Hello from Atlanta GA

[SethD]

I think that an appreciation of the natural world is a more convincing basis for an argument than the childlike tantrum of the "they are my animals and I can do whatever I want" approach you are taking.

But the issue is you have no basis for your reasoning at all beyond your personal preference. You said your not talking about possible future reintroductions which leaves them as pets. Saying that in a pet natural is automatically better than unnatural makes about as much sense as saying that people should only keep wolves or other wild canines instead of dogs because wild canines are more natural. If you want a wild type fine, I take no issue with that, I like a lot of wild types myself. However I also don't have a problem with something different and to me it really defies logic as to why someone would object to what type of pet frog someone else had so strongly that they would actively campaign against and criticize another persons choice in a pet frog. Just seems like either snobbery or silliness to me.

[Tony]

I don't consider my frogs to be pets. They do not have names, I do not play with them or attempt to cuddle with them at night, and they do not respond to me in any meaningful way. They are a little bit of the natural world that I am privileged to keep in my home. Anyone who thinks they have a pet frog needs to look up the word anthropomorphism.

[bshmerlie]

I don't consider my frogs to be pets. They do not have names, I do not play with them or attempt to cuddle with them at night, and they do not respond to me in any meaningful way. They are a little bit of the natural world that I am privileged to keep in my home. Anyone who thinks they have a pet frog needs to look up the word anthropomorphism.

I feed them...I take care of them....they do have names...they are my pets. No I don't dress them up in sweaters like some people do to there dogs...but they are still pets. I don't buy 30 frogs at a time of one species like you do but I suppose if I did I would also start labeling them group A and group B for breeding purposes. They probably do the same thing at puppy farms. I'm sure those breeders at the puppy mills don't consider them pets either.

[Tony]

I don't buy 30 frogs at a time of one species like you do but I suppose if I did I would also start labeling them group A and group B for breeding purposes.

Yeah, how dare I track the bloodlines of a critically endangered frog with the intent of breeding large numbers of strong, healthy froglets. What a scumbag I am.

[bshmerlie]

Yeah, how dare I track the bloodlines of a critically endangered frog with the intent of breeding large numbers of strong, healthy froglets. What a scumbag I am.

Actually my comment was just to point out why you probably wouldn't consider them pets. Nothing more.

[Tony]

Actually my comment was just to point out why you probably wouldn't consider them pets. Nothing more.

I don't consider them pets because they simply can't be. They don't have the brain structure to be able to recognize their owner or have any sort of meaningful interaction beyond simple stimulus-response. If you want a pet get a mammal or a bird.

[Froglove]

But the issue is you have no basis for your reasoning at all beyond your personal preference. You said your not talking about possible future reintroductions which leaves them as pets. Saying that in a pet natural is automatically better than unnatural makes about as much sense as saying that people should only keep wolves or other wild canines instead of dogs because wild canines are more natural. If you want a wild type fine, I take no issue with that, I like a lot of wild types myself. However I also don't have a problem with something different and to me it really defies logic as to why someone would object to what type of pet frog someone else had so strongly that they would actively campaign against and criticize another persons choice in a pet frog. Just seems like either snobbery or silliness to me.

And God said , Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth , which the waters brought forth abundantly , after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying , Be fruitful , and multiply , and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Your mixing of these frogs is not at all like dogs, cats or other animals that can reproduce across morphs. It encourages others to hybridize them and causes them to die off faster from this earth. Thus you are working against God's design for them on this earth. If you truly value God's Word above all else, you will rescind your position and stop foolish arguments which benefit no one.

I will say no more or have a foolish argument with you about this any further.

[SethD]

Your mixing of these frogs is not at all like dogs, cats or other animals that can reproduce across morphs. It encourages others to hybridize them and causes them to die off faster from this earth. Thus you are working against God's design for them on this earth. If you truly value God's Word above all else, you will rescind your position and stop foolish arguments which benefit no one.

I will say no more or have a foolish argument with you about this any further.

That is quite a stretch don't you think? Beside the off topic biblical question of exactly what a "kind" is(it is broader than species) I fail to see how captive frog hybrids makes frogs die off faster. Any examples of this occurring or is this pure conjecture on your part based on emotion?

[bshmerlie]

You know...this conversation could have been easier in a chat room.

[Tony]

You know...this conversation could have been easier in a chat room.

This conversation is much more valuable out on the boards where people can read it at any time, there is plenty to learn from for those who care.