Reptile & Amphibian Forums

We frequently see such common posts as, "i've got a log from outside and want to sanitize it before putting it in my cage", or "how do I sanitize leaf litter from outside for inside my cage"... These such posts interest me, as I personally believe that most keepers worry too much about certain things, and not about what really is important.

In an attempt to hopefully get another ineteresting, meaningful discussion going, what is everybody's opinions on "sanitizing" 'outside' objects and substrates prior to introduction-excluding such factors as termite introduction to your house and pesticides...

I'm really talking about bugs/invertebrates being brought into the cage(unkowingly/unwantingly). So many people seem to think that 'hitchikers'(bugs in logs, soil, leaf litter, etc) are bad and pose a serious health risk/threat to their animals... leading to the notion of having to clean or disinfect these materials before introducing them... Just curious as to people's rationalizations of this mentality or any other opinion on this matter.

What are your thoughts on this...
-----
Treemonitors.com

I would personally wash anything from outside to remove any chemical residue, but I am also concerned about the living things. I believe all wild animals carry a parasite load and, although "natural", wild animals generally do not live as long. In addition to the health issue, I think it is also a comfort issue. A creepy crawly might not kill, but it certainly can irritate. The first thing I want to do after I die is look up Noah and ask him why in the world did he put those two chiggers (red bugs) on that boat.

Being into vivariums and aquariums as much as I am, I generally don't tend to agree with the whole "sanitize everything!" mentality. I'd rather let natural processes run their course. For example, in both planted aquaria and planted, naturalistic vivaria, beneficial bacteria are the key to success. Although pathogens may be introduced inadvertently, the beneficial bacteria almost always outcompete them. Creating conditions that are right for the beneficial bacteria usually creates conditions that are not ideal for the pathogens. At least, this is what I've learned through my reading about vivaria and experience keeping aquaria.

In fact, most (if not all) naturalistic vivarium keepers do not change substrate, except every two to five years when the substrate breaks down naturally. This would be horrific to most reptile keepers. However, because the vivarium or aquarium has built up a stable supply of helpful bacteria, the wastes can be broken down into fertilizer, which is taken up into the plants and released harmlessly as other substances. It would actually be detrimental to change substrate in this case, as it would destroy up the stability of the system.

Of course, for the larger species, spot-cleaning of the cage is necessary due simply to the sheer amount of waste produced, but the substrate still does not need to be changed. According to Phillipe deVosjoli, simply stirring the substrate is enough. In theory, however, if the cage was large enough (think room-sized or yard sized for some of the largest reptiles), not even spot-cleaning would be necessary.

Even though I do like rinsing items from outside in order to remove harmful chemicals, I think that a healthy ecosystem inside our cages isn't a bad thing. Dart frogs and day geckos are some of the more fragile herps, and yet they live in environments where sanitizing solutions and 100% sterility are unheard of.

However, if the cage isn't set up to be naturalistic and doesn't use live plants, substrate changing and sterility become a must - because there are no beneficial bacteria to outcompete pathogens, and they can run rampant in this kind of situation.

I'm personally against sterile sweater box setups, and would rather use fully naturalistic vivaria for my animals. My rainbow boa and leucy ratsnake will both be treated to large, planted cages when they are adults. Lurking in the day gecko and dart frog communities, reading about European vivaria, and reading Phillipe deVosjoli's book "The Art of Keeping Snakes" have really influenced my view. So has 10 years of keeping aquaria before I even became interested in reptiles.

Anyway, good topic, this is really interesting. (By the way, Bob - I left a reply to a thread we were discussing on the Tree Monitor forum, if you wouldn't mind reading it and giving me your thoughts. Thanks very much. )
-----
::i believe in joy > http://www.winds.org/nekomi/hope.html

::my homepage > http://www.winds.org/nekomi

My Growing Zoo:

1.0 Husband (Byron) ^_^
0.1 black cat (Shade)
0.1 Brazilian Rainbow Boa (Zia)
1.0 Leucistic Ratsnake (Houdini)
1.2 Cockatoo cichlids (A. cacatuoides yellow-gold)
1.2 Panduro cichlids (A. panduro)

I forgot to mention that this concept is anything but new. Aquarists have utilized this idea for over a decade - without it, aquarium water would need to be changed daily. In fact, there is a company (Marineland Systems) who actually cultures, packages, and sells refrigerated packets of bacteria for use in jump-starting aquaria!

There is even a sect of horse owners emerging who keep their horses in the same manner. They use larger box stalls than most people (at least 12' x 12') and instead of hay, use soft peat moss or soil; instead of removing waste and replacing hay every week, they till the mixture every morning with a rototiller. The amazing thing is that these horses do not develop the common hoof diseases that those on straw or hay develop, and the stall always smells clean instead of manure-filled. Furthermore, flies are not attracted to the site. I think that this is extremely interesting since waste is never removed manually. Tilling the mixture spreads the waste into such a thin layer that bacteria can break it down naturally.

Anyway, just wanted to give some examples outside of reptile-keeping.
-----
::i believe in joy > http://www.winds.org/nekomi/hope.html

::my homepage > http://www.winds.org/nekomi

My Growing Zoo:

1.0 Husband (Byron) ^_^
0.1 black cat (Shade)
0.1 Brazilian Rainbow Boa (Zia)
1.0 Leucistic Ratsnake (Houdini)
1.2 Cockatoo cichlids (A. cacatuoides yellow-gold)
1.2 Panduro cichlids (A. panduro)

Reminds me of all the people worried about the dogs being sick that were orphaned during Katrina....the same dogs that licked their butts, lol
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 MacLotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
0.1 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)

As I have said in an earlier thread, I feel that reptile keepers in general tend to stress and focus on rather unimportant issues regarding their husbandry, and miss what really matters. I feel tht this topic being one of the issues that people tend to get worked up over for no reason.

I know that many of you might be getting sick and tired of hearing me and others say "think outside of the box", but I really cannot see any other/better way of looking at/approaching husbandry and the conditions that we choose to offer our captives.

While I won't get into the benefits of such natural substrates as dirt and leaf litter, I will briefly mention the important things that make up these such substrates. As with the original topic of this thread, most people skeeve out, or cringe at the thought of introducing anything into their cage from the outside, as they fear that these 'naturally occurring' materials(and the organisms contained within) may have some health implications to your captives.

I think the biggest fear that I have been able to extract from most of these people's arguments, is the M-word.. MITES. Of the snake mites that we see so frequently in captivity, most, if not all are not US-native, and most/all species that we see are tropical in origin, passed through the pet trade from one filthy dealer's hands to the next.. (I actually wonder how genetically dissimilar the mites we see in captivity are nowadays, compared to their ancestral and naturally occurring counterparts/populations).

There will of course be mites in anything you bring in from outside. What people do not understand is that parasitic mites make up a mere tiny of a fraction of all mite species. Most mite species are decomposers, and play an integral part in the recylcing of nutrients and processes of forest dynamics. Did you know that we have several SPECIES of mites living within our eyelashes at any given time(doesn't matter how much you shower..haha)? Mites are everywhere, and are one of the reasons why we do not have dead organisms and organic matter piling up everywhere we go.

Other equally-important organisms living within soil, logs, substrate, etc. include nematodes(decomposers), springtails(decomposers), earthworms, isopods, bacteria, fungus, and many many others.. All these work together to cycle nutrients in the soil, and keep the environment "clean". Without them, we would be in deep doo-doo(literally!).

People see these critters as bad news, and do whatever they can to eliminate them, as they do not understand their function or place within the environment. Understand that these organisms are not parasitic, nor do they affect the lives of reptiles in a negative way.

While yes, material from the outside(in areas where there are herps), may possibly contain reptilian parasites(very unlikely), people also fail to understand that parasitism as a whole is focused around very strict and specific relationships between closely related species/genera, etc. The chances of your amazon tree boa contracting some temperate-dwelling coloubrid parasite or pathogen is slim to nill, as like I said, pathogens and parasites are usually host specific. It is also clear to see that most reptilian parasites(excluding ectoparasites) are contracted through ingestion of infected food. The last time I checked, not many people were feeding wild field mice to their corn snakes, etc... If I was really concerned with such a "possibility", it would only be if I were keeping native, indigenous animals, and taking in material from this particular area.. Even in this situation, I would have to say that it's a long stretch..

As nekomi was saying, using decomposer-rich substrates/mediums has been employed by many other hobbyists, including frog keepers, but dating back further to the aquarium hobby.

One of the utmost important natural processes regulating waste accrual in substrates/water/environments is the nitrogen cycle, which could not take place without vital, essential bacteria breaking down ammonium into nitrate and then into the non-lethal nitrite. Without these, the system will fill up with waste material, and will poison all of its inhabitants. Nitrogen-fixing plants, such as Legumes also serve an important role in this process.

By allowing them to stay, these critters and organisms will clean your enclosure, breaking down harmful waste products and chemicals, thus eliminating the need to physically get in and clean, do substrate changes, etc... while allowing you to offer a naturally occurring substrate(leaves, soil, etc), which facilitates natural, instinctive behaviors, regulates humidity levels, provides hiding areas, and at the same time offers an aesthetically pleasing appearance to your enclosure(among other things).

I know several monitor keepers as well as snake and frog keepers, who facilitate the use of isopods and earthworms(among other organisms) within their substrates to clean and maintain waste buildup. Also keep in mind, that monitor lizards have some of, if not THE fastest metabolic rates of all reptiles, which means they must consume an enormous amount of food(also resulting in an enormous amount of waste matter)... These people have never experienced any problems with harmful waste buildup, after several years of utilizing this system, and are very pleased with its success.

As for harmful chemicals/pesticides/herbicides, etc... I really do not see a serious threat in most people's situations when taking an object or substrate in from outside. I would think that spraying an object down with a hose would be all you would need to do in that situation. I would have to say that your animals are probably more at risk from illness attributed to such harmful chemicals through the foods they consume. Take snakes for example.. they are usually fed a diet of commercially bred rodents. These rodents are fed a diet of commercially produced foods, consisting of mostly grains. These grains are not farmed 'organically' without the use of any 'help', as it would not be economically feaseable to do so, and many herbicides and pesticides are used to allow for the greatest potential harvest.. These toxins from the pesticides and herbicides used to grow the grains gains increase in concentration the higher up you go in the food web. This is the same thing as how we need to be careful when eating certain types of seafood, due to the mercury levels that these shellfish and some fish contain...

So to sum all of this up, in my opinion, people overlook what is important, and know virtually nothing of how things work in nature..placing the blame on things they simply don't understand..

I think there is no other better substrates that you can offer your animals, than soil and/or leaf litter. Both are very diverse, come in many different compositions and varieties and offer a huge list of benefits for their use... most importantly allowing natural behaviors to be performed, as well as allowing for meeting certain physiological needs... What benefits do newspaper, cage carpet, repti-bark, yesterday's news, birdseed, walnut shavings or alfalfa pellets serve a reptile?? Answer me that.. such substrates just seem to be more of a convenience to the keeper- not benefiting the animal in any possible way.

I apologize for such a long post.. I have a habit of doing that sometimes/all the time. Take care everybody, thanks for the input so far. Hopefully we can get a bunch of people to chime in on this one.. Cheers folks,

Bob
-----
Treemonitors.com

Bob, I have been reading your posts in this thread and in the "Thinking of Getting into the Business" thread below. They are so refreshing! I greatly enjoyed hearing your viewpoint on husbandry, and you have fired up my interest in observing my herps tenfold.

I really can't think of anything to add except that I hope these methods become more accepted someday. Your talk below about giving our captives the most possible options has led me to reevaluate my rainbow boa's caging more critically, and plan some improvements for her next enclosure.

Thank you for sharing!!
-----
::i believe in joy > http://www.winds.org/nekomi/hope.html

::my homepage > http://www.winds.org/nekomi

My Growing Zoo:

1.0 Husband (Byron) ^_^
0.1 black cat (Shade)
0.1 Brazilian Rainbow Boa (Zia)
1.0 Leucistic Ratsnake (Houdini)
1.2 Cockatoo cichlids (A. cacatuoides yellow-gold)
1.2 Panduro cichlids (A. panduro)

I'm glad I could help! I want to enforce to everyone, that I am not trying to force anybody to change their ways or practices. My only goal in my postings is to try to stimulate people to think about their captives in a more scientific way and intellectual way.. "Open their Minds", if you will. I think that this hobby is capable of so much more, and I believe that it is this general "it's good enough" mentality that so many people have, which keeps it from progressing.

I'm glad that I have been able to get your 'thinking juices' flowing.. As that is what it's all about..

Take care nekomi, have a great day!

Bob

*oh, and about the tree monitor post on the other forum, would it be possible to copy it and repost it on the forum on my website? I no longer participate in the monitor forums on this website, as many of the regular participants there have quite an attitude and the "i'm better than you" mentality.. It's really childish, and I choose not to participate there anymore.

I suppose the other alternative would be to email me. Your call.
-----
Treemonitors.com

Thanks, I will email you.
-----
::i believe in joy > http://www.winds.org/nekomi/hope.html

::my homepage > http://www.winds.org/nekomi

My Growing Zoo:

1.0 Husband (Byron) ^_^
0.1 black cat (Shade)
0.1 Brazilian Rainbow Boa (Zia)
1.0 Leucistic Ratsnake (Houdini)
1.2 Cockatoo cichlids (A. cacatuoides yellow-gold)
1.2 Panduro cichlids (A. panduro)

Bob,

You hit the nail right on the head yet again. At one time I had used bleach solutions to clean everything from branches to rocks when I set up a new cage. I since cut back on using the bleach and I don't ever 'clean' anything that I get from outside and put into a cage. In the last couple years I've re-perched several of my cages and I collected willow branches [very gnarly and twisty - really cool!], to put into my cages. Originally I would spray down the outside of the branches with Provent-a-Mite because it will work on all invertebrates and I was mostly concerned with eliminating wood-boring insects that usually plague decaying wood. I have since given up on spraying P-a-M on every branch I bring in to a new setup. I'm with Bob on this in that the mites most people are worried about are not mites that were introduced from bringing in branches but were the same exotic snake mites that have been passed from dirty breeder to dirty breeder.

I have been contemplating many new ideas along the lines that have been discussed in this thread as well as the earlier thread farther down the page. One concept I'm interested in examining is working with high ventilation caging and using a variety of methods to create microclimates within the cage thus eliminating many of the gripes of cages with excessive ventilation - eg. too much ventilation = too dry, can't hold heat, etc.

The hypothetical 'giant' cornsnake cage that I was talking about in the earlier thread is just such an example of combining natural unsterilized caging furniture, substrates, etc. along with the concepts of microclimates, high ventilation, etc. It all comes back to creating a new frame of reference for thinking about how cages should be setup. It's not enough to simply read a few forum posts about your species and some lame TFH book. You have to really research your species and examine whether the traditional caging is appropriate.

A case in point is how most people keep Taiwan Beauty Snakes. Pretty much all caging made by all manufacturers pretty much neglects the concept of an arboreal setup. Sure, a few companies make a so-called arboreal cage that may be a few inches taller than their standard model. Most of these are at best maybe 30 inches tall or in rare examples 36 inches or maybe even 48 inches. That's hardly arboreal to my thinking, especially when you're talking about a species with a potential maximum adult size of 7 to 9 feet. So, contrary to the way pretty much all other Taiwan keepers house their Beauties, I keep mine in 260 gallon Reptariums which measure 72 inches high by 29 inches deep by 29 inches wide. Again, this a case of doing you're research. I read up on these snakes and their morphology and found that they were highly arboreal in nature. Given the proper caging, they choose to spend much of their time on elevated perches and hide spots.

The great thing about thinking along these lines is that you not only add a new dimension to your herp keeping but at the same time your herps will be able to act more normally in these much more true-to-life, stimulating environments. I would much rather see my snakes crawling around on the branches and either moving upwards towards the heat or down to the floor away from it than doing as a previous poster mentioned where he said his snakes pushed their hides around to get cooler or warmer. How many snakes do you know of that in the wild crawl under a log then move the log out into the sun or into the shade? Well, I'm rambling - suffice it to say that we should all try to innovate when it comes to creating new captive environments.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Matt,

So true! I'll take this chance to mention that your theoretical 8-foot corn snake cage has gotten me thinking - specifically, you listed a dusk-to-dawn dimmer as one of the "features".

I just loved this idea, and believe it or not, I'm going to try to implement it in the next cage for my black ratsnake (1-2 years down the road). I live in OH and the black rats are native here, and I would really enjoy seeing how mine would react to the lengthening and shortening of days throughout the year. My husband is a computer programmer, and following the DIY ideas scattered across a few reef-keeping sites (I also have an interest in saltwater/reef aquaria), we're planning to give it a go with a PIC microcontroller and some good old fashioned hard code. I'm also thinking of setting the moon light on a similar timer to emulate the lunar cycle.

Sounds crazy and overboard? Maybe, but I would love to see how my ratsnake reacts to such conditions, and things sure wouldn't be boring for him. Among reefkeepers, this kind of setup is commonplace because corals rely on light so much to reproduce, so I guess I'm desensitized to going overboard.

Hopefully, if we can get this figured out, I can post the plans so others who are interested can see how to do it too.
-----
::i believe in joy > http://www.winds.org/nekomi/hope.html

::my homepage > http://www.winds.org/nekomi

My Growing Zoo:

1.0 Husband (Byron) ^_^
0.1 black cat (Shade)
0.1 Brazilian Rainbow Boa (Zia)
1.0 Leucistic Ratsnake (Houdini)
1.2 Cockatoo cichlids (A. cacatuoides yellow-gold)
1.2 Panduro cichlids (A. panduro)

I remember reading something a long time ago online about someone who rigged up their computer to control a misting system using some kind of controller. I want to say the controller was called 'X-com' and was a computer/home appliance interface kind of thing but I'm not sure of the name. Anyway he just wrote his own PERL code to control the unit. As far as going overboard, I think it's great! I think more people should go overboard. At the zoo I work at all of our exhibit lighting is run by computer-controlled outlets that turn on our fluorescent lights first thing in the morning along with a few incandescent can lights. A few hours later the system turns on the basking lights which increase the light intensity. The basking lights stay on from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at which point they turn off. If you use some type of computer controlled dimmer you can get an even more realistic progression/regression of light intensity. I also like the idea of using 'moon' bulbs as well. I used to use moon bulbs on all my nocturnal herps but got away from that with my current non-airconditioned apartment. My summer temps get hot enough without adding the extra nighttime heat from incandescent blue bulbs. Now blue LEDs are a whole different thing I would like to explore in the future.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Great post Matt,

One point that you brought up is something that really makes me laugh, in that these cage builders and arboreal snake keepers refer to these 30" tall enclosures as being "arboreal"...The same principle is applied when keepers of such terrestrial species as bearded dragons fail to offer anything more than maybe 2' in height, because they are not "arboreal"...

When you take apart and analyze the term "arboreal",

Arbor=Tree..
Arboreal= Tree dwelling.

I have yet to see an enclosure large enough to be considered an 'arboreal enclosure'. Are M. viridis and C. caninus found 18" or 24"off the ground in the wild? Is this their natural behavior? To me, 24" off the ground would be a terrestrial lifestyle. Heck, there are even turtles that climb to higher elevations than that!!

In the wild, animals know that they are situated high up off the ground; in fact many have evolved adaptations specifically to cater to this lifestyle(ie. C. caninus' enlarged front teeth).

I think that in order to call an enclosure "arboreal", it should be at least 8' tall(and that's being modest). I have yet to see any trees that are 18" tall, or 24" tall. Heck, I don't even know if you can consider something of that height a shrub, much less a tree.

Anyways, that's just been a peeve of mine for a long time- calling an enclosure which measures 24" tall, and has two pvc pipes laying across it as an "arboreal enclosure". To me, that is far from being arboreal, or far from even facilitating an arboreal lifestyle.

I keep my Tree Monitors(virtually exclusive tree dwellers) in enclosures which measure 7' tall, yet I would never consider my enclosures to be 'arboreal', as the trees in which my captives would naturally utilize in the wild dwarf the puny dimensions of my cages, being 60, 70, 80 ' in height. The same thing goes for virtually any other arboreal organism.

There is a HUGE difference between 80' and 18", and I feel that the animals know this through several different techniques/observations. This is also one of the reasons why I admire the general European outlook on herp keeping, as they seek out ways of accomodating their captives in as much space and height as possible, rather than keeping dozens/hundreds of animals in pullout drawers or cramped "arboreal" enclosures/boxes.

...Just another complaint/realization I have come to when analyzing husbandry standards in this hobby. I think that such a topic of "arboreal caging" demands a post entirely to itself..

Cheers,

Bob
-----
Treemonitors.com

Bob,

Something I'm working towards is the ability to house all of my animals in large elaborate cages in the future. I'm realizing more and more that this is really where it's at in naturalistic viviarium design, and for that matter herp keeping in general. We're potentially at the cusp of starting a revolution in herp keeping here if we can only show that it can be done and especially that it will benefit the herps immeasurably. My dream setup would be to have a big enough area to have something like walk-in sized enclosures for most of my herps. I've also been thinking about how to combine enclosures of herps from the same geographic regions - eg. a 'super-enclosure' for my Ball Pythons, African Brown House Snakes, and various species of Plated Lizards - an Indonesian-themed super-enclosure for my Macklot's Python and Borneo Short-tailed Python - a Southeastern U.S. super-enclosure housing my Florida Kingsnake, Miami phase Corn Snake, Ocotee phase Corn Snake, and Yellow-bellied Slider Turtles - anyway, those are just a few examples to give you the idea.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Matt,

Geographically-themed cages like that would be a sight to see. Although I'd imagine that you'd get many negative responses to it, given the current outlook on multiple species and multiple animal enclosures.

But I believe that this is what Phillipe deVosjoli calls "systems herpetoculture" in his book, and I for one would love to see it pulled off successfully.
-----
::i believe in joy > http://www.winds.org/nekomi/hope.html

::my homepage > http://www.winds.org/nekomi

My Growing Zoo:

1.0 Husband (Byron) ^_^
0.1 black cat (Shade)
0.1 Brazilian Rainbow Boa (Zia)
1.0 Leucistic Ratsnake (Houdini)
1.2 Cockatoo cichlids (A. cacatuoides yellow-gold)
1.2 Panduro cichlids (A. panduro)

"Are M. viridis and C. caninus found 18" or 24"off the ground in the wild?"

Actually, M. Viridis is found only a couple feet off the ground in many cases, as their main food is rats. And no, I'm not following you around just to pick apart your posts. If you only have a couple animals, I like the idea of a natural looking setting for them. I have a friend of mine who runs a zoo. The exhibit animals (reptiles) are that way, but the backup cages are quite sterile. He says the public likes to see the animals that way, while the off-exhibit animals are in simple caging for ease of cleaning.
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 MacLotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
0.1 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)

Yes, I understand that, but is "ease of cleaning" what's best for the animals? or what's best for the keeper? That is my argument.

Also, do you have the references for these accounts that you speak about, which place M. viridis at only a few feet off the ground(I'm not talking one or two specimens found at that elevation) and that their diet consists of rats? I am very interested in reading up on these observed aspects of their ecology.

To my knowledge PNG and other islands existing on the Indo-Australian plate/Sahul shelf do not share many of the same species that the rest of western indonesia and southeast asia has. PNG and its neighboring islands do not have any significant abundance of small mammalian prey, such as rodents. What there is a great abundance and diversity of in this particular region is bird species.

You typically do not see many/any rodents south of Wallace's Line(which is northwest of PNG). This is why I find this claim to be interesting, and would love to read up on it.
-----
Treemonitors.com

Bob,

I don't have any references, but I think you'd be surprised at the number of "arboreal" species that are reported as being found less than a few feet off the ground.

Of course, this should not imply that this is where they spend their time. It may just represent where they are typically found by people who are otherwise hindered at greater heights. It may be a biased sample. It should not necessarily represent how reptiles should be kept in captivity.

However, in some cases I actually recommend shorter cages, especially for desert dwelling lizards who are best described as semi-arboreal. In this case it has to do entirely with the inverse square law and how it affects light intensity.

When a wild Chuckwalla, for example, climbs up 2' onto a rock pile the light intensity is basically the same as when it's in the open on the ground. In those cases we're talking about the inverse square of 93 million miles, plus or minue a couple of feet. That works out to zero difference.

But let's say that we keep that Chuckwall in a 3' tall cage that is "naturalistic" complete with rock piles, etc.

In that case the light intensity on top of the same 2' rock pile is nine times greater than on the cage floor. I think this is a huge issue since light intensity is such an important factor in the successful keeping of diurnal, heliophilic lizards.

In my mind, we should be maximizing light intensity where the lizards would otherwise spend most of their time. In the case of many desert dwelling lizards, this would likely be the cage floor. Don't make them climb to a top of a rock to be at their desiried light intensity as this is not a natural behavior. Sure, climbing rocks is, but not due to light intensity issues necessarily.

Of course, this does not necessitate the use of shorter cages. We can still use the described 3' tall cage, but having ledges with additional light sources closer to the ground may be necessary.

For species that do indeed spend considerable time climbing and/or live in rainforest canopies (your tree monitors, for example) reduced light intensity near the cage floor is probably more of a natural condition and not as much of a concern.

Regardless, I think my post defines one set if circumstances where a shorter cage may be warranted, even for a species known to climb.

You bring up some good points and ideas Chris. I may have a different outlook and approach on this issue of lighting, however.

First off, you made a good point about how just because some 'arboreal' species are seldomly found on the ground or near ground level, doesn't warrant that this is represents their lifestyle or ecologies, or that they restrict their movements and spend all of their time at this level. I don't think any reptile species 'activities are limited to only 2' in height(except for those who are unable to climb or are fossorial, etc.), and I'm not speaking just "arboreal" species. Why limit the animal if you damn well know that it is quite capable of, and willing to climb higher?

Also, as you brought up, an inference such as this(finding animals at ground level-therefore that's where they live) is biased, as this is most likely the easiest place for these individuals to be found by us humans, especially in such a thick and dense environment such as the jungles of PNG or South America, where access to, or even visibility of tree canopies are virtually impossible.

Now onto the light intensity subject vs. cage height. You mention desert dwelling animals(lizards, for example). Now the deserts that the animals you mentioned come from are not barron, empty, desserted wastelands, as you would see in the sahara or kalahari, where there is no landscaping except for sand, sand, and more sand. The deserts that you mentioned, while not as thick or dense as a forest or scrubland, sport a great diversity in plant species, usually in the forms of grasses, shrubs, succulents, and euphorbs, along with abiotic objects such as rocks/outcroppings.

Yes, due to the usual lack of cloud cover, these areas are very bright. However, these animals do not spend all of their time out in this full sunlight, out in the open, in the torrid heat. A great portion of their lives are spend in dark, cool, and damp areas, to get away from the harsh surface conditions(fitting their physiological needs at that time). Animals will use such areas as burrows, shade from the plantlife around them, crevices, etc, in their everyday lives. Also, if animals were to remain out in the open all the time, this would increase their risks of predation.

If you were to go out and observe wild lizards in such an environment(most environments for that matter), you would see that they do not spend long periods basking, subjecting themselves to being seen by a potential predator. Basking is usually kept to a minimum duration, however, the animals will normally come out to bask several/many times in any given day.

When they are not basking, they are concealing themselves, whether it be in the protection of a burrow, rock crevice, beneath a bush/shrubbery, etc. These areas are generally darker than up above in the hot sun. So by going through this daily ritual of basking-retreating-basking-retreating-basking...etc., they are constantly moving from areas of greater light intensity to areas of lower light intensity, and vice a versa. They use these varying light intensities as they need them, and will move to get to them.

I think that having varying light intensities within a cage is fine and important, as in the wild, they will not be exposed to/have access to one particular light intensity at any given time, as animals move throughout the day. If an enclosure is set up to accomodate the ability to seek out varying conditions, such as temps and light intensities, et al, I do not see why offering more climbable space/usable space would be harmful.
-----
Treemonitors.com

Bob,

I'm multi-tasking at the moment but want to address something real quick. I think we agree about most of these issues.

>>I think that having varying light intensities within a cage is fine and important

I agree, but my point is that for certain species the light intensity should be maximized as much as possible on the ground which is where they spend their time otherwise. This is not for all species of lizards.

A tall cage can be a disservice to these species, IMO. And this has been born out in behavioral tests on Sceloporus and other species from similar habitats.

It becomes a tradeoff and if I were keeping these species I would chose to have the floor level of the cage as bright as possible. After all, in their natural habitat crawling down to ground level rarely means going to a darker place.

Let them make the choice on light intensity in a way that more closely represents their habitat.

"Also, do you have the references for these accounts that you speak about, which place M. viridis at only a few feet off the ground(I'm not talking one or two specimens found at that elevation) and that their diet consists of rats?"

Dave and Tracy Barker's book, Pythons of the World, Australia. I'm sure not all of them are 2' off the ground, but they climb in search of food, and are also found prowling on the ground. They go where the food is, not just to climb for the "pleasure" of it. Emeralds are not comfortable on the ground, different animal.
I've been in the rainforest in Queensland, although a bit further south than Viridis is found...mostly the Coastal/Jungle carpet transitional range around Cairns and Kuranda, Kuranda being a higher elevation. Some areas are just tall trees, while a large bit is shrubery along open areas and riverbanks. I think most literature shows Viridis to be more rodent than avian feeders, except for the young which probably eat more lizards than anything.
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 MacLotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
0.1 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)

>>while the off-exhibit animals are in simple caging for ease of cleaning.

Yeah, I work at a zoo to and let me tell you - cleaning up after an animal that has done it's business on paper is no where near as quick as simply scooping the feces out of a natural substrate. To change the paper [which is usually thoroughly wet with urates and has also probably stained the bottom of the cage], you have to remove the water bowl, branches, and maybe even the hidebox and even the animal. It takes me about 2 seconds to scope feces out of the cages I have with natural substrates. Of course maybe if that snake just had a water bowl and some crumpled up newspaper to hide in then it would be a different story. But then again that seems to be an acceptable form of caging if we're to listen to you.

>>1.2 MacLotts

By the way do me a favor and please change this - it's spelled Macklot's
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

I'm not really considering actually housing these particular species directly together. I can imagine what would happen if I housed my Florida Kingsnake in the same enclosure as the two Corn Snakes. No, what I'm contemplating is trying to build a super-cage that would exhibit the different habitats and allow each snake to have it's own large enclosure. I envision something like a cage that has one portion showing something similar to a sandy soil scrub grassland type of habitat as you would find over much of Florida - this would be for the Florida King. The cage would then segue into a more upland habitat perhaps with more ground cover and trees, mimicing the habitat of a Miami Corn. The final transition would be to the Piedmont habitat like the Ocotee Phase Corn Snake would be found in - scrub pines, lots of pine and leaf litter on the floor, etc. The key would be to make the super-cage in such a way that you could get the impression of subtley-changing habitat as you looked at the whole setup. Another similar idea would be for my Central and South American species. Again, a super-cage with a humid tropical forest for my Colombian Rainbow Boa, which transitions to a slightly less tropical forest/scrubland habitat for my Central American Boa Constrictor and finally transitioning into a mesic savannah-like habitat for my Spiny-tailed Iguana. Of course at this point we're talking about needing far more space than would be available in the average home. I'm thinking something along the lines of a steel outbuilding would do the trick. Of course at that point, I might as well start charging admission after I've gone to all that trouble.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

It's nice to see people working out thoughts, especially some more in the "know" like Chris.

As just a regular long term hobbyist some thoughts that come to mind are:

That from the time we are kids in school through adulthood we are often taught the importance of cleanliness from examples of third world mortalities, washing our hands to avoid everything from flu, food poisoning etc... Hard to cast that off readily when it comes to our charges we love.

The example of the horse not being bedded with straw instead a "natural" substrate that reduces thrush and the other nasties. yet in this example the horse is not being kept in a natural environment that would entail hundreds of acres like a wild animal. A stall works maybe like our sweater boxes because they are convenient not perfect, convenient?

I have a freind that is Austrian and has kept natural setups for almost 40 years. Substrates with pill bugs and the other things, windows of his house as cages allowing basking that open even in the winter for direct sunlight. Some of this is not new at all. He has had individual lizards live in excess of 20-30 years!

As a regular hobbyist one of the things that also come to mind is that outside, the Suns UV destroys some germs and things and the rain washes away and cleanses right? Is it really realistic to replicate that inside?

Like most everyone here I want the best for my animals I just want to avoid some pit falls. A 7 foot high cage may be a wonderful thing and grand and I applaud the effort but isn't it really nothing compared to the real thing?

Unfotunately for our animals we took them out of the wild for our "amusement" to be painfully honest. Could we maybe paralell our keeping of herps at times not unlike our dogs,cats, horses and goldfish? Theres generally not a real move to replicate their "natural" ways. Can we maybe accept they will never be "wild" again and keep them humanely or just let them live outside and just feild herp?

Just some thoughts.

Bob.

"But then again that seems to be an acceptable form of caging if we're to listen to you."

It's an opinion...you don't have to listen to me. Some people here seem to forget that everyone has their own opinion, and what works for some may not be right for others. Jeez....lighten up You won't catch me on this forum any more...
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 MacLotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
0.1 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)

There....I fixed the spelling. Happy? Too many anal retentives on thiis board for me. And there's quite a difference between being a zookeeper and zoo owner. Bye!
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 Macklotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
0.1 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)

Okay, I'll acknowledge that the spelling gripe was a cheap shot, but then again I worked as a journalist years ago so mispellings tend to grate on me, especially when I catch myself doing it. However, I also wanted to mention that though I disagree with your posted replies to the 'elaborate caging' threads, I wouldn't think that be would reason enough to chuck ever coming to the forum again. These forums are about sharing information and yes even dissenting views. We [Bob and I] objected to your responses on this last topic, you objected to ours - that's the give-and-take of healthy intellegent discourse.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

>> It's an opinion...you don't have to listen to me. Some people here seem to forget that everyone has their own opinion, and what works for some may not be right for others. Jeez....lighten up You won't catch me on this forum any more...

Jaykis,
I took a harsh line in that post because even though you said you weren't purposely picking apart Bob's posts I wonder what the point of repeatedly posting opposition after opposition to these concepts is supposed to acheive. I agree that this is all about being able to share information and express one's opinions. The post is obviously in regards to creating elaborate vivariums and the responses are from people sharing similar ideas of how to change the current lines of thinking in American herpetoculture as regards cage and habitat design. So, why post that we're all just doing something pointless because in your experience and the other people you know this is only for the keeper's benefit and not the animals? Bob and I have been having these discussions to explain to people that while a captive environment will never equal the diversity an animal would experience in nature we can at least try to approximate those conditions as best as we can. It's not about simply settling for a minimalist approach that appears to work but instead is all about challenging what has been the paradigm for herp caging in this country for the last 60 or 70 years. We are having these discussions to try to get people thinking about how they keep their animals and ways for them to improve and enhance the life experience of those animals. Yeah, maybe those snakes will do just fine on newspaper and will long lives and breed, but then again why not give them some choice. Anyway, it's a free country - keep your herps however you want. The other keepers who want to try something different, who want to think of ways to enrich the lives of their reptiles can continue to read on because Bob and I and whoever else is interested will continue to promote original thinking and will continue to push for a paradigm shift in American herpetoculture.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

>I agree that this is all about being able to share information and express one's opinions.<
Thank you for recognizing that these are opinions (untested hypotheses). To do otherwise is junk science.

>The post is obviously in regards to creating elaborate vivariums and the responses are from people sharing similar ideas of how to change the current lines of thinking in American herpetoculture as regards cage and habitat design. So, why post that we're all just doing something pointless because in your experience and the other people you know this is only for the keeper's benefit and not the animals?<

Because this is to "share information and express one's opinions"?

>We are having these discussions to try to get people thinking about how they keep their animals and ways for them to improve and enhance the life experience of those animals.<
>The other keepers who want to try something different, who want to think of ways to enrich the lives of their reptiles can continue to read on because Bob and I and whoever else is interested will continue to promote original thinking and will continue to push for a paradigm shift in American herpetoculture.<

Original, "outside the box", paradign shifting, "revolutions" are not necessarily scientific. I enjoy the discussion as well but object to the condescending delivery.

>I took a harsh line in that post because even though you said you weren't purposely picking apart Bob's posts I wonder what the point of repeatedly posting opposition after opposition to these concepts is supposed to acheive.<

Would you prefer that the revolution go unopposed? Do you oppose repeated posting by "people sharing similar ideas".

My point is, don't on one hand propose that this is a discussion of like minded people sharing ideas (which would be fine) and then claim that everyone some day should share this opinion. This invites opposition.

Jim

PS "Choices" is such a cliche these days. I wish I had saved the article I read the other day that we now have so many choices when shopping that this is actually causing human stress.
Not having done that, I cannot persue this line.

I believe what you are trying to achieve is more of a new political correctness. Nothing wrong with that.

Jim

>>I believe what you are trying to achieve is more of a new political correctness. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't know if I would call it 'political correctness.' I gather you're saying that we're presenting some idea of being more sympathetic to our animals and trying not too offend them. Whereas politically correct speech seems to try to offend no one and please everyone [a concept I think is absurd], this new concept [at least new to America] of vivarium design would be to not 'offend' our animals by providing them more environmentally enriching quarters? I think that's where you were going with that. I think it's an odd characterization but I'll go with it.

However, your prior posting mentioned that I was objecting to Jaykis's repeated opposition postings because they didn't simply agree with the tone of the postings from Bob and myself. Well, what I didn't say that I should have better clarified in that post to Jaykis was this:

He said he was posting to say 'There are different ways of doing things'. However, the whole point of the thread is that the current paradigm in caging in this country is to do it exactly the way Jaykis was saying - sterile, unenriching, environments with little if any options for choice for the animals - what I should've said was that he wasn't getting the point - We were the ones talking about the different way of doing things. If the whole point of the post is about how to do things differently, what is the point of coming on and saying there are different ways of doing things - ie. the way we've always done it. I wasn't looking for a mutual admiration society I was merely trying to point out that his comments did nothing to advance the debate other than reinforce the point that Bob and I were trying to make which is that people need to try thinking about caging in a new way and to NOT except substandard concepts of caging that have become established for all the wrong reasons - eg. ease of cleaning [ease for the keeper], which results in a dull environment utterly lacking in stimulation.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Understood.
Perhaps I would be more accurate to say assertions are being made about the "new paradigm" which are untested hypotheses. What is being promoted is a "new fashion" of keeping reptiles. Fine by me if understood as such.
This seems like trying to fix something without proving it is broken.
Jim

Is it really necessary to throw around words like pardigm shift and revolution instead of refering to current trends. It seems like whatever the topic these days these words are over used and seem like the lofty,haughty long way around to discuss regular things.

I think it's great to be able to discuss things and try to improve husbadry but some of this stuff is hardly "new wave" or excuse me, "third wave" nor is it fresh bold new thinkig and that's a little humbling to us all because some folks have been doing it for years without all the fanfare.

I confess I sit on the fence on this. There are times I am really impressed by some naturalistic cages and there are other times that I appreciate the simplicity of the near lab type cleanliness of modern cages.

Most of us are regular guys trying to do the right thing by our animals and if we want to effect good healthy change or challenges we have to talk to each other not down to each other. Just my two cents and hope I have not offended.

Bob.

No offence taken or intended. I have thought about a display cage using approaches I have heard about. This could be a fascinating aspect to a hobby that is fun. I am just not sure that is more than that. Anything more is mere speculation. So the ideas are of great value, as you eloquently state, for information purposes.
I will confess that any chelonian I would own would have an outdoor compound with a natural setup. Same pretty much true for a lizard (except maybe indoors), especially a large one. Snakes on the other hand, I would need convincing. Putting a venomous snake in a complicated, obstructed enclosure would be inviting disaster.

Virtually all of the rebuttals and arguments that you have voiced detesting the idea of offering different options for our animals to choose for themselves, entail complicating/hindering our efficiency, cost, or ease of caring for these animals.... the needs of you, the keeper- what YOU want..you you you.

What exactly did you mean by this?
" Putting a venomous snake in a complicated, obstructed enclosure would be inviting disaster."

Would this be disasterous to the snake's health and well being? or yours? Again, from the sounds of this, it seems as if you are making the choices for your animals based on YOUR needs, not what the animal's are.

My opinions and thoughts towards reptile keeping revolve around letting the animals decide for themselves what they want, and what they don't want. I experiment with my conditions, as the lives of reptiles are quite dynamic, and their physiological needs are not the same, all the time; which is why I have a hard time understanding why people force their captives to live under the same exact conditions all of their lives.

I am quite aware that it is impossible to offer every single variable and factor governing their lives out in the wild, but why limit ourselves to the bare minimum of what they can handle? Why the "it's good enough" mentality? I think that this is what me and Matt have been talking about, and perhaps offering an 'alternative' approach/way of thinking about the animals we keep. Ultimately, I feel that the decision that people make in keeping their animals in 'simple', 'sterile' conditions comes down to the keepers themselves, and not the animals being subjected to the conditions.

You can continue to keep your animals under static, nonvarying conditions, as that is clearly your right as a keeper. I am not arguing that you cannot, or shouldn't do that. I have merely defending my statements/opinions on how I think herps should be kept, just as you have. Like I have pointed out, I for one choose to experiment and test what conditions my animals favor and do best in. From what I have seen from your posts, you have not/do not experiment with your conditions, as you claim to have been keeping your snakes in the same fashion for the past 20years or so...

How can you possibly learn more about your captives/grasp a better understanding of what they are and need, without experimenting at all? I for one constantly choose to seek out a better understanding of my charges..

What Matt and myself are suggesting, is nothing more than approaching your husbandry through looking at your captives in a different perspective and outlook, which viewers of this fora can either accept or dismiss... That is up to them; we are merely putting it out there for your discretion..just as everybody else voices their thoughts and opinions through public fora such as this one.

Thanks again for the discussion; to each his own... Cheers folks,

Bob
-----
Treemonitors.com

Bob,

I guess we're just going to have to quit 'proseletizing' to the readers of this forum. I'm sure this discussion has opened some eyes but it has caused far more conflict in terms of semantics, objection to the use of certain words/descriptions, etc. We aren't doing anything that hasn't already been done by someone else. The Europeans have been doing naturalistic vivarium design for decades. I was discussing this thread with my fiance who was surprised that there can be so much controversy about how to keep herps. She thought that if you took a poll of people who were not herp keepers and asked them if they thought a sterile cage was better or a naturalistic cage was better they would invariably pick the natural cage. Of course that's all conjecture until someone does that poll. What I find frustrating is the continued opposition to this type of thinking when it comes to captive habitat design. I guess all we can do is just keep posting pics of interesting stuff we've done with naturalistic designs and post anecdotal information regarding the behaviors observed by the animals housed in those habitats.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Matt,

I appreciate your thoughts and Ideas. I apologize if I sounded like a jerk to you.

On a side note. Have you ever checked out Frank Retes' posts on the Kingsnake Forum? Real insightful guy with loads of experience. He has talked about some of the things you are trying to get across here.

After listening to him though talking about how milks and kings can be active at all periods of time underground a "natural" cage sounds like a 10'x10'x10' box filled with rocks with a foot or two at the top for heat lites. A big unatractive ant farm of sorts. I gotta stick with lite plastic cages in that area of herps. My back hurts just thinking of a cage like that! lol Your insights are appreciated. Bob.

>> I appreciate your thoughts and Ideas. I apologize if I sounded like a jerk to you.

Well, I do tend to get wordy sometimes and people can take that the wrong way. I tend to think that my audience doesn't want to be talked down to so I tend to use more technical language sometimes which I suppose could be construed as condescencion.

>> After listening to him though talking about how milks and kings can be active at all periods of time underground a "natural" cage sounds like a 10'x10'x10' box filled with rocks with a foot or two at the top for heat lites. A big unatractive ant farm of sorts.

I am familiar with Frank Retes posts and especially what he's done to revolutionize how many species of monitors are kept now vs. how they used to be kept. Of course not everyone does things the Retes way but those people aren't the ones succeeding with those species either. As far as the sandbox cage goes, it comes back to what Bob/odiatriad was saying in that, do we set up our cages for the animal's benefit or ours? In the case of something like sand boas, the perfect cage has a lot of sandy soil and you never see any more of the snake than it's beady little eyes. You can achieve the same thing I suppose with newspaper to a certain extent - so who does the natural cage benefit? It gets tough when you start to look at it from that perspective. I think it's really a case by case basis.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Hi Matt,
Actually, a poll sort of like this was conducted.
Several years ago in Florida an animal rights group protested the use of farrowing cages for hogs. These devices are used to prevent the female from crushing the neonates. This protest became a vote for a State Constitutional Amendment to stop the use of these cages. The hog farmers lost to the animal rights people. I found the tactics to be alarmist and the hog farmers were underdogs from the start. Farrowing cages are now constitutionally prohibited in Florida.
I am not sure people with no interest or knowledge can make such judgements.

Respectfully,
Jim

>Virtually all of the rebuttals and arguments that you have voiced detesting the idea of offering different options for our animals to choose for themselves, entail complicating/hindering our efficiency, cost, or ease of caring for these animals.... the needs of you, the keeper- what YOU want..you you you<
Where have I ever said this? I have consistently and simply maintained a lack of evidence for claims being made.
>What exactly did you mean by this?
" Putting a venomous snake in a complicated, obstructed enclosure would be inviting disaster."

Would this be disasterous to the snake's health and well being? or yours? Again, from the sounds of this, it seems as if you are making the choices for your animals based on YOUR needs, not what the animal's are. <
Obviously this is for the safety of the handler. Why do you even keep reptiles if not for your needs. Do you think the reptiles need captivity?
>My opinions and thoughts towards reptile keeping revolve around letting the animals decide for themselves what they want, and what they don't want. I experiment with my conditions, as the lives of reptiles are quite dynamic, and their physiological needs are not the same, all the time; which is why I have a hard time understanding why people force their captives to live under the same exact conditions all of their lives.<
All I keep asking for is how the hypothesis has been tested. Could some results of controlled experiments be published?
>You can continue to keep your animals under static, nonvarying conditions, as that is clearly your right as a keeper. I am not arguing that you cannot, or shouldn't do that. I have merely defending my statements/opinions on how I think herps should be kept, just as you have. Like I have pointed out, I for one choose to experiment and test what conditions my animals favor and do best in. From what I have seen from your posts, you have not/do not experiment with your conditions, as you claim to have been keeping your snakes in the same fashion for the past 20years or so... <
Again, provide evidence for animals favoring and doing best in your habitats. When did I ever say anything about 20 years? Was this post really meant for me? I have stated virtually none of the things you claim. "you, you, you", come on man.

Thanks,
Jim

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

>>Again, provide evidence for animals favoring and doing best in your habitats.

Here are a few excerpts from:

Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles Ed. Clifford Warwick, Frederic L. Frye and James B. Murphy [1st edition 1995]

Chapter 5 Naturalistic versus clinical environments in husbandry and research
by Clifford Warwick and Catrina Steedman

5.5 Conclusions
'Preferences for either naturalistic or clinical environments seem primarily founded on long-established pratical regimes rather than broad conceptual and scientific approaches. However, increasing data concerning the psychological, ethological and physical requirements of reptiles suggest that animal well-being is best served in naturalistic conditions.'

'Behaviors observed in animals during this study indicate that reptiles in naturalistic environments were the least stressed, and those in clinical environments the most stressed.'

5.5.1 Naturalistic conditions
'Experimental, empirical and anecdotal evidence is available that suggests positive influences on the psychological, ethological and physical condition of animals. Empirical and anecdotal evidence is available that suggests value for practical convenience, and research protocols. Experimental, empirical an anecdotal evidence is available to suggest that problems are controllable or that there are no endemci factors that compromise 'holistic' animal health, practical convenience and research protocols.'

5.5.2 Clinical conditions
'No evidence is available that suggests positive influences on the pyschological, ethological and physical condition. Empirical [little] and anecdotal [little] evidence suggests value for practical convenience, and research protocols. Available experimental, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that there are negative influeences on the psychological, ethological and physical condition of animals.'

'In general husbandry, there appears to be no justification for failing to provide environments that are as natural as possible for the species concerned.'

'Overall, therefore, the advantages of clinical environments over naturalistic environments may be more PERCEIVED than REAL.'

'Clinical environments are obviously unnatural and because of this perhaps it is prudent to question constantly what effects such facilities might be having on both the occupants and any research endeavours.'

So, there you have it. A paper presented on the pros and cons. I have just given you the high points. If anyone thinks I'm showing only the stuff that bears out my arguement, you're welcome to go to your local university science library or public library and see if they have this book or can acquire it on inter-library loan for you so you can read for yourself.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Thank you, YOU continue to be a gentleman.
I have never expressed opposition to natural keeping of reptiles and have even mentioned a personal preference toward this for chelonians and lizards. My question remains about snakes. Where these specifically mentioned in the reference cited?

Jim

'Most of the material for this chapter is derived from a report to the Commission of th European Communities based on a one-year investigation of ethological and biological considerations involving reptiles in scientific studies.' [Warwick et. al., 1992]

There are no specific mentions of species during the article, but the sources cited shows that in fact there were some articles directly related to snakes in captivity that were used as source material for this article. It is also interesting to note their definitions:

Naturalistic: medium to large size; including unrefined organic substrata; abundant plantlife; abundant seclusion places; furnished [refined or unrefined organic to inorganic] boundries; frequent inclusions of conspecifics where possible and appropriate.
Clinic: medium to small size; paper, plastic, or foam substrata; no plantlife; few seclusion places; unfurnished boundries; infrequent inclusion of conspecifics where possible and appropriate.

This article is packed with interesting observations regarding behavior and health and the effects on both in regards to housing in either clinical or naturalistic caging.

'Spacious, naturalistic enclosures invariably incorporated examples of normal behavior but often also abnormal and problematic behavior. Clinical conditions, however, ALWAYS [my emphasis] included abnormal and problematic behavior, but frequently NO [my emphasis] normal behavior.'

This article was one of the best ever written to my knowledge that truly examined many of the aspects we've been discussing anecdotally on this forum.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

AHHHH, real science (not jargon, which I do indeed understand). I would have to admit (finally) that my enclosures are probably somewhere in between. Probably larger than average, I use plastic plants and vines and such (not being able to keep the real things much alive by experience). Substrate is always paper. Heating is overhead.
Assuming that aberrant behavior in a snake falls along the lines of nose rubbing and excessive roaming, I see none of that. Obvious parameters like appetite and growth are fine. No health issues to speak of.
Thanks for the help.
Jim
PS I still would not keep venomous in anything more elaborate than what I use. Could you imagine the fun of dealing with a green mamba with functional hiding places. LOL.

Almost forgot: Before anybody else says it, that venomous example is for me. Me, me, me.

>>Almost forgot: Before anybody else says it, that venomous example is for me. Me, me, me.

Venomous can be kept in naturalistic cages if the design is executed properly. I work at a zoo with a large walk-in exhibit housing 5 Aruba Island Rattlesnakes [Crotalus durissus unicolor]. We routinely walk in to service the cage but it's all done with precautions - eg. long pants and over-the-calf height boots, snake hook in one hand and long-handled feces scoop in the other hand. Of course how many private keepers can keep venomous in a walk-in enclosure? Another example would be a guy I do some exhibit work for. He currently has just about the largest and most diverse collection of crotalids on display. All of the snakes are housed in naturalistic enclosures yet he's still able to service the cages safely through a proper protocol of using tools and shifting the snakes to holding cages if necessary. And before you ask, he also does this for dangerous exotics such as a Jameson's Mamba, Bushmasters, Fer-de-Lance, etc. Anyway, I'm just saying it can be done, you just have to carefully plan the enclosure design and how you're going to service it.
-----
Matt Campbell
25 years herp keeping experience
Full-time zookeeper
Personal collection - 21 snakes (9 genera), 20 lizards (4 genera), 6 chelonians (2 genera)

Too Cool! Thanks again for taking the time to disseminate information in a calm manner. Shall we move on?
Jim
PS Between you and I, I will not be entering the discussion on substrate impaction above. Years ago (pre-internet)I aquired a baby chuckwalla and reared it with the best information of the time. A 55 gallon aquarium with a big pile of river rocks and play sand is probably considered "natural" for a four inch specimen (or at least was then). I superheated a basking spot and gave a bland diet of greens and no water (ever). I don't recall if reptile UVB lights were around but I supplemented whatever was there with BL blacklight. That gal is still with me today (14 years later)under the same conditions but larger enclosure (and larger body). I don't know where the silly idea came from that I am "anti-natural" and have only raised snakes under sterile condition for 20 years. I think I got my first snake maybe 10 years ago. Anyway, I no longer need the headache of dealing with a crazy who has the sole agenda of showcasing "sterile" scientific knowledge with no understanding of the scientific process. Thank you again for not falling in that category. Glad no-one else is reading this far down as this is way to sentimental for me. LOL.