Sand Cats: Where The Adults Are Kittens And The Kittens Are Also Kittens
305Kviews
Sand cats are the Peter Pan of felines: they retain a kitten-like appearance their whole lives, giving the impression that they never grow up. Although they live in the desert Areas of North Africa, Arabia, Central Asia, and Pakistan, they are considered near threatened due to the illegal pet trade and sport hunting.
These cats are well adapted to their harsh environment. They can survive in temperatures between −5 °C (23 °F) to 52 °C (126 °F) and are able to survive for months on the water in their food. Unfortunately, a recent study indicated that only 61% of sand cats born in captivity live to day 30, primarily due to maternal neglect; they are also prone to various respiratory illnesses which makes them unsuitable as pets.
(h/t: thedodo)
Image credits: adremeaux
Image credits: John Jones
Image credits: home_77Pascale
Image credits: Big Cat Rescue
Image credits: goodnewsanimal
Image credits: Big Cat Rescue
Image credits: makhalifa
Image credits: surfingbird
Image credits: Ami211
Image credits: Tambako
Image credits: Mark Baldwin
Image credits: mellting
Image credits: Tambako
305Kviews
Share on Facebook
"Unfortunately, a recent study indicated that only 61% of sand cats born in captivity live to day 30, primarily due to maternal neglect; they are also prone to various respiratory illnesses which makes them unsuitable as pets." Why is this unfortunately? I think it is great.. that way humans won't keep them as pets like that crazy fox lady does.. They belong in the wild and should do so. Not in cages in zoo's and with sick people that want a different kind of pet than the neighbor has..
It's unfortunate because captive breeding is one of the best hopes for continuing the species dumdum.
I still think it is a good thing that they are hard to keep captive. Since now we don't go for solution 2 to save this species.. But we have to go for solution 1, what is keeping them safe from hunters and keep their habitat intact. And really, dumdum? Name calling on here? What is wrong with you?
I haven't heard "dumdum" since I was a child ....
It's unfortunate that you're such a rude bitch as well.
That's not really name calling...... More an observation.
Right on Noor! I absolutely agree! I hate all these ignorant people with an attitude like, "It's cute, I want one!" like stupid little spoiled brats that their parents raised them to be.
In the wild they are dying faster, you would have these glorious little creatures extinct, the zoo breeding programme are trying to save them, think before you make comments like this
Dying faster in the wild than 30 days in captivity? Wow, good thing they snapped these photos.
Ahem, can I add that extinction research has found that having the option to save an animal outside of its natural habitat (captivity, zoo, cloning, etc.) can actually detrimental to its population. When the the option exist, it reduces the perceived exigencies of protecting the animal and it's habitat. Yes, we have "saved" some species through captivity/breeding programs. But these tend to be resilient; their extinction was mostly from population pressures like over hunting. Most species need things in their ecosystems too complex or subtle for humans to replicate. The amount of research, people, time, and money it would take to figure out these nuances, collect the animals, build a fake environment, and successfully stabilize their population would be vastly more expensive than just protecting their habitats. Keep in mind, extinction has accelerated since we started zoos and breeding programs. Try kowing anything about the topic before you make a comment like this.
The simple fact is that your right that it's good that we can't keep them in captivity its also a bad thing. Mary was right that captive breeding is one of the best hopes of continuing the species. If it was that easy to keep them safe from hunters and keep their habitat intact a lot of animals would be saved, but its not. People will do ANYTHING for money including going into protected habitats and stealing these sand cats to sell illegally as pets or even kill them for their fur. As much as I agree with you that it would be best to leave them alone humans will have to intervene in order to stop themselves from destroying the animals we love.
Your acting like its as easy as flipping a switch, its not. Poachers will happily kill the people trying to protect them and the funding necessary to keep supplying people is something that most companies aren't willing to provide. And I'm not trying to offend you so I would appreciate it if you would offer me that same respect.
Couldn't agree more Noor. The "awww, it's so fluffy!!" types are a selfish breed, they're likely the ones that think Zoo's are a good thing! Ignorance is bliss.
Noob, they are considered Near Threatened by IUCN because they live in different areas and their number are decreasing. ):
Yes, I actually know that.. but still.. should we keep these poor animals captive and breed them for their existence or should we make sure their habitat isn't affected by us humans and make sure we keep hunters and such at bay? Because they are hard to breed in captivity we kinda have to go for the best solution and that is keeping them safe in their own habitat and not catch them... Who is the noob now you rude excuse of a human being?
There was an interesting article in National Geographic Magazine a few years ago about selective breeding to domesticate foxes in Russia. They documented what changes in appearance and behavior occurred with each generation. Domestication is not just behavior modification; it makes genetic changes. A truly domesticated animal is not the same as its wild cousin, just as a German shepherd is not the same as a wolf. Humans have domesticated many species for our own purposes, and I have no problem with that. But a wild animal rarely makes a good pet, and domestication does not preserve the original genome. Zoos try to maintain the original genetics, but a manmade environment does not teach survival skills and it's very tricky (though not impossible) to transition zoo-raised animals back to the wild. Ideally, we need to preserve the wild habitat and stop killing wild animals for stupid human reasons.
They all look so fluffy!
"Unfortunately, a recent study indicated that only 61% of sand cats born in captivity live to day 30, primarily due to maternal neglect; they are also prone to various respiratory illnesses which makes them unsuitable as pets." Why is this unfortunately? I think it is great.. that way humans won't keep them as pets like that crazy fox lady does.. They belong in the wild and should do so. Not in cages in zoo's and with sick people that want a different kind of pet than the neighbor has..
It's unfortunate because captive breeding is one of the best hopes for continuing the species dumdum.
I still think it is a good thing that they are hard to keep captive. Since now we don't go for solution 2 to save this species.. But we have to go for solution 1, what is keeping them safe from hunters and keep their habitat intact. And really, dumdum? Name calling on here? What is wrong with you?
I haven't heard "dumdum" since I was a child ....
It's unfortunate that you're such a rude bitch as well.
That's not really name calling...... More an observation.
Right on Noor! I absolutely agree! I hate all these ignorant people with an attitude like, "It's cute, I want one!" like stupid little spoiled brats that their parents raised them to be.
In the wild they are dying faster, you would have these glorious little creatures extinct, the zoo breeding programme are trying to save them, think before you make comments like this
Dying faster in the wild than 30 days in captivity? Wow, good thing they snapped these photos.
Ahem, can I add that extinction research has found that having the option to save an animal outside of its natural habitat (captivity, zoo, cloning, etc.) can actually detrimental to its population. When the the option exist, it reduces the perceived exigencies of protecting the animal and it's habitat. Yes, we have "saved" some species through captivity/breeding programs. But these tend to be resilient; their extinction was mostly from population pressures like over hunting. Most species need things in their ecosystems too complex or subtle for humans to replicate. The amount of research, people, time, and money it would take to figure out these nuances, collect the animals, build a fake environment, and successfully stabilize their population would be vastly more expensive than just protecting their habitats. Keep in mind, extinction has accelerated since we started zoos and breeding programs. Try kowing anything about the topic before you make a comment like this.
The simple fact is that your right that it's good that we can't keep them in captivity its also a bad thing. Mary was right that captive breeding is one of the best hopes of continuing the species. If it was that easy to keep them safe from hunters and keep their habitat intact a lot of animals would be saved, but its not. People will do ANYTHING for money including going into protected habitats and stealing these sand cats to sell illegally as pets or even kill them for their fur. As much as I agree with you that it would be best to leave them alone humans will have to intervene in order to stop themselves from destroying the animals we love.
Your acting like its as easy as flipping a switch, its not. Poachers will happily kill the people trying to protect them and the funding necessary to keep supplying people is something that most companies aren't willing to provide. And I'm not trying to offend you so I would appreciate it if you would offer me that same respect.
Couldn't agree more Noor. The "awww, it's so fluffy!!" types are a selfish breed, they're likely the ones that think Zoo's are a good thing! Ignorance is bliss.
Noob, they are considered Near Threatened by IUCN because they live in different areas and their number are decreasing. ):
Yes, I actually know that.. but still.. should we keep these poor animals captive and breed them for their existence or should we make sure their habitat isn't affected by us humans and make sure we keep hunters and such at bay? Because they are hard to breed in captivity we kinda have to go for the best solution and that is keeping them safe in their own habitat and not catch them... Who is the noob now you rude excuse of a human being?
There was an interesting article in National Geographic Magazine a few years ago about selective breeding to domesticate foxes in Russia. They documented what changes in appearance and behavior occurred with each generation. Domestication is not just behavior modification; it makes genetic changes. A truly domesticated animal is not the same as its wild cousin, just as a German shepherd is not the same as a wolf. Humans have domesticated many species for our own purposes, and I have no problem with that. But a wild animal rarely makes a good pet, and domestication does not preserve the original genome. Zoos try to maintain the original genetics, but a manmade environment does not teach survival skills and it's very tricky (though not impossible) to transition zoo-raised animals back to the wild. Ideally, we need to preserve the wild habitat and stop killing wild animals for stupid human reasons.
They all look so fluffy!