Are rescue frogs morally neutral? self.vegan
submitted 10 hours ago * by National-Can-9516- vegan
AKA: Is it morally neutral to adopt rescue amphibians/reptiles that require live bugs for their diet?
Obviously, I'm strongly opposed to pet stores and animal breeders. This question is regarding reptiles and amphibians who need to be rehomed. I'm using frogs as an example for funsies.
Here's common response I've seen: Since you wouldn't be directly supporting pet stores/breeders by adopting them, and they would end up being fed live bugs anyway, it's morally neutral.
Counterargument: If you choose not to rescue the animal, someone who may have bought one from a pet store would take it instead.
But if someone is okay with buying pets from stores, are they likely going to be looking for rescue options first? I feel like most aren't, but maybe I'm missing something.
Another point to consider is that any sort of frog enclosure, even the ones widely recommended by amphibian experts, don't seem to adequately provide the ideal level of stimulation and novelty frogs need to thrive. But again, if you're adopting a rescue frog instead of a bred frog, what are you supposed to do? You obviously can't release them into the wild in most cases, since many aren't likely to be native to your area. Even if they are native, they wouldn't have the skills to survive in the wild after being bred and raised in captivity.
And then there's the dark question that inevitably comes up whenever you're discussing any sort of obligate carnivore pet: Given how many lives are needed to be cut short in order to sustain one animal, would it be most ethical to just put down the carnivore pet if it can't be safely released into its natural habitat? And maybe it's inconsistent, but I don't think that's the answer either. This animal was bred into existence for human entertainment, was (if they're lucky) cared for adequately until they were separated for whatever reason, for what? Just to be put down? It's so morally messy, because you can say the same thing for the crickets and roaches and worms that are fed to the frog.
Another thing to consider: Most bugs that are kept to be live food seem to live pretty awful lives. If one were to provide the absolute best habitat and diet for them, this would at least be less bad than the conditions most of them live in. I know, I know, this exactly the same logic used to justify "ethical farming". But here's the difference:
Ethical farming can't exist, because nothing justifies using animals for human consumption in the modern world. If we decided that it isn't right to just put the frog down, we have to feed them live prey.
In an ideal world, it would be a priority to figure out a way to feed these animals without needing to end other lives, whether that be through an evidence-backed plant based diet or lab-grown meat replacements (even the ideal situation is tough to consider with frogs, since they often won't eat something unless it's wriggling). But we're not there right now.
Of course, the easiest solution is to avoid it altogether and adopt herbivore pets. Adopting any sort of obligate carnivore is not morally good. But is it neutral?
Edit: Yes, frogs are obligate carnivores. I am not suggesting we should play around with their diets and feed them veggies. If caring for frogs isn't a moral issue, you should absolutely feed them a variety of live bugs and worms that are gut loaded with nutrients and dusted with calcium. You should of course do everything you can to provide that frog with the best life possible.
The moral question is whether it's okay to adopt them and pay for the live prey that feeds them, or if you should only rescue herbivorous pets.
