Added 6 April 2000
Some idea of the ignorance and credulity of some opponents of captive herpetology can be seen in the following editorial by Rosamund Kidman Cox. In addition, it shows the eagerness with which some people will grab at any chance to discredit the hobby. I reproduce Rosamund Kidman Cox's editorial in full from the March 2001 issue, followed by my comments.
"On my 'misspent-youth guilt list' is pet-keeping. I had the normal (though rather too large) collection of mice, rats, guinea-pigs and the like, which I think I took fairly good care of, but I also kept a number of wild animals. All were bought in pet shops - no questions asked about my age or husbandry skills. My favourite acquisition was a pair of ocellated green lizards, which I planned to breed. I managed to find one reptile book in the library - which told me what species they were and that I had two males but nothing about how to look after them, other than that they ate insects. I guess I bought them because of their looks, since there was little chance of developing a relationship with them. They hated being handled and would give a nutcracker bite given half the chance. Then one summer day, they vanished.
A year later, my Siamese cat, a veteran hunter of adders, among other creatures, brought me a still-twitching, long green tail. My conscience was eased knowing that at least one lizard had not died of cold or starvation. In retrospect, the lizards' escape was almost certainly a blessed release from a slow and miserable death at the hands of an ignorant and selfish owner. The shocking thing is that nothing much has changed when it comes to the ease of acquiring wild reptiles and the ignorance of their needs - other than a huge increase in the numbers sold. Clifford Warwick has spent a lifetime researching the trade in reptiles in particular, and his revelations (p58) include the fact that almost all are wild-caught and that millions and millions suffer agonising deaths. The fact that so little publicity has been given to this cruel and unnecessary trade is itself shocking.
I still keep cats, and this being a birds issue, guilt is surfacing again. But, honestly, my two aren't killers of birds or other animals, at least not in my sight. They sleep inside at night. An excess of petting given since kittenhood has given them chronic human fixation, which seems to keep them happy and occupied. The fact that they consume cans of unknown animal remains is another matter."
It isn't hard to see how Kidman Cox's ideological viewpoint shapes her view of things - a look at the first line will suffice ("on my 'misspent-youth guilt list' is pet-keeping"). In other words, before she has even entered the fray she has pinned what are essentially animal rights colours to the mast.
"All were bought in pet shops - no questions asked about my age or husbandry skills". Of course Ms Kidman Cox doesn't inform us how old she was when she bought the wild animals. Presumably the decision by a pet shop owner or employee to query the wisdom of her choice would depend on whether she was nine or nineteen. Nor, for that fact, does she tell us how long ago this was. Certainly if this all took place in the nineties (and she doesn't look that old) then there is absolutely no excuse for her ignorance, given that a lot of information about keeping herptiles was coming onto the market.
The anecdotal nature of Ms Kidman Cox's editorial is underlined by the fact that even now (with little excuse given the amount of information available, both online and in print) she doesn't, or can't, give us the species name of her ocellated green lizards. However, these were almost certainly one of the Lacerta family, and I suspect L. lepida or perhaps L. viridis. Since many of the larger lacertids such as these two species can and do become fairly tame, this hapless owner either didn't attempt handling or had a couple of difficult moments that deterred her from then on. But for her to assert that "there was little chance of developing a relationship with them" is an unsupported statement that is invalidated by the experience of other keepers.
But worse is to come. "A year later, my Siamese cat, a veteran hunter of adders, among other creatures, brought me a still-twitching, long green tail. My conscience was eased knowing that at least one lizard had not died of cold or starvation. In retrospect, the lizards' escape was almost certainly a blessed release from a slow and miserable death at the hands of an ignorant and selfish owner."
Well, I hate to say it, but Kidman Cox certainly remains ignorant. If she had known anything about lizards then, and if she had bothered to do any research now, she would have realised that a still-twitching tail usually means that the lizard has dropped it in defence and escaped while the predator was distracted. So there is a strong possibility that the owner was probably still alive somewhere in the territory that it had made for itself. In fact far from being a "blessed release from a slow and miserable death", Kidman Cox's ignorance may have sentenced the surviving lizard(s) to precisely that. Having said that, there have been examples of Lacerta viridis surviving in the wild in this country: after all, many lacertids from Europe survive harsh winters by hibernating. But then she obviously didn't bother to look that up, either. This is maybe one area where I agree with Clifford Warwick: people like her should definitely not keep reptiles. If they're this intellectually lazy and slipshod, maybe they shouldn't be editing wildlife magazines either.
"The shocking thing is that nothing much has changed when it comes to the ease of acquiring wild reptiles and the ignorance of their needs - other than a huge increase in the numbers sold." This could only be written by somebody either completely ignorant of the information now available or else who has adopted a fixed position on the matter that no facts or persuasion can shift. Go into any good shop that sells reptiles and you will find a good number of books on the subject, including many species-specific ones. The best shops actually stock a wide range, including different titles on the same animals. Herpetological societies often produce caresheets, and there are magazines available. In addition, the Internet has opened the floodgates of information. Provided one is careful to cross-check sources, it is possible to gain a great deal of help for husbandry this way.
"Clifford Warwick has spent a lifetime researching the trade in reptiles in particular, and his revelations (p58) include the fact that almost all are wild-caught and that millions and millions suffer agonising deaths. The fact that so little publicity has been given to this cruel and unnecessary trade is itself shocking." Well, if you didn't know which side of the argument Kidman Cox stood on, you certainly do. This fulsome praise of Clifford Warwick gives the impression that he really knows what he is talking about, although we have dealt with some of his specious arguments elsewhere. ".... millions and millions... agonising deaths.... cruel and unnecessary trade.... shocking" - that crashing sound you can hear is logic, reason and a sense of proportion flying out the window.
The last paragraph is puzzling but may be revealing. "I still keep cats, and this being a birds issue, guilt is surfacing again. But, honestly, my two aren't killers of birds or other animals, at least not in my sight. They sleep inside at night. An excess of petting given since kittenhood has given them chronic human fixation, which seems to keep them happy and occupied. The fact that they consume cans of unknown animal remains is another matter." Having in essence asserted the invalidity of keeping wild animals, Kidman Cox goes on to assert that her cats have been so conditioned by her care that they have become "good cats" and don't devastate local wildlife. The use of the word "guilt" is certainly revealing. Guilt for what? Guilt for cats wanting to act like cats? Perhaps I am doing Ms Kidman Cox a disservice, but she sounds almost wistful for the day when her cats go vegetarian. Of course, she may be joking, but I think not. This sort of fluffy, sentimental and whimsical thinking about wildlife seems to be at the heart of much thinking, conscious or otherwise, along the path to animal rights.
Being the editor of a popular magazine that purports to be serious, rather than a coffee-break publication, is a responsible position. Rosamund Kidman Cox should think twice before producing a disgraceful editorial like this in future.