Reptile & Amphibian Forums

(Yes, I know that it depends on genetics, feeding schedule & temperature. I'm only seeking an average base figure.)

I once read that kingsnakes, if fed robustly, double in size their first year, then continue to double each year until adults. Males reach breeding age at about 2.5 to 3 years, as I recall, so this theory may be close.

Is it more true that on the average they grow so many inches annually until adults. Maybe 12" to 15" per year?

What's the best guess for the age of a male measuring 46" who was fed one mouse weekly?

It's a little easier to estimate the age of a snake when they are younger/smaller, but a 46" male could be any age over about 3,4 years old.. He could be 5 years he could be 15 years...

~ Mike Russo

With proper support, food and conditions, snakes grow quickly. I have had cal kings successfully reproduce at 10 months of age(males) and 14 months(females).

They can grow over 24 inches in one year. Of course, they can not grow at all or die. All that depends on support.

Genetics is not much of a consideration, as Cal kings do not have extreme dwarf or giant races. Yes, there are some locals that appear to get larger then others, but not by much. 3 to 5 foot as adults, covers calkings pretty well.

Even the smaller populations grow just as quickly, they just reach adulthood faster.

Good luck

Genetics is not much of a consideration, as Cal kings do not have extreme dwarf or giant races. Yes, there are some locals that appear to get larger then others, but not by much. 3 to 5 foot as adults, covers calkings pretty well.

That's a point where I have to disagree.
The kings local to me do not grow nearly as fast as kings from Contra Costa County or some of the southern California localities.

I know you believe it is all husbandry, but I don't buy it.

I suspect all or at least most localities have rapid growth capabilities in their gene pool, but that some localities, they just do not grow nearly as fast. Selective breeding will tend to favor the fast growers in captive gene pools, as breeders select the offspring that feed the best. In the wild, not all localities favor fast growth rates, and natural selection chooses what works best.

Gophers from Redding, in my limited experience them (one collected as a ~ 3 foot juvenile and one as a 14" neonate) grow really fast, but the Cal Kings don't.

Four footers exist up here, I've seen them, but vast majority of adults with scars to indicate age are between 3 and 3.5 feet. Wild adults in SFBA were very often beyond 4' in length, though I never came across a 5 footer. The offspring from my WC males w/ captive females eat but are not very large, the offspring from my WC SFBA male have a varied growth rate, but all faster than the offspring from the Redding males.

When I collect a female, I'd be more than willing to gift you a couple F1 locality offspring so you could prove me wrong.

I see the same thing in corns. I've raised two Abbott bloodline Okeetees that grew like rockets. I've raised a charcoal and a caramel that grew fast. Then I've got some hypo's and a lavender motley that are growing decently but not fast. All are eager to eat, some of them eat more and grow faster, just the way their genetics are.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

no offense, but I have been raising these things for 44 years, so I do not have an idea what I am talking about. But I guess you cannot imagine that.

You should consider that time has meaning. It means, even if your a bonehead, you will indeed learn over time. I am not talking about you, I am talking about me. I have learned.

Oh by the way, I did mentioned that cal kings are in the three to five foot range. If you have problems raising them up, then I suggest trying something different. Just a little different and you may see different results. But heck, what do I know? Cheers

The adult size range isn't what I was talking about.
The growth rate to reach 3 foot is what I was talking about.

I don't have a problem raising Cal Kings - some grow faster than others, but clutch mates have similar growth rates.

I don't think anyone here denies that Florida generally grow faster than Cal Kings - they are just different subspecies of the same species. Why then do you close your mind to the possibility of different growth rates amongst Cal King localities?

Have you ever raised Cal Kings from Shasta County, CA?

How many localities of Cal Kings have you worked with, and were those localities spread out across the range or were they lumped together in So Cal where most cal kings in the trade seem to trace back to?
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Again, its you with the closed mind. If you look around, you will find that I am mentioned in several books as being the founder of many cal king morphs. In doing that over the last 45 years, I have kept and bred calkings from all parts of their range.

And I did mention that different populations do have a slight maximum size range. Yes there are areas that three foot is normal, and other areas that larger is also normal. What I guestion even here is conditions.

As a field herper, I have seen areas where three foot is normal, until after a few good wet years, then the average is larger. This occurs on our study sites as well, with other species of snakes.

The real point is learning what is you and what is the snakes. You have a method of keeping and because it shows some success, you think its good. Well it may be good, but from your results, its marginally good. Over the last year or so, you have had husbandry problems, yet you assign them to the snakes and not you. This will limit your growth and understanding of these snakes. This is not about me, its about you. What can YOU do to not limit your understanding?

For me, I am not smarter or better, I just always took responsibility for my errors and kept an open mind. When I was young, it was much easier. There was nothing but failure, so I did not have to stick with some method or another. I just kept working until I recieved better results. This taught me to keep trying until the proper results are obtained.

Amoung those are learning that young snakes all grow quickly until sexual maturity. This includes small colubrid species to large python species. These can all grow into sexual maturity in one to three years. Even large pythons can reproduce around two years of age. (Water pythons have been recorded gravid at 9 months of age, IN NATURE)

Back to the point, you have different locals and you think they grow at different rates. But you keep them exactly alike. Hmmmmmmmmmm but they do come from different locals, are those locals exactly alike? or are there differences that require the snakes to act behaviorally different or address these different conditions in a unique manner? Surely a Cal city king and a San Diego king or a king from the northwest come from different enviornments, so do you keep them the same? then why do you expect them to react the same? there is a saying here, you know, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a sign of something.

Anyway, Its been "my" experience that if you offer a number of choices to captives, you have a far better chance to see the actual abilities of snakes, then if you offer a small number. Pretty much common sense hey.

Snakes are not that different then us, you have to ask them a question they understand, or you will not get a suitable answer. So giving them choices gives US a better chance of hitting on something they understand.

Its my opinion that most of these snakes, colubrids and other commonly kept snakes, require the same range of temps and humidities, but how they get them is what is different. This goes back to snakes of the same species, coming from different habitat types. In captivity, its up to us to figure out the differences, not simply say, its genetics or they do not grow as fast. Cheers and good luck

I have to agree that conditions play the largest role but it would be silly to completely discount genetics. I would suspect that a difference exists even if ones records or methods of measurement are not sophisticated enough to quantify it.
-----
Darwin Rocks!

If I had never bred snakes I would probably agree with FR because of his experience, but my experience, even though quite limited, shows a definite difference in growth rate by clutch.

All of my clutches produced so far have been from wild caught males, so they all have a lot of recent wild genetics in them.

My suspicion is that intentional or not, captive breeders select for those that grow faster. Thus in captive populations, there will be a shift towards a faster growth rate, just like there is a shift towards cleaner pattern and other characteristics that cause even locality lines to deviate from their wild locality counterparts.

Without keeping records including generations from wild caught, it is easy to forget the snakes that didn't impress the keeper and remember the snakes that did.

Also - the vast majority of Cal King morphs have Southern California origin. Davis locality is northern California, but that's Rick Staub's line, and also is a valley Cal King, Redding is the very northern tip of the Valley and undoubtedly has gene flow with the montane Cal Kings just 10 miles north as elevation really starts to rise and the snow in winter is a sure thing. Our kings definitely look different than other northern California Valley Kings. Their base color is darker, the cream bands are desert king white down the spine but turn yellow just as they come to the lower third of the side. I've not seen any other California Valley kings like that, but I have seen kings from the montane locales up here that look like that.

How many morphs on the market today (or ever) originated north of Davis? I'm guessing not very many. Most morphs involve aberrant ancestry. That's mostly So Cal. Some aberrants can be found farther north in the valley - but those are almost exclusively black belly aberrant and are farther south than me.

Color morphs - P.E. Albino is from a striped phase (I'm guessing San Diego county, but certainly So Cal). The lavender lines I believe originated in So Cal Coastal. Merker has a hypo line I believe is farther north than So Cal but most hypos are So Cal too, are they not? Then there are hypers/patternless - which primarily are from So Cal and Baja, are they not?

So Cal seems to be to Cal Kings what southern Florida is to Corn Snakes - it's seems to be where most of the morphs come from, thus those who work heavily with morphs and created new ones have experience biased by both the So Cal gene pool and selective breeding bias.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

In your own head. You think its about now and captive morphs. You forget, when I started breeding kings and producing morphs, there was no captive stock WHAT SO EVER. All lines were from wild caughts. Being a pioneerr means AT THE BEGINING. And that was before captive breeding was even rare, muchless common.

So, please put this into prespective and think about what was happening 45 years ago. So yes, I have lots of experience with wild snakes, both breeding them and keeping them.

You did hit it on the head, you do not have much experience. But you do have some. Now its up to you to put that into prespective. I did not say your results are wrong, you simply have not tried many different methods to see how they respond to different stimulus. Cheers

You think its about now and captive morphs. You forget, when I started breeding kings and producing morphs, there was no captive stock WHAT SO EVER.

What morphs did you create that have northern California genetics in them?
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

None, but that does not mean we did not try. For northern stock, I ended up using kings from farther north.

Those bred with San Diego stock, produced highly abberant individuals with the first generation.

You see, your question has no merit with this subject. What I said was, over the last 45 years I have kept bred and raised kings from all over their range, including NorCal.

Also to the point, is you have very little experience and you want your few breedings to be meaningful. Good on you, stick around and actually try to do different things and in a few decades you will have a totally different set of data points and opinions then you do now. Cheers

It's not that I want them to be meaningful, it's that I know they are not meaningless.

Different growth rates for different populations are documented in so many species, why would Cal Kings, which have far more natural variety many other species, be different?
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

I would sit you down and call you lazy. Heres why.

Any Joe blow can take something and support it with any manner of out of context publications(to rationalize). The key here is to quantify. That is, to experience numbers. This is what your to lazy to do. So in all reality, it does not matter what you say, you simply do not have the numbers to actually deduct anything.

So stop being lazy and get with it. GET the numbers. Cheers

Not saying I disagree with you but Frank has a point here. As always I disagree with the absoluteness of his statements but not all localities will respond the same to the same classic keeping methods. Some will do better and it may not have anything to do with genetics.
-----
Darwin Rocks!

You're right - I don't have enough data to say that clutches with the WC Contra Costa father growing faster than clutches with the WC Redding father is anything but coincidence.

However, occam's razor says the simplest explanation for the growth rates being grouped like that according to their lineage is genetics and not some weird probability fluke.

Maybe the snakes with Redding lineage would grow a lot faster if I fed them lizards instead of rodents, as neonates, I had to use lizards to get them to eat. Frank thinks that was just husbandry as well, though I don't understand why husbandry would have them pounding fence lizards eagerly out of the egg at completely snubbing rodents for the fire couple of months ...
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

pounding fence lizards eagerly out of the egg at completely snubbing rodents for the fire couple of months ...

should read

pounding fence lizards eagerly out of the egg and completely snubbing rodents for the first couple of months ...
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

"Frank thinks that was just husbandry as well, though I don't understand why husbandry would have them pounding fence lizards eagerly out of the egg at completely snubbing rodents for the fire couple of months ..."

You bring up a fair point here. I've been assuming that by genetic you are talking about how this affects the animal's basic growth metabolism (ie how it converts prey into snake). Who is to say however that food or habitat preference are or are not reflective of genetics? Not me!

I have a locality of eastern king that very atypically takes to f/t domestic mice right out of the egg with no problem. These Northampton County VA kings grow quicker than other locals I've worked with but I never thought of it past a simple food preference.

In any case I know next to zilch about the genetics or lineages of domestic Cal kings but I would suggest the following if most lineages come from S. Cal.

1) Most of the collectors were from S. Cal

2) Collectors were more networked in S. Cal

3) Collecting conditions were better in S. Cal

4) S. Cal localities were more adapted to prevailing captive conditions

If true, any of these, could also contribute to the prevalence of S. Cal stock in captive lineages over more northern locals.

In any case this is an interesting discussion.
-----
Darwin Rocks!

your stating assumptions as if they were fact. You have no idea what lines were used to create many of these morphs.

The truth is, high yellows, high whites, are a combination of san diego(striper), L.A. county(newporter), black and white desert(cal city) and central cal linages(melanistic), L.A. county(melanistic).

Albinos, included stock from the entire Getula range, coast to coast.

So your assumptions are very naive. They are nothing more then, WHAT IFS. Anyone can what if, whats of value is, WHAT IS. What if the world was flat???? etc. Cheers

Frank I wasn't making any asumptions I was simply illustrating that there might be alternative reasons that explain Funkies observations by offering a few of my own. If you took a moment to read my post and think before you started typing you'd have realized that I was largely supporting you on this one.
-----
Darwin Rocks!

Its simple observation FunkyRes, you have had several husbandry related problems over the last couple of years and you think its all about the animals genetics. Sorry sir, its more about you. I am sure if you stay with it, you will grow and gain experience and eliminate lots of these problems. That sir is common with longterm keepers, WE LEARN.

Its simple science, do you have the same results from 50 pair of CC animals??????? or 50 clutches from the same pair????? Do you have anything other then a clutch or two??? The answer to these questions is very telling. What you are actually saying is, you have had some problem clutches(lizard feeders) but you have no data to say its related to a dwarf local. Or is even local specific. You have no data that states is about more then your one pair, a few clutches, or your husbandry.

Have others had this problem????? is it common knowledge? etc etc etc, no sir, its not. its simply your problem. Cheers

you have had several husbandry related problems over the last couple of years

No.
I had a female die of egg binding that may have been husbandry related or may not have been.

Again with that case - note that she laid seven of those eggs within a week of her prelay shed indicating that she felt she had a suitable location to lay them. The last two did not even move down the chute, they remained high in her body.

The previous year she gave me an unexpected double clutch of infertile eggs which was a tough lay, I had to palpate one down to get it out.

You are making a very arrogant assumption that her death was husbandry related, you do not know and even I do not know. It is quite possible that there was something wrong with her - it happens, just like healthy females of any species sometime die in child birth.

If death by egg binding was a common problem for me, then husbandry would be a safe assumption. With a sample size of 1, no such assumption can be made.

Other than her, the only kings I have ever lost were an arizona mountain king consumed by an escaped cal king that broke out of her cage and into the pyro cage, and a neonate MBK x Cal King that came out of the egg with the yolk sac attached and did not make it.

One of my kings, purchased from the classifieds, arrived with a severe case of snake hookwork regurgitating everything she ate and losing weight. She is now clear of parasites and a healthy weight.

Other than her, who had a health condition when she arrived and was properly treated and fully recovered, and the lavender that died in egg binding, I've not had any health problems with any of my kings.

What husbandry problems do you speak of?
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Don't know if I mentioned it on KS or not, but the baby burm I rescued from a local pet store that was afraid to touch it (rescued on the condition they agreed to not carry burms, indians, rock, retics, green anacondas in the future) did come down with a RI last winter that was probably my fault. Raising his temps solved the issue w/o need for a vet treatment, and he's quite healthy now.

That's not colubrid husbandry though.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

...that by "husbandry problems", he means your stubborn feeders. Maybe I'm wrong...
-----
Diego

SWCHR

My stubborn feeders were only stubborn when it came to rodents.
When I tried sceloporus they fed quite readily.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

That you have a female die of egg binding is key to your thinking. That she died IN YOUR CARE, is without question your fault and a product of your husbandry.

That you do not want to except responsibility for that is key to understanding why you do not except responsibility for your weak hatchlings.

Please understand, we all have these problems, we all have had animals die in our care. None of us want to be responsible for their deaths. The difference is, some folks cannot stand to be wrong(like you) and some can except being wrong and try to learn from it. Those the learn from it, can actually benefit from the deaths of animals we choose to keep in captivity. We can make it better IF WE LEARN, from our mistakes. Others that do not accept that responsibility, will go on having problems until then cannot take it any more, then move on to something else. (very commonplace around here)

What I think about you is, your most likely a great caring person. You most likely will not accept the blame for killing your animals because YOU DO CARE.

My advice is, and this is based on you being a good caring person. Either accept your errors and learn from them, or stop keeping living animals.

The truth is, THEY ARE IN YOUR CARE, which makes EVERYTHING that happens to them, your fault, both good and bad. That chance that these problems are something out of your control, IS SO VERY SMALL. So I ask, why do you want it to be something out of your control? again, ask yourself that question. These animals are IN your control. Cheers

That you have a female die of egg binding is key to your thinking. That she died IN YOUR CARE, is without question your fault and a product of your husbandry.

That you do not want to except responsibility for that is key to understanding why you do not except responsibility for your weak hatchlings.

I'm sorry to sound disrepectful, but that's bull [bleep].
And my hatchlings were not weak.

When the young of the Redding locale male refused rodents, I did what I needed to do and found and alternate food supply - hunting baby Sceloporus - until such time as they did accept rodents.

They are quite healthy, they are not weak.

The mother died in my care. This is true. Would she have survived in your care? I don't know, and neither do you.

I have adjusted my husbandry since - in that I now am feeding females I expect to breed a mixture of live and frozen thawed, due to information in Kathy Love's corn snake book, where she noted a friend such much fewer cases of egg binding in females that were fed live prey.

Would that have made a difference in my girl?
I don't know.

Again - the egg binding was not refusal to lay. She laid 7 eggs, two remained high up in her body and just never moved down the pipe to where they could be laid. The cause of that is not known to me, and it is not known to you either.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

The decision to feed my females live prey resulted in quite a bit of scorn and negative feedback from the corn breeding world, even after I referenced Kathy's book with page number and even quoted the paragraphs showing that egg binding decreased when the breeder switched from f/t to live prey.

Seems no matter what you do, someone experienced somewhere will say it is poor husbandry.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Live prey is optimum from a nutritional viewpoint. Not to say that frozen is bad or will not do the job, but how frozen prey is stored and thawed does have some effect on its quality. In the best case, virtually no reduction in quality. In the worst case, a good amount of lost vitamins. Anyone that argues that fresh prey is worse than frozen is being silly.

As for egg-binding, it happens too much in captivity, and it likley is mostly a husbandry issue, whether being environmental or from what we feed them. I do not know the magic secret, but I bet it is this: proper humidity choices, adequate cage size, food that isn't too fatty, hide spots that reduce moisture loss, a range of temps and few induced stresses.

Too little moisture can negatively affect the egg development and laying process. That may affect calcium buildup and lead to blockage. I'm not an expert; I have had kings get eggbound, and then I tried things and the eggbinding stopped. That is all I have to go on. I wish I could have a sample size of 1000's, but I don't and can't or I will be paying lots of alimony.
-----
Mark

I have no doubt that husbandry can contribute to or cause egg binding. I also have no doubt there can be other causes as well.

The cause of her egg binding is still undetermined.

One thing I did that may have been a mistake was I took her to the vet and had the contents of the eggs removed, along with a hormone shot.

After the fact, I received testimonies from several experienced breeders who informed me they have a higher mortality rate when involving a vet than when they just leave her alone to pass them on her own - sometimes even the next season.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Of course I am rude, the reason is, I bring up points of view you do not want to entertain. So yes, forgive me for that.

No offense, but I have killed off many females due to egg binding, that was a common occurance in the late sixties and early seventies. Fortunately, I have a different mind set then you. I addressed it as a problem, as did many of my friends. We developed methods to eliminate that problem. Sir, its no longer a problem for me. I wound venture to say, its not a problem for folks that produce tens of thousands of colubrids. Some of these people are friends of mine.

Back to the point. You make comparisons without answers, like you said, would it have been different for me, you know with your female. Of course it would have, I have bred these dang things since long before you were born(or close, u get the picture or should get the picture)

You statement about frozen or live. I have fed frozen for decades and live for decades, no problem. I will say, if you have a poor source of food items, DO NOT USE THEM. That again is you fault and your problem. To make a statement about it being a problem caused by frozen is naive and flat dumb. Again, the reason is, so many are not having your problem. If Kathy used old crappy frozen, then shame on her.

Again, your problem is not your results of your suppositions, its clearly your lack of data. To make the statements you have, you must have more results. You would need many clutches of Redding kings, and many neonates to determine prey preference.

As it is, I already know that weak kings, can become lizard feeders. (prey narrowing)This goes for mountain, milks or otherwise. To have Cal kings become selective, they must really be stressed. The healthier an individual snake, the wider its prey selection is.

Again your problem is, you do not understand what experience is. I have had all the problems you have had and a million more. But over the decades I have actually learned how to eliminate or control them.

If you were a mechanic and a person calls and says your car is broke down. You ask, do you have a flat tire? the most common cause of cars not taking people somewhere. Then ask if they ran out of gas. The second most common. Then you have to sit and hear them say, no I did not run out of gas, my car turns over, but does not start. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm sounds like out of gas to me.

What you mention are common symtoms of common husbandry problems. Sorry, but your simply out of gas. Please take this with some sense of humor. Then ask yourself, how could you be right with so little data? Then ask yourself what experience means, sir it means lots more data. Cheers

No offense, but I have killed off many females due to egg binding, that was a common occurance in the late sixties and early seventies. Fortunately, I have a different mind set then you. I addressed it as a problem, as did many of my friends. We developed methods to eliminate that problem. Sir, its no longer a problem for me. I wound venture to say, its not a problem for folks that produce tens of thousands of colubrids. Some of these people are friends of mine.

I do not believe it is never a problem for people who breed tens of thousands of snakes because I still read about it happening with them, and even have read about field herpers who have found wild snakes with old eggs in them that did not pass.

You state that you have a different mindset and address the problem.

Do you not remember the posts where I was trying to figure out what could have caused it?

Initially I speculated diet. I no longer think that was the cause, it could have been lack of muscle tone due to her never constricting her F/T prey, which is why I HAVE adjusted my husbandry to include live prey that the females MUST constrict before they eat. I did this after noticing my f/t feeders did not appear to have as much muscle as the few I have that only eat live, and after reading the following from Kathy Love's book:

Joe Hiduke informed us that the huge corm snake colony he managed was switched to a diet of more live prey than thawed frozen, and his perception is that it's a contributing factor in the frequency of dystocia decreasing noticeabli

Kathy Love, Corm Snakes The Complete Owners Guide p 138

I have adjusted my husbsandry.

What you completely failed to address and are failing to address now is the fact that she laid her clutch 6 days after her prelay shed, yet two eggs did not move down at all.

That's not a symptom of a snake that isn't happy with her nesting site. A snake that isn't happy with her nesting site will not lay for 2 weeks or even longer after her prelay shed.

She was happy with her place to lay, she delivered her clutch in reasonable time frame, two eggs didn't come down.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

One general cause of dystocia may be due to the inability of the eggs to pass through the oviduct and cloaca. There may be an obstruction, the eggs may be too large or malpositioned, the pelvis may be misshapen, or there may be obstructive masses such as abscesses or cystic calculi. Two or more eggs may be bound together, or a single egg may be exceptionally large or misshapen.

http://www.anapsid.org/dystocia.html
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

In this case, Kiss is appropriate, Keep it simple stupid. And PTT, Proper troubleshooting technique, Start with the simple(probable) and then move to the improbable. Or the likely to the unlikely, or the most common to the less common cause. Etc etc.

About your examples, so your saying poor muscle tone is the problem. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Thats poor husbandry sir. Of course if you keep a snake in a tiny box and it cannot exercise, that will happen, but its not about the live prey, its the stupid small box. And these(you) fine folks are the ones who put them in small boxes. Please open your mind.

What you and they are doing is called BANDAID husbandry, your putting a bandaid on the cut, but isn't it better to prevent the cut, then you would not need a bandaid.

I promote giving these fine animals choices, that way, I(we) do not have to know what we are doing, after all, THE SNAKES ARE EXPERT AT BEING SNAKES.

About groups, one necessity is a larger cage, a larger cage allows more exercise. Also when in groups, they have a reason to exercise as they interact with cagemates, hmmmmmmm a twofer or threefer, or fourfer. Which means, the benefit of groups is multitude. Cheers

About your examples, so your saying poor muscle tone is the problem. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Thats poor husbandry sir.

Right - and that has been adjusted by offering live as well as f/t to them.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Thats not true, you disaggree because its your nature.

Is there a true genetic dwarf race of cal kings????? As far as I know, that has not occurred. Most races of cal kings are smack in the average size recorded for cal kings, the 3 to 5 foot range. I also said, without question there are locals where most adults are in the 30" to 36" range. Its also my experience if you take those and raise their offspring you can exceed that size VERY easily. With these animals you can exceed four foot commonly, so whats the max for cal kings, aprox 5 foot. Big giant difference hey.

So yes, it seems to me you like to argue because you hate for folks to think you do not "the answer" and there is someone out there that has actually done this for a very long period that muddys up the water for you.

In the end, every race of cal king can reach sexual maturity within 18 months(aprox) So what is the problem?

In the end end, all his experience states is, some clutches may not be as healthy as others. If he refined his husbandry and experienced thousands of more clutches, he surely would have a different outlook then he does now. Cheers

In the end end, all his experience states is, some clutches may not be as healthy as others. If he refined his husbandry and experienced thousands of more clutches, he surely would have a different outlook then he does now.

Sorry but I just don't buy that.
Dwarf races do not need to exist for growth rates to be different.

Almost all captive bred snakes grow faster than their wild counterparts, natural selection in the wild has no reason to standardize the genetics of captive growth rate. Selective breeding, OTOH, does.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

I understand you do not buy lots of things, but thats the problem with inexperience. And that is nothing against you, your problem is you do not seem to get the difference between experience and lack of experience. Or data vs. massive amounts of data(to quantify)

Or your simply narsissistic(all about you) as you think your VERY LITTLE data, superceeds others vast amounts of experience(with cal kings only) All I can say about that is, good on you, I hope it works out for you. Again, nothing against you.

The truth is, what will suffer here, is your animals, not mine or any others, Just yours. You have the oppertunity to fast forward, but you would rather take the slow road. Again, good on you. Cheers

It's far better to jump to conclusion having very little data as opposed to a plethora of wrong data.

I'm not stating that your data is wrong, but I'm not stating it's right either.

The way I see it, he has experienced slower growth rates kept in replica setups of other localities..........how could it not be genetic(assuming his husbandry is correct). Would you not expect a family(tribe/locality) of humans to produce mostly small offspring?

I see it as a simple case of increaser-decraser alleles, that with time, have the potential to produce larger offspring, but a larger percentage of the offspring being smaller. (when 2 snakes of the same "dwarf" locality are bred together.
-----
1.3.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

In this case, there is not enough evidence for him to say ANYTHING. That is what I believe. FunkyRes does not have enough or repeated results to state anything more then one or two clutches were problematic.

Then instead of attempting to solve the problem throught testing, he rationalized what he wanted as the cause of his problem. In this case, something other then his husbandry.

I will now go back a long time ago, an old friend of mine Erine Wagner, once said to me(early seventies) that weak eggs and weak hatchlings are a direct result of weak adults.

Of course, there is no 100% on anything, but that statement was VERY VERY VERY good. It was good for many reasons. One, it commonly proved to be true. Two, its good because it causes the keeper to learn by doing something. Not learn by reading something. Its good because it allows a learning curve. If you blame something you can control and learn from, you are going to make progress. If you blame something out of your control, your make a roadblock that prevents learning.

Again, I have pioneered many species of varanids and colubrids. I did so not because I am some genius. I did so because I treat reptiles as "Individuals". That is, not as a family or a genus or a species, AS INDIVIDUALS. This has served me and the animals well. Its common now a days to treat animals as a recipe. This works for the common individual, but not for the exceptions. Wild caughts can be the exceptions these days.

Taking this direction has showned me that the problem that FunkyRes is having has a 90% chance of being husbandry related. Couple that with him reporting various other husbandry related problems, adds another 9% percent chance that his problem is husbandry related.

Is there a chance the problem is genetics, yes, but its very very small. go play the lottery, only now its with the life of an animal. I do not think you should risk the life of a living animal on luck.

With the above in mind, its really not about a dwarf population. Also, there is no evidence that his adults are from a dwarf population. The average size for all cal kings is 3 to 4 feet with five footers being rare. His snakes fit into that nicely. Three foot being very common across the entire range.

So all this bunk about local populations is off base for genetic size. It may be on base, for behavioral needs.

Also, us pioneers fully understand that wild caughts can present a much tighter set of husbandry requirements as they are already behaviorally prejudiced from nature. So having weak wild caught adults is a very strong possibility. Cheers

............I was actually supporting TonyD on this

both of you bring interesting points, but to talk in absolutes is ignorant.

where do you get those figures anyways? 90%....add another 9% .......I hope you are just genrealizing when you stated that.

You should never count out genetics........especially in a wide range and diversity of wild habitats.
-----
1.3.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

Here's my limited data.

Female Amel unknown heritage, but probably heavily SoCal based upon her head pattern. Underneath her tail is solid white (which would be solid black) which I believe to be an indicator of striped ancestry - but I'm not positive about that.

2006 - 12 eggs, I had them too wet, corrected problem but 7 died.
5 hatched.

#1 - I have - she grew the fastest but I'm begining to think she was retained sperm (I'll explain why in next post)
#3 is with my brother
#5 - I have
#2 and #4 I sold.

2007 - did the pairing again, producing 11 young.
#11 I held back. Others - some I sold, I still have 2. I brumated them over winter since they were not keepers.

2007 - Male Redding w/ Lavender.
5 eggs, all hatched. One of them, #3, ate pinkies out of the egg. I sold him. #1,5 - males, still have them, #5 is my future breeder (due to high number of half bands). #2,4 - females, still have. Those four required sceloporus to get started but after a month or so were switched to live pinks and then f/t.

The 2007 from Amel with Antioch father grew much faster, and despite not having been fed over winter 2007 - still are noticeably bigger than the 2007 from Lavender with Redding father.

In 2008 I paired the Antioch male with the Lavender. This was done to see if the lizard appetite in 2007 lavender clutch was from the mother or the Redding father. This is the clutch that the lavender died when two eggs would not come down. The seven good eggs hatched. All but one took pinks out of the egg. The one that did not take pinks out of the egg also refused lizards, and was my favorite - perfect banding. She has since started eating, and is now eating fiercely - every time offered (except in blue), everything offered (some siblings don't always consume everything offered). When she wouldn't take sceloporus, I removed heat from her tub for a few weeks (put her in a shelf w/o heat tape) and after that - she started eating.

It's not much data - but kings from the same mother (Lavender) have different out of egg feeding responses - in '07 with Redding father 4 out of 5 insisted upon lizard prey, in '08 with Antioch father 6 out of 7 took rodents easily, 1 out of 7 refused even lizards until cooled and warmed, then took rodents like there was no tomorrow and last few feedings has been best eater of the clutch.

In '08 the male Redding copulated with a female that failed to produce any eggs, I witnessed copulation. In '07 the same female was paired with a different Redding male - I never witnessed copulation, but also no eggs. I don't know if she's fertile, she's the girl that arrived with the hookworm infestation. I hope she's biologically intact, she's got a neat banded aberrant pattern.

So no - I don't have a lot of data, but the Redding father X Lavender mother produced young that required fence lizards to get started, now eat rodents just fine, but simply are growing slower than clutches fathered by the Antioch male.

They are quite healthy, they are not thin compared to wild snakes of same size, they are active, I suppose it is possible the lizards they ate gave them a parasite that is slowing growth but they have never regurged and their fecal deposits always look normal.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

In 2006 I did my first king breeding since I was a teen (as a teen I worked exclusively with WC Walnut Creek, CA kings)

The female was purchased in August from a breeder who had already bred her once that year and claimed she laid 20 eggs. Whether she did or not I don't know - but when she arrived, I paired her with my male Antioch and got a dozen eggs.

Of those 5 eggs - #1 had a lot of half bands, the rest only had a few.

Same pairing in 2008 - I had hoped for some more with a lot of half bands. All 11 only had a few.

Not only does she more than twice the number of half bands of any of her 15 siblings, her base color is black, very black, blacker than any other king I have - and her cream is a really nice yellow, yellower than any kings I have except for her mother.

All the others turned brownish - some are just as brown as the Antioch male, a few are a little darker, but not much. Not only does she have more half bands than any of her syblings, she has a vastly different base color and a different cream color.

I suspect Antioch male is not her dad and she was retained sperm. The same female double clutched for me in 2008 without second mating, producing mostly infertile eggs but a few looked good, one made it to hatching, so she does save up sperm for additional clutches.

Furthermore - in '07 with the Redding male, the lavender produced 2 out of 3 with decent number of half bands. In '08 with the Antioch male, she produced 1 with zero half bands and six with only 1 or 2 half bands.

I think the Antioch male produces offspring without many half bands. #1 from 2006 I don't think is his prodigy.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Furthermore - in '07 with the Redding male, the lavender produced 2 out of 3

should read 2 out of 5
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

.
-----
1.3.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

“Thats not true, you disaggree because its your nature.”

No, its against my nature to let absolute statements, which most certainly ARE wrong in many, many cases, slide unchallenged but if you feel the need to get personal have at it.
-----
Darwin Rocks!

You must think in absolutes as in reality there are very very few absolutes.

I have stated many times that there are always exceptions, but what good is there to concentrate of exceptions when the problems are common. It is far more productive to concentrate of the probable cause, then the exceptional cause. Its proper troubleshooting technique to address the probale(first) cause then move to the exceptional cause, is it not?

That you want to take things in absolutes, is your problem.

What is absolute is the reporting of data. For instance, many times here folks say you cannot raise baby getula or keep adult getula together their entire lifes(long lifes) That I report we have done that and still do that, is an absolute answer to their statement. Our results break their statements. The question then becomes how do I allow that. Not whether it can be done or not.

Another absolute statement is, many say you have to brumate or hibernate snakes to breed them. That is absolutely false. The reason is, many, including me have commonly and highly successfully bred many many species without any form of brumation. So again, an absolute deal breaker.

So I wonder whom is making absolute statements. Is it I or those stating you have to do this or that??????? See what I mean.

That I am Frank about my statements are very true, I am frank because I have done these things for decades. Of course its also my name(see dry humor) Cheers

rite-on FR! talk about thinkin outside of the box!
tell it like it is,,,,,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

I hate to argue with Frank, and I'm not really doing that, but...almost every Cal King found along the coast from Ventura county southward reaches no more than 36-42 inches in the wild average 36 in.), but inland snakes average 48 inches as adults, and often get to five feet. One island population in Baja reaches 6 and a half feet. OK, I am now prepared to be slammed, but I'm talking about wild kings, not captive reared, and I've only found a little over 2,200 of them.

Here we go.............................lol

First, props to Bob S. for the Scooby Doo post!! ha ha!! I love it!!! Bob..you should hear me do my Scooby impression..you will be on the floor....

Second, good post Brian. Because of your post, I have to ask your thoughts on this, as it may pertain to your thoughts in your post:

I have noticed throughout perhaps the last 11 years or so, especially after I was breeding cal kings, that it seems like cal kings these days, in terms of adults, overall, do not appear to get as big as they did years back? Not speaking of all of course, and not making a blanket statement judging any all specimens out there, but I was used to seeing adults at least 4 foot always no matter what years back, my breeders for example and all fellow breeders I hung or bred snakes with, but now, I very rarely see any morph of any cal king that big these days, either in anyone's collection, including mine, or for sale at any show I attend.

Is it possible the further away freshly caught, bigger cal kings were used in breedings, and in turn, the more smaller, CB adults were used, the closer our hobby came in producing smaller cal kings?

I honestly have not made my mind up or have come to a conclusion on this yet, but just have wondered it a lot recently? Perhaps bloodlines and locality DO play a big part, like your post possibly suggests???
-----
Genesis 1:1

I can't speak from a breeders perspective because I have done little of that, but crossing blood lines might be a factor in getting smaller kings. I was just noting what I've seen in the wild from region to region, and it appears to be consistent overall. There will be a mention of this in the getula book.

There "will" be a mention of this in the getula book.

So your telling me the book isn't finished yet?
Come on man!! I'm in the I.C.U. with dehydration,
all because of this book! The Doc told me to stop drooling
and I wouldn't be in this situation! LOL!!
Can I expect it by X-mas '09?
-Phil
-----
Work is the curse
of the drinking class!

I'm expecting it in Jan. '09, but I also expected it in November '08. It's a slow process at the printers. We're trying to do it in mostly color/real printing, unlike the "Mountain Kings" book, which was done on a glorified copier machine with laser printing. I hope it will be worth the wait.

Here's a few of the habitat pics for Cal Kings from the book:

Here's a beautiful Shasta County habitat shot for Cal Kings

-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

...Have you noticed the overall population decreasing in size/length throughout their range? Any specific spots that you may have noticed this or where this is obviously NOT happening?
Are you still seeing those huge examples? Are/were they the norm in that area, or "freaks"?
In my experience w/wild snakes of several species here in FL, it seems we just don't see the really big individuals of some species anymore. Now I asssume (probably incorrectly) that it's generally because they may be living shorter lives. Do you think that is a possibiliy? Do you think that they are adjusting to smaller habitat? Breeding at earlier ages? Growing slower or faster? Has there been studies of this in CA?
Where's my book?
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

I have not noticed any changes in size anywhere, and I've been looking at these things for over 40 years, very intensely over the past 25 years. It's interesting that once you reach Santa Barbara county, even the coastal kings are larger.

That's pretty cool. What % of the habitat is still there when compared to 25 years ago?
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

In coastal San Diego, L.A. and Orange counties, about 10-20%. In western Riverside county, prime lowland grass-about 30%, hilly, less prime-about 90%. Farther north about 95%, except in the Bay area.

Mark:

Good question and observations. Over last 35+ yrs of observations here in CA, what I've noticed is that big snakes like Pituophis are rare near roads. The farther you get from roads (at least those with moderate traffic volume), the more apt you are to see really big snakes. For example, in central California, it's more and more uncommon to see Pits (of the subspecies catenifer) exceeding 5 ft or so. And yet, once you get into more remote settings, the really large adults are still found, those in the 6 ft or longer range. To me, the most reasonable explanation is that road-related mortality accounts for the relative rarity of big old snakes. I have seen this in enough different places to have confidence in this explanation. However, I doubt that the same pattern holds for Cal kings. I suspect they are better at living longer in proximity to roads, given their largely fossorial habits. Although I don't believe there are good data yet available, I would guess they have smaller home ranges, too. Therefore, the "road effect" might be an issue, but not as significant as it is for Pituophis.

Cheers,

Bob

SierraHerps.com

I suspect you may be right - I haven't kept count, but I've probably found almost as many DOR pac gophers as cal kings here, yet I find far more live cal kings than pac gophers. While I don't know the population strength of either, that would seem to suggest that pac gophers are more likely to be hit than kings.

One of the DOR pac gophers I found I was really bummed about - it was probably over 5 feet in length, and I had been on the stretch of road where it was killed just a half hour earlier, before it was killed.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly