» Site Navigation
2 members and 648 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,905
Threads: 249,105
Posts: 2,572,111
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
I realize that's the focus of your argument, but when discussing feeding live, it's impossible to escape the alternative methods as this would otherwise be an uncontrollable factor and no longer a particularly relevant discussion.. unless you were debating whether or not to keep ball pythons at all.
Who's arguing here? I am presenting facts that prove a point and refuting supposition.
When discussing wether or not live feeding is safe it's extermely easy to "escape the alternative methods" as you put it. Just don't talk about them. My statement is "live feeding is safe" and has nothing to do with feeding FT or PK. I really don't understand the need to bring up other methods, but if they are brought I will answer them to steer back to my point. As far as I'm concerned FT or PK don't have to be discussed at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
As has already been discussed, it is SAFER to feed dead properly than to feed live properly. Now, I would agree with you that the difference is quite minute, yet it still exists. For that reason, whether or not it's worth your while to take advantage of this difference is highly dependent on the number of animals you keep.
How minute? And at what point does something become so minute that it really isn't anything? It's my personal feeling that compared to successes the number of live feeding accidents makes the risk so small that it can be discounted just as much as the risk associated with using heating elements, normal every day accidents, or a whole list of things that "could" harm your ball python.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
You used the analogy of driving a car earlier; let's just say live is a regular car, and feeding dead is an armoured car that can only go up to a maximum of 30mph, where the only differences is the improved safety and slower speed, with all else being equal. Now, if you only need to drive 10 blocks to and from work each day where the speed limit is 35mph, it's probably worth it to drive that armoured car. However, if you need to drive 100miles to work when the speed limit's 100mph, it no longer makes sense to drive the armoured car.
LOL ... talk about stacking an example to favor a particular side of a discussion! Armored car? Your kidding right? I'd prefer to keep within the bounds of reality ... If you're so paranoid that you need to drive an armored car to work, than I'm guessing you wouldn't even consider feeding your ball python live. And that would be just fine with me! :D
-adam
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki
How minute? And at what point does something become so minute that it really isn't anything?
In the case of feeding live to ball pythons, I don't believe there's any point at which it's minute to the point of being dismissed completely, because you feed live several times, not just once. Let's just do the math here... you suggested 0.01% for 10,000 feedings a year? There would then be a 63% of an incident occuring in any given year. Over 10 years (100,000 feedings), it goes up to over 99.99%. Realistically, I think there's less than 0.01% of a serious injury occuring... possibly even a few orders of magnitude less... but how much less, I don't really know, so I would never disregard it completely.
LOL, I would've used a fuel efficient SUV as an example but that would've been even more unrealistic!!!
In all seriousness though, I didn't mean an armoured car as in what they use for banks, but just a car with a tougher body than usual that would have some increase in safety but where you would still be subject to risk. Perhaps I should've said an old volvo station wagon? Purely a hypothetical example, but I think it illustrates the balance of cost vs benefit well.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
you suggested 0.01% for 10,000 feedings a year? There would then be a 63% of an incident occuring in any given year. Over 10 years (100,000 feedings), it goes up to over 99.99%.
No, I suggested 10 examples of live feeding accidents on this thread against my 100,000 live feedings over the course of the last 10 years.
That would be a .01% within all of the live feedings discussed in this thread. A little bit different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
Purely a hypothetical example, but I think it illustrates the balance of cost vs benefit well.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
-adam
-
Carson helped me find that thread I mentioned before but couldn't find. Here it is.
http://www.ball-pythons.net/index.ph...c1fe412ac2963d
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen
This could go on forever. I think I've said all I need to say on this topic.
Welcome back gen! :D
No offense gen, but your example of a live feeding accident was not exactly what I was talking about .... I advocate live SUPERVISED feeding.
Here's what the owner had to say about his/her supervision of thier animal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
I'll definately watch him more closely! I usually do, we were just running late on a movie.
"Running late on a movie"? What are most movies 90 mins? 2 hours? And that's if you assume the "movie" was seen at home on television or DVD, if the "movie" was in the theatre, the timeframe could have been much longer. Not really my idea of responsible ownership if you ask me. Not to mention the fact that the snake was deep in blue and did not have the ability to properly see or detect heat when it was left unsupervised with a live rodent.
Sadly for that poor ball python that bite could have been avoided if the owner cared a little more for their snake and a little less about watching a movie.
This just goes more to my point about the vast majority of feeding accidents happening to careless owners and that the RESPONSIBLE feeding of LIVE is SAFE.
-adam
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki
I have a couple of thoughts about your statement above.
1. Sounds like the animal that was bitten was a recent aquisition. A snake that has recently changed homes can remain stressed for a while. (Especially if it came in with a nose rub scar indicating that it's previous owner may not have been top notch when it comes to care). We all know that stressed ball pythons may not be the best feeders to begin with, but I would also contend that a stressed ball python is more likely to mis-strike a rodent or coil improperly if it does eat.
2. Personally I wouldn't feed a ball python in a bathtub. The cold surface coupled with the difficulty of the snakes ventral scales to get a good grip (i'm not even going to ask about the "loose substrate" thing :D ) would certainly make me uncomfortable and stressed if I were a ball python. Also, taking this snake out of the security of it's home and placing it into a large cold cavernous (to a ball python) area with a rodent was certainly not the optimal conditions for feeding. The stress of this situation could very well be the cause of the accident. Under more optimal conditions for your ball python, this may not have occured.
Ball pythons need and love security ... A nice warm dark place that touches them on all sides. If you take them out of that and throw them in the exact opposite, I would imagine that they are not at their best.
-adam
1. I had already said she was a recent acquisition, and that I was feeding her live rats because that was what she had been fed previously. Her previous owner was not ideal, keeping her in an aquarium with a mesh top, on corn cob pellets, providing no humid hide, but she had been fed regularly, handled regularly, and given supplemental heat and a hide. She has never been headshy with me or taken the s-position toward anything but prey and has never hesitated to feed, even the first time I offered her f/t.
2. I wouldn't have fed her in a bathtub if I thought it was safe for her to feed in her enclosure or if she were small enough to feed in any of the rubbermaids I had available. Her two previous feedings had also been in the bathtub, and she'd done just fine. I didn't want to risk injury to her by giving the rat more of an advantage than she had by feeding her in her own enclosure. Happily, she's now ensconced in a suitably-sized Sterilite with belly heat and newspaper substrate, but I changed her home gradually, rather than all at once in order to reduce the stress caused by changes (first adding a hide, second covering most of the top with contact paper, third changing her water dish, fourth adding belly heat, fifth changing her substrate, sixth moving all those things to a new enclosure).
This may not have been optimal feeding conditions for her, but she was not a problem eater and has had a very good health history overall. Further, she had already eaten successfully under identical conditions more than once.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marla
This may not have been optimal feeding conditions for her, but she was not a problem eater and has had a very good health history overall. Further, she had already eaten successfully under identical conditions more than once.
I understand that she did have success twice before, but under stessed conditions, mistakes are far more likely to happen no? Think like a ball python for a second (if you can imagine), can you see anything secure and comfortable about a big 'ole cold bathtub? Lack of security = stress.
I am of the belief that the snake could have successfully fed on live over and over again without being bit if she had been given a safe stress free environment to feed in.
Why is it that my 10,000 plus live feedings a year every year is considered to be lucky by some posters on this thread and your 2 successful feedings in the tub prior to the bite is not? I would say that bite was gonna happen sooner or later in those conditions.
-adam
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki
Welcome back gen! :D
I know, I was SO going to be done with this thread!!! Just wanted to add that link since Carson helped me find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki
No offense gen, but your example of a live feeding accident was not exactly what I was talking about .... I advocate live SUPERVISED feeding.
I kind of find it interesting that you advocate live SUPERVISED feeding, yet if I remember correctly, that's not what you practice. Didn't you say you just drop the mouse in and walk away?
By the way, when I said this could go on forever, I wasn't implying that anyone was "asking me to". I simply meant no matter how long this thread goes on, no one is going to convince you that live feeding isn't safe, and you're not going to convince me that live feeding is safe. This is an agree to disagree situation.
And now I'm really done.
For reals this time!!!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen
I know, I was SO going to be done with this thread!!! Just wanted to add that link since Carson helped me find it.
You can't stay away, I'm way too much fun! :lol: :lol: :D 8)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen
I kind of find it interesting that you advocate live SUPERVISED feeding, yet if I remember correctly, that's not what you practice. Didn't you say you just drop the mouse in and walk away?
Sure, but I know my snakes very well and they have been conditioned over years and years to eat live. I have conditions set up perfectly for feeding them live food. If I were to take in a new animal, I would definitely sit and watch it for it's live feedings until I felt it was familiar with the process. For keepers with novice and intermediate levels of experience I absolutely reccommend close supervision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen
no matter how long this thread goes on, no one is going to convince you that live feeding isn't safe
If there was comelling evidence that showed it to be unsafe I would be the first one to start loading up my freezer. One or two examples of accidents due to poor choices by the owner and some pictures off the internet of snakes chewed up by keepers that left rats in with them for weeks unspervised is not going to convice me. If you want to convince me, show me REAL EVIDENCE that a properly cared for snake being fed a live rodent under supervised, controlled conditions is unsafe.
I don't understand how someone can beleive something to be true "just because". Where is the evidence to back up your statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen
and you're not going to convince me that live feeding is safe.
And why exactly is that? Is it because with your vast experience in keeping ball pythons you can be certain that it's true? Because you know this species so well that it's obvious that feeding them live isn't safe?
I've given my points as to why I know that feeding live is safe over and over, where is your data gen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen
And now I'm really done.
I hope not, I'd miss ya :D :wink:
-adam
|
