Now this I think is definitely true. There is a “hobby standard” and it does favor one side in this and those are the most influential people in the hobby too.
People on both sides seem to feel the way they feel and do not want to be bothered to provide evidence to support their stances.
Speaking as an actual scientist, I have to agree with Crawd’s statement, this is not “science” it is just [bad] correlation of random data points.
I will take it apart a little further… Just because an animal shows an ability to perform a task does not mean that animal is designed for that life style. Sloths are able to swim, but it would be wholly foolish to use that as a logical argument to say that sloths are semi-aquatic. But that is the argument being made here with ball pythons, just because they can climb to a limited capacity does not make them semi-arboreal…
Does this rattlesnake 4m up a tree mean that they are now semi-arboreal?
A simple observation of their body structure tells you balls are not semi-arboreal. I also think it is stretching it a bit to call an eastern rat semi-arboreal. Both species very clearly lack the physiological traits that define a semi-arboreal species. Compare them to a true semi-arboreal like a carpet python or a scrub or a Boa. There are very specific evolutionary adaptations these species have to allow for that lifestyle that ball pythons very clearly do not have
.
.
.
There are some people doing work like this. Lori Torrini (not certain I spelled that right) and Zac Loughman are both pursuing different studies along these lines
.
.
.
I think you are unfairly maligning breeders here. Yes, breeders keep in rack systems. But they do so because it is the easiest and most economical way for them to breed. I do not believe I have ever heard a breeder say that racks are the best way to keep animals, period, end of discussion. They just say that it is best and easiest way to keep high numbers of animals for the purposes of producing at the levels the want/need to produce at.
I will be interested to see what comes of these.
And in case it needs to be said I respect Ashley a lot, I know there’s plenty we agree on with keeping reptiles.
I’m not against questioning the status quo I think that’s good! But it needs to be done based on fact and any long term large scale changes that sweep the hobby need to be based on fact as well and for the right reasons.
If not changes to the hobby of course anyone is free to keep their animals as they see fit if they are providing the essentials.
They are semi-arboreal and have adaptations for said lifestyle. Their belly scales are especially proof of this as they are designed to make climbing easier. If you have ever held one you would see what I mean, as the scales are extremely sharp and sturdy and they hook them into you to hold on (trying to get them to let go requires care as the scales can cut you). The proportions of their body aren’t much different than carpet pythons either, as they can get extremely long but stay slim. The experience I have had with my girl tells me that they are indeed semi arboreal, and I see them in trees/climbing things in the wild more than a species that isn’t semi arboreal. Mind you multiple care sheets and places I have gotten their care information also state that they are semi arboreal. It isn’t just me saying they are, it seems to be common knowledge among those that keep them/keep up with care sheets on them. They are a lot like both beauty rat snakes and Madagascar cat eyed snakes in terms of adaptations, both of which are semi arboreal as well.
So, I’m seeing a common cluster of science fallacies popping up here. Specifically “If it isn’t proven it isn’t true”. Our culture tends to use science as the ultimate marker truth and there is a strong trend toward thinking that anything we haven’t proven either doesn’t exist, or isn’t true. We summarily discard anecdotal evidence, or observations that are not collected from an organized study.
This mindset not only grossly misrepresents the process and limitations science, it has caused a great deal of misinformation and suffering, and people rigidly rejecting and maligning things that either haven’t been tested or that we do not currently possess the ability to test in a scientific manner.
The process of science is designed to be one that starts with curiosity and open-mindedness, of observing the world around us, including things that we ourselves may not have yet observed but others have. It is a mindset that needs to be based in the understanding that there is always more to learn, and acceptance that knowledge will inevitably grow and and change and even what we prove to true may later be overturned. And there are pretty much always variations, outliers, and exceptions to what is proven. So we must allow our beliefs to be flexible, to value ‘truth’ but not use it to make walls around our understanding.
Of course this is not to say that we need to believe things that aren’t proven, we gather the information we can and make our own conclusions. But we need to understand that we could be wrong, and people who believe differently could very well be correct, and maintain that attitude when presenting or being challenged on what we believe.
This is followed by the decision fallacy of summarily rejecting potential correlations, causations, and extrapolations based on a lack of hard evidence. We need to balance between recognizing them, and their potential for truth, without commiting to beliefs about what seems sensible and obvious to us.
Lastly, the combination of too rigidly holding the standard of not anthropomorphizing and the human superiority complex ingrained in our culture has made for a pervasive tendency to underestimate the truths about the natural world. Remember when we believed that humans were the only animals to use tools? To use language? To have emotions and self awareness? To engage in same sex coupling? We are finding consistent and overwhelming evidence that animals aren’t nearly as limited as we choose to believe they are. While they almost never use the same mechanisms that humans do, even ‘lower order’ animals can possess attributes that we tend to reserve as ‘human’.
Again, this doesn’t mean we should anthropomorphize, down that road lies many, many problems, but neither should we assume that an animal can’t possess things that we recognize as similar to our own existence.
Ok I had to re read that a couple times, kind of a long winded argument in very broad generalities and you seemingly contradicted yourself as well but as best as I can tell I would respond as follows:
It’s not fallacious to point out if someone is skewing data to prove an unrelated point. I don’t think anyone is “summarily dismissing” anything, I’m pointing out that in this case Ashley is using a completely unrelated study and offering the findings as “proof” of a need for enrichment when they are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I’m not committing a fallacy. (I think)
I agree there is a place for “open minded curiously” very clearly in science, but after a hypothesis is conceived you DO need to be able to test that with RELEVANT EXPERIMENTAL DATA to confirm, deny, or modify it. As of this point I stated I do not see that coming out from this crowd, but I am awaiting it eagerly to see what they find.
It is not fallacious in the slightest to challenge someone with a new idea to present evidence that can substantiate it.
I would counter and say it IS fallacious to present such an argument as scientific, present unrelated studies to substantiate it, then when challenged on those to fall back to a “feeling based” argument. It’s just bad science.
The rest of your argument seems to be a winding narrative on how we don’t know what we don’t know? And I agree. That’s why we study and experiment to discover new things.
Just because there hasn’t been many studies in reptiles doesn’t mean that enrichment isn’t important. We can extrapolate from data in other species because at this point it’s fairly common knowledge that animals in captivity require enrichment. There aren’t individual studies that show each individual species is capable of feeling pain either, but I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s ok to perform surgery on a lizard or ball python without anesthesia. Surgeries were literally performed on babies without anesthesia up until 1987 because it wasn’t scientifically proven that babies could feel pain. Clearly, some things should be common knowledge without an exact and specific scientific paper to address it. If you spend some time on PubMed there are currently 391 articles addressing enrichment in animals in captivity, pretty much all zoos and laboratory settings require enrichment, it’s not really that ambiguous.
Here’s one in fish - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30467654/.
Here’s one in bobcats - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21442505/.
Here’s on in ferrets - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21549121/
Cockatoos - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31682017/
Macaques - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31778253/
Squirrel monkeys - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21767008/
and more fish - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24680728/
I am afraid that I have rarely been accused of conciseness. 
One reason I made the statements pretty broad was because I was thinking about a number of of things people have said on the thread, not just what you presented.
The counter argument also contains fallacies, I didn’t cover them because you’d already done so.
The impression I get from what you are saying, and perhaps I am reading you wrong, is that unless and until experimental evidence is provided you don’t believe the arguments presented have any merit. Since the kind of evidence you are looking for doesn’t exist, people are providing you with the other things they have used to draw their conclusions. Obviously it’s not going to have the merit of an actual study on the subject but since it’s the closest that we have so far, using it to extrapolate from does have some merit. When it comes to practical application, whether it’s us deciding how to house a reptile or doctors needing to treat someone with an unstudied illness, this kind of ‘next best thing’ conclusion we rely on because it’s better than flipping a coin.
In addition to ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’ the last points I was trying to make was 1. anecdotal observation evidence shouldn’t be dismissed and 2. that if we are trying to decide which way to lean when assessing an animal’s perception and cognition the current bulk of good science indicates that there is a good probability of it being higher rather than lower. Though ‘higher’ does not mean ‘humanlike’.
I wouldn’t quite put it that way but basically. The argument COULD have merit. But If you can’t back up your theory with anything related…it certainly doesn’t help ones case.
Oh same I’m a rambler through and through.
The other side of this argument at least has experience to point to. I’ve taken the devils advocate position of the other side and tried to poke some holes in the “status quo,” and I mean like Brandon said…“weak sounding” or not if you can point to experience with hundreds of animals to back up the argument that they thrive in tubs it’s at least something. A heck of a lot more than nothing.
This place is not for discussing breeders/sellers and their practices.
"Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
Knee-jerk contradiction
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation."
Whether you agree with their views or not, please refrain from bashing other members of our community.
Discussion of the Spider gene and it’s ethics can be taken over to… Ethics of Spiders and Spider Breeding
Thank you.
This is true for humans too, I know all too well!
This is cool, who here would LOVE to go see balls in their native habitat? I would! And who would love to have cb red headed agama? Me!
This just came across my wires. Have not had a chance to read it yet but since you expressed an interest I figured I would flag your attention to it:
Having read through this a few times and after speaking with the author, I would like to note that, because this was written and published in a professional-level journal, the message in it assumes a manner of thought that may not necessarily apply to the everyday hobbyist. To these ends, I would like to step in to my “translator” role and explicitly say that sometimes the publications you find for a given species still fail to give a complete picture of the natural history of the species and, as such, they should not be considered the complete, whole story so critical thought should be used when applying them to adapting changes in husbandry
It was still a great piece to read and actually led me down a hole to another paper through the sources.
I pulled this from one…
All of these are points that need to be addressed in this debate.
My makeshift snake rack is a storage rack you would buy from home depot with 108 (I think) quart sterilite bins. Yes this means I can keep less snakes in a larger amount of space but I think that 32 qt bins are too small. Just to clarify I am not putting down larger breeders or anyone who uses 32 qt tubs and smaller for adult bps just something I wouldn’t do myself. When it comes to enrichment all of my bps have fake leaves and/or branches from outside (sterilized obviously). I think enrichment is good for the snake in my opinion. But take my response lightly as I haven’t been breeding as long as the majority of you.
