>> Please, someone turn the lite on, so you all can see. Poor feeding response is a symtom, not a behavior. Behaviorally, baby snakes of all kinds eat like pigs and grow up. If not, there would be little chance that any would make it to adulthood.



You describe a world in which all snakes are already perfectly evolved into ideal eating machines destined for faultless success. In fact, organisms vary and one of the functions of ongoing evolution is to further select for those most suited for survival. Among other shortcomings, there will always be those that eat better or worse (in the same conditions) and are better/worse suited for reproductive success and therefore best survive, produce the most young, etc. I think you're taking a valid generalization and turning it into an off-the-mark universal. How do you explain infertility among our pets, or agricultural animals, or humans? Would you argue it is always a response to conditions, and never a physiological flaw of the individual organism?



I "turned on the light" as you asked, and in my snakeroom, at least, it said, "when responses differ you try to change the variables to see if it changes the response. If all the variables of the conditions remain constant and the behaviors continue to differ, then the different behaviors are not responses to conditions (symptoms) but are instead individual behaviors."



Now, it could be argued that the conditions ARE different because one tray in my rack system is 8" farther off the ground than another, or because some are on the west wall and some on the north wall, etc. My personal opinions are that:

a) i've noticed no difference in feeding response between animals in one location and another, the infrequent instances of lesser feeding response seem random;

and

b) I think that the temperature ranges are nearly uniform, as is lighting. Other conditions (shelter, substrate, water, etc.) are offered uniformly.



My personal conclusion is that by excluding invididual variation you are omitting an important fact about organisms. Even among human identical twins there are variations, some of which experts believe are not the result of environment but of heredity. Apart from that extreme example, it seems obvious to me (which, yes, could be my blind spot) that animals raised from same clutches, in the (seemingly) same conditions, exhibit different rates of food consumption, different rates of conversion of food to growth (both length and body mass), etc. Some persist in feeding on mice and resist switching to rats longer than others. Some are more "nervous" than others when handled. I'm not expressing this as a matter of faith but as the results of my own observations as well as reading, etc.



I've REALLY enjoyed some of your observations and found them thought-provoking and insightful. But i think the statement you make with such fervor and conviciton (immediately below) suggests a blind spot in your approach. The real solutions, i think, come from acknowledging the nature of our animals AND keeping an open mind in reviewing our maintenance methods. Changing methods is more likely to affect the responses of our animals OVERALL, than it is to provide the solution to the small number of reluctant feeders in a collection consisting largely of aggressive feeders. IMHO.



>> Weak or selective feeding response is a symtom of non-suitable conditions.

>>

>> I am having a hard time with this, feeding, breeding, growing, etc, are natural normal responses. Do you(folks, no one in particular) think your conditions are SO right, so you must select for the snakes to adapt to you???????????

>>

>> All I can say is, this is the pinnacle of human behavior, are we so selfcentered that its the snakes fault for not loving our boxes? Someone help me out here? FR



peace

terry

[ Show Entire Thread ]