The gestalt of the enclosure

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Tortoise Forum ]

Posted by doug on September 11, 2001 at 01:40:31:

Maurice raised an interesting point below in a thread on kleinmanni substrate. I hope he (you) don't mind if I hijack the idea a bit, but I do so with the greatest respect because I think it's worth disussing. It touches all kinds of concepts in my head, even out to species reintroduction and the "Surviving only in Zoos" conundrum.

Assume for this discussion that all needs for a tortoise (or any captive, I suppose) are met. I don't just mean survivable conditions, I mean nutrition, temperature, space to exercise, places to hide, you name it. Is there a value to a "natural" enclosure (a broad term to be sure) over a "synthetic" one. That is, will a tort be happier on sand than alfalfa pellets, if he can dig in either? Will he prefer grass to astro-turf if he has no interest in eating either? Does a "cave" in the dirt satisfy more than a plastic hide box (again assuming similar conditions, not a "cool" hole versus a plastic box sitting in the sun.)

My experience says no. A few broad examples: my Egyptian sits in a tupperware, soaking and cooing up a storm. I take this to mean he is reasonably stress-free. Might he be more "stress-free" in a "real" puddle? I've bred several species of cichlids using pot-shards they would never see in the Amazon, to lay their eggs. We see "artificial reefs" made from old tanks and other industrial equipment, that teem with life, unconcerned with the technical distinction between real coral and Detroit steel. I just don't see evidence that my tort is aware of a difference between napping in a tuft of grass or a tuft of shredded newsprint.

Now, the aesthetic superiority of a naturalistic enclosure cannot be questioned. I've seen the results of people's hard work and artistry, and they are truly things of beauty, of which their creators should be proud. In no way am I disparaging this type of enclosure. I would be in no position to ever do so and the successes achieved in these situations speak for themselves. If I lived in a stae who's climate permitted it, I would love to construct a "natural" enclosure. That said, is it possible that the pleasure we take in landscapes is not NECESSARILY shared by animals? I'm referring to the "pleasure" here, not saying that the animal doesn't "like" a given enclosure. Rather, I'm asking, can we say truly that an animal "prefers" one situation to another when there are only aesthetic differences? Does your dog, or tort, care if your yard has thousands in fancy landscaping or if it's just grown wild? Does anthropomorphizing come into play here? Is it like when you build the great dog house and old Blue still wants to lay under the porch?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Maurice raised an interesting point below in a thread on kleinmanni substrate. I hope he (you) don't mind if I hijack the idea a bit, but I do so with the greatest respect because I think it's worth disussing. It touches all kinds of concepts in my head, even out to species reintroduction and the "Surviving only in Zoos" conundrum. : Assume for this discussion that all needs for a tortoise (or any captive, I suppose) are met. I don't just mean survivable conditions, I mean nutrition, temperature, space to exercise, places to hide, you name it. Is there a value to a "natural" enclosure (a broad term to be sure) over a "synthetic" one. That is, will a tort be happier on sand than alfalfa pellets, if he can dig in either? Will he prefer grass to astro-turf if he has no interest in eating either? Does a "cave" in the dirt satisfy more than a plastic hide box (again assuming similar conditions, not a "cool" hole versus a plastic box sitting in the sun.) : My experience says no. A few broad examples: my Egyptian sits in a tupperware, soaking and cooing up a storm. I take this to mean he is reasonably stress-free. Might he be more "stress-free" in a "real" puddle? I've bred several species of cichlids using pot-shards they would never see in the Amazon, to lay their eggs. We see "artificial reefs" made from old tanks and other industrial equipment, that teem with life, unconcerned with the technical distinction between real coral and Detroit steel. I just don't see evidence that my tort is aware of a difference between napping in a tuft of grass or a tuft of shredded newsprint. : Now, the aesthetic superiority of a naturalistic enclosure cannot be questioned. I've seen the results of people's hard work and artistry, and they are truly things of beauty, of which their creators should be proud. In no way am I disparaging this type of enclosure. I would be in no position to ever do so and the successes achieved in these situations speak for themselves. If I lived in a stae who's climate permitted it, I would love to construct a "natural" enclosure. That said, is it possible that the pleasure we take in landscapes is not NECESSARILY shared by animals? I'm referring to the "pleasure" here, not saying that the animal doesn't "like" a given enclosure. Rather, I'm asking, can we say truly that an animal "prefers" one situation to another when there are only aesthetic differences? Does your dog, or tort, care if your yard has thousands in fancy landscaping or if it's just grown wild? Does anthropomorphizing come into play here? Is it like when you build the great dog house and old Blue still wants to lay under the porch?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Tortoise Forum ]