Who is ready for a new round of substrate debates?

[Tony C]

The August issue of Reptiles has an article on substrates with some very helpful tables listing good and bad choices. :main_rolleyes: Here are two of my favorites:

Calcium Sands - Widely available under various brand names, bag sizes and colors. Small-grained, smooth sand composed of various forms of calcium. Not to be confused with undesirable types of sand, such as silica, aquarium or play sands.

Use with herps from very sandy environments that like to bury themselves or "swim" in sand, such as sandfish lizards and certain other lizards and snakes. Lack of traction can eventually cause physical problems for some other larger herps. Unlikely to cause gut impaction like some other sands, and can add calcium to diet through incidental ingestion, but not recommended for this purpose. Spot-cleaning of waste not really fully effective. Replace regularly to avoid waste buildup.

Silica Sand, Play Sand, Aquarium Sand/Gravel - Widely marketed for various uses, including for pets. Not to be confused with desirable calcium sands developed specifically for use with reptiles.

These sands are too uniform and loose to be useful in making vivarium substrate mixes, and are not the right kind of minerals for use as a single substrate for sand-loving reptiles.

Was there ever a time when Reptiles did more than just whore themselves out to advertisers in their articles or am I just fondly misremembering my childhood?

 

[M_surinamensis]

You're remembering Vivarium. Or maybe Reptile and Amphibian Hobbyist, which was a TFH publication but mostly well done (although in some instances now a bit dated). Reptiles has always whored itself out to its advertisers, mostly with "articles" about all the amazing things they're doing. Which doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the people and companies who have been given that spotlight (who wouldn't take the chance for that kind of advertising?), but has consistently meant that the editorial staff of the magazine were a bunch of !@#$ing &^$# @#*^!%#$ers and have been since the magazine launched.

Any chance you caught the author's name on that one?

 

[Tony C]

Any chance you caught the author's name on that one?

Rex Lee Searcey. Sounds familiar for some reason but I can't remember where I know the name from.

There is another gem in the Red Eyed tree frog article in the same issue talking about how Agalychnis annae was illegally smuggled out of Australia. :main_rolleyes:

 

[M_surinamensis]

Rex Lee Searcey. Sounds familiar for some reason but I can't remember where I know the name from.

Magazine, website and journal articles? Written a ton of them, mostly about planted vivariums. Lots of them about amphibian vivariums. I think he shows up... or used to show up... on some web forums as well, KS probably. Maybe others, I can't really remember myself.

Which makes me very suspicious about the editorial involvement in that article. Either post-submission, or outlining the topic in advance with mandatory restrictions about criticizing the products sold/manufactured by some of the advertisers.

It's the magazine that is here to stay though, unfortunately. I'm kind of an arrogant ass about things like this, so I'd guess that it won out because it had the lowest price and appealed to the lowest common denominator, by keeping most of its articles pretty shallow and easily digestible. I definitely preferred some of the others, but I think that the more technical or advanced such publications become, the smaller the audience... and specifically targeting an audience that doesn't really need them probably isn't great for generating steady sales. I liked Vivarium for the articles, I liked R&A Hobbyist for some of the articles and a lot of the photography. I rarely felt compelled to buy them to educate myself though, I grabbed them from time to time because they were near the register when I was shopping for something else. Reptiles is largely written on the same kind of level as care sheets handed out in pet stores; but there are a lot more people who feel they need that kind of information than need the exact detailed reasons Kluge reclassified GTPs as a species of Morelia.

Just a real shame that the more approachable content of Reptiles is not also written with some degree of journalistic integrity. I'd even be fine with editorials and clearly labeled endorsements... I'm not so fine with factually incorrect assertions shilling a bad product though.

 

[tlbowling]

LOL. Its funny you mentioned this...I just read that sand article tonight, and couldn't believe my eyes!

 

[TokayKeeper]

8 words....

SAND and Herp Nation Magazine FTW.

 

[fl_orchidslave]

The August issue of Reptiles has an article on substrates with some very helpful tables listing good and bad choices.

Was there ever a time when Reptiles did more than just whore themselves out to advertisers in their articles or am I just fondly misremembering my childhood?

It's all about the money now :toilet:

 

[TokayKeeper]

Was there ever a time when Reptiles did more than just whore themselves out to advertisers in their articles or am I just fondly misremembering my childhood?

I think it was my october 94 issue of REPTILES that I actually remember being informative vs advertised. The issue was on chinese water dragons.

 

[prettyinpink]

I haven't been buying those mags recently and stopped subscribing. Just feels like I'm reading the same thing every time, it's either filler and filled with ads or just the whole thing is ads... including the 'articles'. Not fun reading anymore... just imo.

I'll usually just buy annuals now. Even those aren't as good anymore.