Substrate elitism

[TokayKeeper]

Why is it every time I see something worded along the lines or to some similar effect of...

but I knew enough that she wanted three hides, a water bowl, and paper towels instead of anything loose***.

...that I want to pull out a dull, rusted spork, carve out the poster's heart and then rip out my own eyes out of pure frustration due to the assumption that such individuals are higher and mighter because they use tile, butcher paper, paper towels, solidified feces molded into a brick and kilm fired, or whatever like-minded product?

Why, why, WHY does this make me so irrate? Is it my 15 years of keeping leos problem free on particulate substrates. Is it my 20+ years experience in keeping other species on particulate substrate? Is it my 6+ years of professionally keeping Chihuahuan Desert and New Mexico native herp species on particulate substrate problem free? Or is it that such worded posted and/or replies are like finger nails raked across a chalkboard because such individuals have an arrogance to themselves that they are better for doing such and that their feces smell like roses...

and I quote:

I know you'd like to think your **** don't stank
But lean a little bit closer
See that roses really smell like poo-poo-poo
Yeah roses really smell like poo-poo-poo
(repeat chorus)

That is all...I have to go yell at my stupid geckos for telling me they wanted to live on particulate-based substrata.

***not picking on this individual...well yeah I am...just merely using this as an example.

 

[M_surinamensis]

Happens for two reasons.

People who really, genuinely know about substrates make their own choices after considering all the pros and cons, all the risks and rewards of each; and that's fine. When those people go to answer someone else's question on the subject though, someone new who hasn't got the experience or hasn't given it the same kind of thought, they provide a quick and easy answer, tailored to the needs of the person who's asking. Those who know what they're doing can make their own choices and take their own steps to do things the right way, they don't ask questions or discuss it. Those who don't know are far more likely to accidentally mis-use something, or be confused by the options available to them, and will have better results when given a narrow range of choices and a simple response. Accurate as far as it goes, but incomplete, for the good of the animal.

Those who are inexperienced or moderately experienced often repeat the things they have learned, further entrenching information as being "what everybody knows." Repetition can stand in for a thorough understanding and since most the people who might be capable of a more complete explanation are generally disinclined to take the time (or risk misinterpretation), it sticks around, is generally supported and influences a lot of people.

There's all kinds of stuff like that, some correct, some incorrect, lots of it incomplete or highly situational. Substrates, heating elements (especially sizing), diseases, diets... even aspects of anatomy and physiology; two or three times today I read someone claiming that reptiles can't see the color red, which isn't across the board accurate in the least. It's as old as human communication but the internet certainly has intensified some of those divides. More information than ever before, easier access, search capabilities that aren't possible using non-digital media... and sometimes less effort put into fact checking, the faster spread of rumor, less responsibility for the ownership of ideas. It cuts both ways.

"The internet is like a really big, really disorganized library where most the books are written by idiots and liars."- (Posted on BMEzine, of all places)

 

[acpart]

In all honesty, I don't think it's arrogance (at least in this case). I think beginners in all areas see things in pretty black and white terms: do this, don't do that. Despite the fact that people do successfully keep a variety of reptiles on particulate substrates, there are people who choose not to do it and who instruct beginners not to use particulate substrates, especially calcium sand. Beginners may not appreciate the nuances: different keepers do different things within a locus of reasonable practices, individual keepers have strong opinions on certain aspects of husbandry. It doesn't surprise me that a relative newcomer, after reading much information recommending against calcium sand or particulate substrates in general, would decide that this is one of the basic tenets of leopard gecko keeping. It certainly was true of me when I was a beginner, kept my first gecko on calcium sand and had it at the vet 2 weeks later, vomiting huge amounts of sand. I can understand that you feel sensitive about it, but I can also imagine a newcomer being really surprised by your post and upset that they are being considered "higher and mightier" (whch doesn't mean you don't have the right to rant about it if that's how you feel).

Aliza

 

[acpart]

Seamus and I were composing at the same time!

Aliza

 

[TokayKeeper]

Valid points, I do understand those aspects addressed, and in all honesty very much expected answers along those lines. It's the safe route and I guess the appropriate route of answering when it comes to those new that are asking or being answered. However, it's not so much a newcomer feeling higher and mightier, nor is it we seasoned vets, but rather the proclamation to which such is typed and at least interpreted by me. Maybe I'm not reading many of those types of posts or repiles the way they were intended to be conveyed.

I guess where I'm coming from on the arrogance side of it is that such wording as is quoted, regardless of how many different ways it winds up worded, has an implied connotation that such an individual is better than those who choose to use particulate substrates. Thus the perception of arrogance, whether intended or not.

Back to wiring flexwatt...

 

[M_surinamensis]

It's the absolute phrasing combined with the tendency for people who know a little to unthinkingly condemn that which doesn't coincide with what they think they know.

So someone says to them... "Sand has some risks. You should use (fill in the blank) instead. It's the best for you."

They take away from that "You should use (fill in the blank), it's the best." Which is a situational misinterpretation. Further, they assume that anything not the best is universally wrong; not the best must be the worst.

Reinforced by... well, take that thread which has been active the last couple days, guy is using calci-sand and crushed walnut in unpacked drifts... he gets told that he shouldn't, then gets told off a bit when he argues. Not everyone will pick up on the same contextual distinctions and some just come away thinking that sand is bad and experienced people will yell if you use it.

And they repeat it. And they share it. And they learn from one another. They don't always know that they don't know what they're talking about or who they are talking to.

I had a sort of catalyst that prompted my internet epiphany in that regard. Surprisingly, what everyone thinks of as my ego and attitude is actually greatly subdued, more proportionally evident depending on the topic. I was using AOL 4.0 in the mid-late nineties and found myself trying to tell off Louie Porras in a chat room, based on something I had picked up somewhere and was repeating because I never questioned the source. You can probably imagine how that ended.

Edit: Louie Porras was a nice enough guy not to embarrass me too badly. Which is a lot more than I can say I've done when I found myself in his position, being told what's what by someone who's not qualified to put themselves forward as an authority.

 

[acpart]

That's why it never hurts to sprinkle advice with words and phrases like 'so I've been told", "in my opinion", "sometimes", etc.

Aliza

 

[TokayKeeper]

That's why it never hurts to sprinkle advice with words and phrases like 'so I've been told", "in my opinion", "sometimes", etc.

Aliza

Pretty much what I do at work.

LOL at the Louie Porras situation. At least you've not had Bob Applegate hit you in the face with a dead mouse. Looooooooong story...another day.

 

[M_surinamensis]

He'd never get the chance. I'd be too busy ogling some of his pits and jealously reminiscing about the heloderma I owned for about a year and a half. I'd be facing away, so the best he could manage is to ding me in the ear with a thrown rodent. They don't ricochet that well.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

I am a substrate elitist, and darned proud of it. (At least for leopard geckos... I keep my Aussie species on particulate substrate)

 

[TokayKeeper]

@ Marcia

 

[fl_orchidslave]

Hope you're feeling better now, Chris. Just out of curiosity, what substrate do you house your hatchlings on? Not trying to *i** you off, noting your proclaimed bedside manner and all

As an advanced reptile keeper in a professional setting, you fully understand what you are doing in setting up and maintaining enclosures for a variety of species. Quite a number of this forum's members have never owned a reptile prior to obtaining the geckos they're posting these questions about. They know next to zero, except what they've been told recently, some of which was bad advice to purchase calci-sand. They simply aren't ready for an advanced set-up until they learn how to take care of what they have without freaking out because the gecko chirps.

 

[fuzzylogix]

all of my advice regarding particulate substrate has been from experience. i have lost beardies to impaction in the past, and have treated leos for impaction as well. i will never post "don't ever use anything but paper towels". but i will continue to post that i recommend not using a particulate substrate. people will do what they want, but my experiences were bad. this forum is for sharing of ideas and thoughts as well as trying to inform new and current owners. i'm glad you have never had an issue with using sand for geckos, but for me it's not worth the risk. but again, that's just my opinion. i don't think that makes me an elitist in any way.

 

[Wowoklol]

all of my advice regarding particulate substrate has been from experience. i have lost beardies to impaction in the past, and have treated leos for impaction as well. i will never post "don't ever use anything but paper towels". but i will continue to post that i recommend not using a particulate substrate. people will do what they want, but my experiences were bad. this forum is for sharing of ideas and thoughts as well as trying to inform new and current owners. i'm glad you have never had an issue with using sand for geckos, but for me it's not worth the risk. but again, that's just my opinion. i don't think that makes me an elitist in any way.

While opinionated and elitist kind of go hand in hand, one can definitely exist outside the other. Some just have trouble differentiating from the two. You'll have that when we're forced to communicate our thoughts on an emotionless white wall with uniform little black letters. Then you add the type discussed above into the mix. Mildly informed, enthusiastic, maybe opinionated, maybe slightly elitist, maybe slightly wrong or incomplete. Would do best like Alize said and just not deal in absolutes.

 

[KelliH]

Kept adult leos on play sand for many years, lost none of them. I have always kept my babies on paper towel. The only reason I switched my adults to paper towel is because the sand gets all over everything else in the room.

 

[TokayKeeper]

Hope you're feeling better now, Chris. Just out of curiosity, what substrate do you house your hatchlings on? Not trying to *i** you off, noting your proclaimed bedside manner and all

I am, just the contiual threads on the matter chipped away at me finally. As I told seamus and aliza, I knew I'd get answers along the lines of what they, you, and fuzzy have replied with. And MOGL...she's just being senile. (Love ya Marica!)

As for curiosity....

here ya go

The hide has coconut coir in it. Raised my hatchlings in this same manner since '97, but back then you could only get bed-a-beast as coco coir and I used it within the entire sterilite shoe box. Hatched my first leo gecko on it, raised him on it, and still have him.

My adults are another story.

FWIW, I'll admit to being a little bit of a keyboard warrior. In person I'm fairly easy going unless ya push my buttons. But don't ignore the bedside manner thing. :main_evilgrin:

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

And MOGL...she's just being senile. (Love ya Marcia!)

I may be Mean. I may be Old. I do raise Geckos. I am a Lady. I am NOT senile (yet). That's for the other Mean Old Gecko Lady... my evil (senile) twin. She would have something to say about your bedside manner, for sure.

 

[TokayKeeper]

She would have something to say about your bedside manner, for sure.

She did have something to say...she called and said I could have all your pretty hatchling patternless and bold stripes, just pay shipping. :main_laugh:

P.S. I like her better

 

[Cyb3rw0lf]

I believe that the substrate issue is just something that's happened with the net and pet shops as of late. There is a similar issue in the aquarist world where the "1 inch of adult fish per gallon" rule has gotten out of control and every beginner is using it. Just about the entire first five pages on Google if you search for "How many fish can I keep?" pop up with some form or another of this inch rule which only works about half the time, but its not completely necessary and can actually have negative results.

Ex:
Neon Tetras generally only get about an inch long in captivity, keeping ten of these in a 10 gallon tank would be appropriate to the rule, however in reality about twice that if not more could live happily in a tank that size as long is there is enough filtration. At the same time someone might look at a Clown Loach which get ten inches long maximum, and try to drop the poor thing into a 10 gallon tank. Its bio-load would quickly make the water toxic and if it somehow lived to reach full size it wouldn't be capable of moving around much at all. A very common and similar situation is people keeping goldfish, they may put three goldfish of three inch length in the same tank and think they've followed that rule and are fine, but they arnt. A goldfish is small, but it puts out an ENORMOUS bio-load. There are rants everywhere about not putting a single goldfish into even a 15 gallon tank and I believe the most recommended size is at least a 29 gallon

I've found almost disturbingly identical subjects on both topics (Substrate and 1 inch) and realized that you just have to take out the scales and decide what to do, but most beginners believe they've been told the rule of thumb from the start and so follow that for the entire time that they continue keeping their pet.

Well, I just meant to drop in my 2 cents and ended up with a rant. ^_^;