On kingsnake.com, Cindy Steinle asks why the reptile community has such an issue with calling its animals “pets” instead of “collections,” since what we do with our reptiles certainly fits the definition of petkeeping.
I think we use the word “collection” to elevate what we do above petkeeping, as though maintaining a reptile collection is a more scientific pursuit than merely keeping a pet. But what we do isn’t really science, in that we’re not keeping them for a research program, conservation, or any other scientific purpose; at best, what we do could be called amateur zookeeping.
If the general public has a hard time understanding what we do, it’s in large part because keeping a reptile “collection” is so difficult to categorize. If they’re pets, why do we interact with them so little, and why don’t they all have names? If it’s a zoo, why isn’t it open to the public? If it’s a breeding operation, how is it different from a puppy mill? If they’re exotic, how is this different from keeping a tiger? If there are so many of them, how are you not a hoarder?
Answering these questions is doable, but it takes some explaining, and explaining isn’t always reptile keepers’ forte. And applying “collection” to live animals can make people who associate collecting with stamps and Beanie Babies rather uncomfortable. People understand “pet,” though; I think that’s a safer starting point.