I hope this is not taken as a flame, and I hope I haven't missed any previous posts on this (I'm a very sporadic visitor), but I do have a question:



Why does the prescribed (and apparently error-laden) method of rearing kingsnakes work so well? I've brumated kingsnakes (and before that cornsnakes) as per the AVS textbooks, and it's always gone off without a hitch: they clear their bowels, go to sleep, wake up months later fat and healthy, chow down, stop eating, breed (or attempt to), and go back to eating till next year.



We do what's convenient, and if it seems to work will not make adjustments unless/until it seems necessary. And our remedies seem readily prescribed: hide box/space requirements/temps/humidity.



We might find certain humans live well in the woods (didn't the Unabomber live in a bare lean-to in Montana, sans electricity, no less). While I'd hopefully (though honestly, doubtfully) be able to be resourceful enough to survive in that environment, I'd always opt for a house with all modern conveniences available when given the choice. So if a snake seems to do well in a "new" environment, why should we feel obligated to change that?



And won't an animal adjust to new conditions (or die off)? Haven't I read that FLA kingsnakes benefitted from the altered state of the Okeechobee sugarcane fields? And how about all the other displaced exotics in the Florida wilds?



Am I making sense? Also, FR, if you ever publish anything and are in need of a copyeditor, I'll help out.

[ Show Entire Thread ]