptile emotions are very primitive.

 

[marula]

well..i understand, but all us have animals for uor pleasure..not for them pleasure..
so is a kind of selfish..
what we can do is only take the correct care of them..
the correct why to stop "unhappy" animals will be don't take animals in captivity..
but if for supposition i can be able to be sure that they are unhappy with me i condam them to died? is a really difficult question..but probably yes, i let them go too..in a natural habitat that is the more confortable for them..for the time that they can stay alive..but is another human choice...

 

[Scott&Nikki]

well..i understand, but all us have animals for uor pleasure..not for them pleasure..
so is a kind of selfish..

Marula, that last point is exactly how the question came up in the first place. It is a "what-if" question that would never possibly come up in "real life", so it is just an ethics question (hence which forum I put it in).

Sandra, I agree 100% with that you said.

 

[ReptileMan27]

Leos dont miss things, CB leos have never seen the wild,yes they have natural insticts etc.. Also any leo morph wouldnt last 5 seconds in the wild, would stand out like a soar thumb.

 

[Scott&Nikki]

Alright, you guys are completely missing the point of this question lol... forget it.

 

[Russ S]

forget what?

 

[Scott&Nikki]

forget what?

LOL The question. Everyone is just saying the scenario would never happen, and I keep trying to say it's not about that...It's a "What If?" question.

 

[marula]

ok..like a joke..not like a ethic question
...if my leos don't feel happy with me... :thinking: ....i give them the choice to take a plane to the place of their dreams, and i pay the ticket lol!
..better..i build a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggg artificial place like their orginal habitat where they can live free togheter like in nature, but without dangers...a little "artificial place" most natural possible were they can live and have a normal natural life/death and were i can controll them and look at them...

 

[Sandra]

To help I would use the sample of parrots that are captured from the wild. They are very intelligent and sensitive criatures, and the deprivation of their liberty often results in aggressiveness and psychological disorders. On the other hand, most captive breed parrots love their owners and would like to follow him/her wherever they would go, they become like little kids. I would talk clearly about happiness and unhappiness with a species like this.

Obviously we can't think about this decision with parrots since we are gecko people, so we have to imagine that the geckos have a much superior intelligence than they have.

I don't really see a difference (from my point of view, obviously for the animal would be different) between an animal that is suffering incurable physical pain and must be put down, and the animal that is suffering psychological pain and must be freed. Both are ways to let go an animal for its own good.

I know it's not as simple as this. Animals who have been in captivity for some time must go though a program of re-introduction in the wild, and most of the time this isn't possible, even if they were once wild creatures. I also think that the care and breeding of wild caught animals should be only in hands of professionals that would replicate the conditions of their habitat almost perfectly, give them much room to move freely, and have knowledge of the illnesses and problems that wild caught animals can bring along. And the second generation, the one born in cativity, then sold to the public. But not in first instance. But well, all this doesn't have much to do with the initial question.

 

[BluGnat]

I get what you're saying - I have a friend that will sit outside with a beer (or three) and do the "what if" thing for HOURS about all kinds of different topics. She's funny like that, and it's amazing to me how much ENERGY it takes to do the "what if," depending on the subject.

IF I somehow knew that my geckos were miserable - I wouldn't be able to keep them. It would feel too selfish on my part, if that makes sense.

Growing up, my folks never let me "keep" the frogs and toads and snakes and bugs I would catch in the back yard. They took great pains to explain to me that by putting a wild critter in a box and keeping it as a pet - I was taking away what they had known their whole life, and they weren't meant to be kept in a box. So, I would be able to hang out with the toads I'd find for the day - and have to let them go. That's been ingrained in me since childhood, so my answer's coming from that perspective.

I'm REALLY thankful, though, that this is only a "what if" *because* they've been captive-bred for so many generations.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

The question isn't "would they they survive"

I don't know, but animals have a very strong survival instinct so I imagine they could survive if outback in their natural habitat. I think the thing that would be the determining factor would be their resistance to parasitic infections that would be normal and natural for indigenous geckos. We have kept ours in relatively sterile environments and they would not have any resistance to 'normal' parasitic and bacterial load.

 

[Gecko]

Keep in mind though cb Leopard geckos in some cases are probably at least several generations removed. People probably also unintentionally and intentionally have bred for traits that would make survival very hard.

1. Increased "reproductive activity.

2. Probably some "weakness". i.e. Males don't hold teritory and duke it out.

3. Obviously inbred things and colors, etc.

Plus a ton of other stuff.

If there was some way that you KNEW your leos were unhappy being captive pets, what would you do with them?

Most humane thing to do would be to keep them and not breed them IMO.

Bring them to their natural habitat yourself?

This would be unethical. You could potentially wipe out a wild population.

Free them somewhere by your house, even though they probably wouldn't survive?

You could also wipe out a population of a different animal if yours didn't die a slow death.

 

[Lyndsey]

Simply put...no

I wouldn't spend all the time and money to fly to Afghanistan just to release a leo lol

I agree with you...why can't people just answer a simple question rather then having to freaking pick it apart? That stuff drives me nuts lol

 

[Lyndsey]

Oops...posted twice on accident