You are right an anaconda is a boa (which is exactly my point) so why can't we keep them in the same set up? If I was an uneducated nut job who only read care sheets I would think they could not be kept the same as a
BCC or
BCI but since I read books and articles and talk to herpetologist (ones with degrees in zoology with an emphasize in reptiles not self proclaimed herpetologist, those would be herpetoculturist) I know anacondas
CAN be kept the same as
BCC or
BCI or dare I say caiman or green iguanas.
Snakes are abundant in captivity because they are easy to keep in captivity. Any snake is far more tolerable of a small cramped cage with a pathetic temp gradient because many snakes stick to tight spots with micro habitats, do not have fast metabolisms and do not require the exercise a lizard or crocodilian does. Does that mean we are keeping them correctly? No this means they are a sturdy enough species to keep in these pathetic conditions.
If you set up a cage properly you do not need to use a strict diet plain and simple. Monitor keepers and crocodilian keepers think very lowly of snake keepers and I know why. Because rather than do real research snake keepers depend on some care sheet for advice on minimum everything.
"the reason we keep our snakes in tubs is because thats what's best for the snake"
This is a rather bold statement to make. How have you come to the conclusion that a tiny box is what's best for the snake? What makes you so sure that life in a tiny box atop newspaper is what's best for a captive? Have you ever experimented with offering exactly the opposite?
I have yet to come across any ecological study of a snake species which reports a home range size .5 sq meters. Snakes, just like any other reptile, will move throughout its territory/home range depending on its physiological needs at a given time. There is absolutely no way that one could provide all of the different environmental conditions needed, which would normally be encountered and used within an animal's home range, inside a tiny little sweater box.
This mentality is about cutting corners- the "minimalist approach" as I call it. Keepers who house their captives in tiny sweater boxes or racks are doing so just to cut down on several factors which would otherwise cause problems or frustration in their upkeep. Such factors include space (why house one animal in a large enclosure when you can house 12 in the same space) , money, and amount of time and effort put into maintenance (much easier to clean/maintain newspaper than to deal with natural substrates). Such an approach to reptile keeping is not about providing what's best, it's about providing the bare minimum just to get by (usually in the hopes of maximizing one's monetary gains in the process).
In response to your statement:
"our snakes live, eat, breed, and make generations of generations in tubs. thats reults Tom! reason enough for us to continue keeping our snakes successfuly in tubs!"
This would be the same thing as saying that puppy mills or chicken farms/coupes are what's best for these animals, because they are able to eat, live, and reproduce under such conditions. If living in tiny, cramped spaces, with very little choices or environmental conditions is what's truly best for these animals, why don't we see their wild conspecifics living in .5 sq meter areas, overcrowded with other animals, and no variability in the wild? Wouldn't animals in the wild choose to live in conditions that are optimal for them?
Using reproduction in captivity should in no way be deemed an acceptable 'standard' to guage what's optimal or even acceptable for a captive." Bob Mendyk
Varanus.nl forum / Info
