Jlassiter,

I think the term bonding came up when others who so vehemtly say that kingsnakes will eat eat other if kept together. Even longer term captives that they call bonded , but in fact are not bonded..

You will also see a pattern here of people who have limited field herping experince of a different opinion and those with just a few years under their belt and/or limited geographic lifezone experinces. At this time (I should say in the last 20 years) true field herpers don't into contact with herpetoculrists. Why? because commercial collection stopped because commercial breeding took off. It didn't used to be so. it used to be the guys who feild collected also learned to use that ecology to house and breed stuff. So in a sense that crossover has come to a standstill since the 70's.

The bonded animals who were housed together at a young age do not eat each other or kill each other over a prey item! So there is a common denominator here...Properly bonded kings eat each other and unbonded (or improperly bondedkings do). That is why we are having these discussions. because of fear of past experiences. That is the data they base their assumptions on. So they speculate and...ASSume things.

So if by bonding them they do not eat each other. And improper attempts to bond them they do cannibalize. This is where those who watch their animals tend to beleive what they learned instead of beleiving what they see (I should say havn't seen yet, because NONE of them tried)that is what listening to your animals means.
-----
Observing them in a cage by themsleves with set temps and deciding when to feed is hardly natural or healthy for the snakes.

Bluerosy



You are doing what suits you. which is fine, but its not about the animal, its about you. Your requirements.

Frank Retes







www.Bluerosy.com






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Show Entire Thread ]