Are ball pythons even [I]slightly[/I] arboreal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gardenfiend138

I definitely agree with this... I think it's one of those things where some people would understand saying bps are semi-arboreal, but that technically speaking it is not an accurate descriptor. I don't know much about this, but are any snakes actually considered "semi-arboreal" technically speaking? It seems like arboreal is one of those black or white kind of subjects...please correct me if I'm wrong!

---

They climb trees. It has been proven that they efficiently climb in order to take prey in trees. This is a fact. Whatever label we put on them at that point is moot, the fact remains climbing is more natural to them than being put in tupperware drawers.

The argument that they don't climb or aren't proficient at climbing has been thoroughly debunked.

At some point recognition has to be made that many of the breeders who keep their snakes in tubs and feed them the same meal over and over again are providing only the bare basics of what is needed - namely opportunities to thermoregulate, security and food.

What is advocated in the name of conserving space and making husbandry as efficient as possible is not necessarily congruent with how these animals live. It is a fact that they climb, and they have a varied diet.

So when someone asks if they can keep a ball python in an enclosure with opportunities to climb, the answer is yes. Provide thermoregulation areas, provide security and provide the rest of the required husbandry parameters and then adding some branches isn't going to present a risk or an unnatural situation for your snake.

Tank you very much skiploder and kitedemon for the information you bring to the table, it is very much appreciated! And I agree with you skiploder, the term used is irrelevant, it'e the behavior that's important, I was just trying to get some clarification, and thank you.

And to KITEDEMON, thank you for the cited information you provide. I'm sorry for not asking permission to link to the evidence you cited, I didn't want it to seem like I was dragging you in here which is why I didn't want to actually post your name. I hope this was okay with you, and welcome any bp.net etiquette advice if I breached it!

No problem, I have no problem with linking to a post I reference them for a reason so people can look up the article and read it for them selves.

Skip as usual sums things up really well. This always seems to be an extension of the tub/tank argument. Which also is silly, a tub can be made to work and raise healthy Royals. A tank can too, there are just differing challenges, custom enclosures can as well and they as well have differing issues. The thing that makes a set up work or not work isn't the tools it is the person whom looks after them.

I have to disagree and say that the terms we use to define these snakes is very important. Further I would say that there behavior in captivity does not in anyway prove what their behavior in the wild is. The problem I have is that merely demonstrating what an animal can and will do in the wild tells us nothing about how we should keep that animal in captivity. Its a starting point but not the final say. Again I will compare humans to BP's knowing full well that we are a far more adaptable species. If an alien species were to come down and abduct humans to keep as pets how would they keep those humans? If they abducted people who live above the artic circle they might be fed a diet high in fat and kept at near freezing temperatures with low humidity. Taken from the tropic they would be kept with plenty of water to swim at high temperatures and high humidity with a diet high in fish fruits. If enough study was done they would find that neither is an ideal habitat. The question is not what will a BP do in the wild and what will it eat. The question is under what circumstances will a BP thrive. Further the question becomes what is the easiest environment to keep a BP and still have it thrive. If you think you have answered those questions then great. Pointing to how an animal lives in the wild is not necessarily helpful.

Yes terms are important, I dappled in biology when in university so I am no expert. The OP asked if they could be 'slightly arboreal' not a scientific term but one that is understood to be somewhere between semi-arboreal and terrestrial. There is enough evidence that that can be made to say that they are sometimes found in trees, 6% of prey items was found to be avian species in that particular study. They do climb in the wild, saying they cannot climb is simply not true at all.

Do they need to climb? No, that also has been proven. Should we give them that chance, is a very thorny topic. Breeders can't allow it due to simple economics, it is not a requirement and space being at a premium not feasible. The question is for the rest of us to answer for our selves.

We strive to create a bit of captive Africa in our homes. How close we come to natural is a question of preference. If there are any studies about naturalistic vs minimalistic I have not found one yet. With out a proper study it is impossible to say if there is or is not a any benefit to the snake. They are very inquisitive creatures and the opportunity to climb, if practical, might have no benefit but it also presents no harm either. What is the harm if they are provided the opportunity to climb with in their enclosure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

Yes terms are important, I dappled in biology when in university so I am no expert. The OP asked if they could be 'slightly arboreal' not a scientific term but one that is understood to be somewhere between semi-arboreal and terrestrial. There is enough evidence that that can be made to say that they are sometimes found in trees, 6% of prey items was found to be avian species in that particular study. They do climb in the wild, saying they cannot climb is simply not true at all.

Do they need to climb? No, that also has been proven. Should we give them that chance, is a very thorny topic. Breeders can't allow it due to simple economics, it is not a requirement and space being at a premium not feasible. The question is for the rest of us to answer for our selves.

We strive to create a bit of captive Africa in our homes. How close we come to natural is a question of preference. If there are any studies about naturalistic vs minimalistic I have not found one yet. With out a proper study it is impossible to say if there is or is not a any benefit to the snake. They are very inquisitive creatures and the opportunity to climb, if practical, might have no benefit but it also presents no harm either. What is the harm if they are provided the opportunity to climb with in their enclosure?

---

When Robert Seib was still keeping indigos, he used to keep them in these amazingly large, spacious cages with japanese maples in them. When I asked him about them, he told me that in his studies, it was observed that when hunting, indigos sighted trees looking for the outlines/silhouettes of ophiophagus prey items i.e. - rat snakes and the like and then took to the trees after them.

He allowed them the opportunity to climb and exercised them in ways which more closely mimicked the type they would get in the wild.

Now, many other indigo breeders have never studied them in the wild and will tell you that they can live perfectly happy lives in a terrestrial cage. While that may be true, why not provide them the opportunity to exercise their bodies as nature intended them to?

I'm not against keeping a ball python in a 41 qt tub - it has been proven they can live long lives when kept as thus - however, if the keeper so desires, what is wrong with giving them a little more room, a little more varied diet, and perhaps placing a dead quail or chick in a branch for a little change of pace?

Well, as you stated in your above quoted post - absolutely nothing. I am sometimes a little amused by the vehemence (and no I'm not targeting anyone in this discussion) in which some people argue against providing them this opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

I have to disagree and say that the terms we use to define these snakes is very important. Further I would say that there behavior in captivity does not in anyway prove what their behavior in the wild is. The problem I have is that merely demonstrating what an animal can and will do in the wild tells us nothing about how we should keep that animal in captivity. Its a starting point but not the final say. Again I will compare humans to BP's knowing full well that we are a far more adaptable species. If an alien species were to come down and abduct humans to keep as pets how would they keep those humans? If they abducted people who live above the artic circle they might be fed a diet high in fat and kept at near freezing temperatures with low humidity. Taken from the tropic they would be kept with plenty of water to swim at high temperatures and high humidity with a diet high in fish fruits. If enough study was done they would find that neither is an ideal habitat. The question is not what will a BP do in the wild and what will it eat. The question is under what circumstances will a BP thrive. Further the question becomes what is the easiest environment to keep a BP and still have it thrive. If you think you have answered those questions then great. Pointing to how an animal lives in the wild is not necessarily helpful.

---

Ball pythons don't live in a greatly varied habitat - they live in fairly geographic similar locations throughout their natural range. Optimum thermoregulation temperatures and prey vary little throughout the range.

That's why we try not to apply cookie-cutter approaches across species lines. Montane species from Africa (afromontane) have completely different needs from those, let's say, on the savannas.

What I am sure of is that ball pythons aren't found in tupper ware boxes in the wild either. They also aren't obligate rodent feeders.

Very few people on this board can claim that they have kept their snakes into old age. That's not a knock, just an observation of the age of many of the posters and the transient nature of the hobby.

This comes into play because there are some of us who have kept different species well into the limits of their lifespans. What we are learning is that sometimes an attempt to dumb down husbandry to the lowest common denominator can have unintended long term affects.

Example: for well over 11 years, I have kept my original group of thrasops on an all rodent diet. What has occurred as a result is an almost across the board issue with fatty tumors and cholesterol deposits on the corneas. My one captive dispholidus died riddled with tumors and blind in both eyes. My oldest thrasops female has had several surgeries to remove tumors and is completely blind.

These are sister species which in the wild, are mainly reptile and bird eaters. My vet is 100% convinced that the diet I have provided them out of convenience has resulted in these issues. As a result, the next generation is being fed a more natural prey model.

Likewise any attempts to keep select other species confined in boxes, in the manner balls are kept, can results in egg binding and other health issues.

So to respectfully disagree with your stance as to how an animal lives in the wild, I would argue that oftentimes it is of critical importance.

*grabs popcorn and drink* :P

I'm enjoying this. Very educational!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Ball pythons don't live in a greatly varied habitat - they live in fairly geographic similar locations throughout their natural range. Optimum thermoregulation temperatures and prey vary little throughout the range.

That's why we try not to apply cookie-cutter approaches across species lines. Montane species from Africa (afromontane) have completely different needs from those, let's say, on the savannas.

What I am sure of is that ball pythons aren't found in tupper ware boxes in the wild either. They also aren't obligate rodent feeders.

Very few people on this board can claim that they have kept their snakes into old age. That's not a knock, just an observation of the age of many of the posters and the transient nature of the hobby.

This comes into play because there are some of us who have kept different species well into the limits of their lifespans. What we are learning is that sometimes an attempt to dumb down husbandry to the lowest common denominator can have unintended long term affects.

Example: for well over 11 years, I have kept my original group of thrasops on an all rodent diet. What has occurred as a result is an almost across the board issue with fatty tumors and cholesterol deposits on the corneas. My one captive dispholidus died riddled with tumors and blind in both eyes. My oldest thrasops female has had several surgeries to remove tumors and is completely blind.

These are sister species which in the wild, are mainly reptile and bird eaters. My vet is 100% convinced that the diet I have provided them out of convenience has resulted in these issues. As a result, the next generation is being fed a more natural prey model.

Likewise any attempts to keep select other species confined in boxes, in the manner balls are kept, can results in egg binding and other health issues.

So to respectfully disagree with your stance as to how an animal lives in the wild, I would argue that oftentimes it is of critical importance.

---

You fail at science. Basically what you are doing is a,b,c therefore z. Lets look at your thrasops example. Have you compared how your thrasops died to how the average wild thrasops dies? How about average life spans? You and your vet concluded that rodents caused the thrasops tumors. Have you compared the health of your snake to a group that is fed the same rodents but less often? Even if you raise a group of thrasops on a more natural diet and have them turn out much healthier toward the end of their life, you have not proven your case. There is a big difference between incidental and causal relationships. I am not making a case for keeping BP or any other species in boxes, tubs, or tanks by the way.

I work as an IT/IS director and have worked at all levels of IT/IS. One thing that I have learned is that people do not ask the correct questions. They ask leading questions. Are BP semi arboreal? Why do you want to know? Are you just curious? If so then no they are not but they will climb in the wild and have been observed hunting in trees when young. If you plan on making any decisions based on the information then you are asking the wrong question. What people want to ask is "Should I provide an opportunity for my BP to climb?" Or "I want to build a more vertical enclosure, is that a good idea?" When people ask what do BP eat in the wild you should be very afraid that either they or someone who is listening is asking the question "Should I feed my BP a bird?" Again I am not saying that you should never give your BP a bird. I am saying that knowledge is power. A little is often dangerous and people often stop before getting all the knowledge they need to have a chance at gaining wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

BP semi arboreal? Why do you want to know? Are you just curious? If so then no they are not but they will climb in the wild and have been observed hunting in trees when young. If you plan on making any decisions based on the information then you are asking the wrong question. What people want to ask is "Should I provide an opportunity for my BP to climb?" Or "I want to build a more vertical enclosure, is that a good idea?" When people ask what do BP eat in the wild you should be very afraid that either they or someone who is listening is asking the question "Should I feed my BP a bird?" Again I am not saying that you should never give your BP a bird. I am saying that knowledge is power. A little is often dangerous and people often stop before getting all the knowledge they need to have a chance at gaining wisdom.

---

As the OP, I just wanted to clarify something. In no way was I asking a leading question. I was GENUINELY curious. I am not an idiot. I don't have wild, crazy ideas I want to see justified by someone who claims to be an 'expert' on the subject.
I don't just care about my BP's health, I care about his happiness, too. I think one of the best ways to do this is to educate myself as much as possible. To KEEP learning. I think you're underestimating everyone's intelligence.