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

I've seen a lot of conflicting opinions on this, and just can't seem to find a definitive answer. What do (you) the experts say? What have you observed?

I''m about to put some baked driftwood branches in Axel's tank, partly for attractiveness, partly for (hopefully) functionality. Will he actually use them?

Thanks in advance. :D

(grrr, screwed up the title and dunno how to fix it...)

It depends on the bp. I have one out of four that climbs to any extent...I keep temp and humidity analog guages in his tank because he likes to climb across them. If you're putting that stuff in his tank anyways, then don't worry about it, he may or may not use them...depending on his personality lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anya

I've seen a lot of conflicting opinions on this, and just can't seem to find a definitive answer. What do (you) the experts say? What have you observed?

I''m about to put some baked driftwood branches in Axel's tank, partly for attractiveness, partly for (hopefully) functionality. Will he actually use them?

Thanks in advance. :D

(grrr, screwed up the title and dunno how to fix it...)

---

This comes up all the time. I think that there are definitive answers in all of the threads like this. Ball Pythons are NOT arboreal. Now the problem is that a bunch of people will jump on and talk about how their ball python climbs. No it doesn't. Your BP climbs over branches just like it would climb over branches in the wild. Ball Pythons do not climb trees in the wild and spend large amounts of time in those trees. Let me put this another way. Are humans aquatic. I don't think that anyone would say that humans are even semi aquatic. Seeing people going for a swim does not make them aquatic. The fact that some people deep see dive does not make them aquatic. The fact is that if you have a pool in the back yard you run the risk of a human drowning in that pool. Because we are not aquatic. Just like a pool for humans you can provide branches for your BP but make sure they are secure and low to the ground. Young BP might strike you as great climbers but I can tell you that that they are not. They are great fallers. Go check out a green tree python and then ask yourself is a BP arboreal? Ball Pythons are a terrestrial snake that will explore its surroundings.

@Egapal

I am aware how completely arboreal python species act and look like. However, I have read so many people say otherwise, who've had extensive experience! That said, your logic is very sound, and I agree. Thanks for your useful post. :)

Egapal makes an excellent point. Just because some individuals will climb over obstacles in their environment...and just because a few will even hang out on a branch does not make them "arboreal".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anya

@Egapal

Whoah, defensive much? I only asked a simple question! I am aware how completely arboreal python species act and look like. However, I have read so many people say otherwise, who've had extensive experience! That said, your logic is very sound, and I agree.

---

I don't think he was being defensive...just strong about his point. ;)

I think the problem with what "so many" people say is the misuse of a word like "arboreal". Can BP's climb? Certainly. WILL they? Sometimes. Do they like it? Some might, but who can really say? Does this make then "arboreal" in any way? No.

No one is disputing whether or not they can climb (or at least, such a fact shouldn't be disputed). The dispute would then revolve around how one defines the term arboreal. Or it might not revolve around that word at all, but rather whether or not they NEED to be allowed to climb. Because they are NOT arboreal, I don't think they NEED to be given a climbing surface. That's my personal take on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

I don't think he was being defensive...just strong about his point. ;)

---

Yeeeah...That did occur to me. haha, I have since edited my post, as I realized *I* was the one being defensive.

Thanks for the great answers, guys. I feel a little more educated. :D

Hi Anya,

By arboreal, do you mean that ball pythons typically "live in the trees" in the wild. Then, no, of course not.

On the other hand, they definitely climb and explore their surroundings when they feel it is safe to do so. I remember a large exhibit at one of the Ohio zoos, I think Columbus, where they had a T-style perch set totally out in the open, with the horizontal part maybe four feet off the ground. Perfectly folded half and half over the horizontal part looking for all the world like a green tree python or emerald boa was a big ball python. The keepers may well have positioned a heat lamp directly over the perch; I can't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the primary reason that the snake chose that particular place to hang out, seemingly unconcerned with all the people peering in.

Whether your driftwood branches are big enough, or feel secure enough (don't move around), or fill all the environmental needs that your python has remains to be seen. Give it a try and see!

Your question has already been answered but I like seeing myself type today:D

Just make sure it is not too tall because they will fall. I have one that tried to lay on the lip of his water bowl and it is funny to watch him fall off, sometimes a dry fall and sometimes a splash:rofl::rofl::rofl: He looks around like "What the hell??" and then climes back on the bowl:O

Thank you, Joan! I'm thinking I misused the word 'arboreal' What I mean is, in the wild, will they climb trees, and occasionally hang out in branches and such? I know they are primarily terrestrial, living in abandoned burrows and termite mounds, but are trees actually something they can (and will) climb and occasionally be happy in?

Your story is very cool! I would love to see that.

I will try and see! they're a little wider than the thickest part of Axel, and very sturdy. He's very comfortable in roaming his cage at night and a few minutes during the day, and loves to travel up and down my arms. I'll do my best to secure the branches, and see what happens. :)

Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

Your question has already been answered but I like seeing myself type today:D

Just make sure it is not too tall because they will fall. I have one that tried to lay on the lip of his water bowl and it is funny to watch him fall off, sometimes a dry fall and sometimes a splash:rofl::rofl::rofl: He looks around like "What the hell??" and then climes back on the bowl:O

---

LOL! That's too funny. xD No, I don't think there's any place in his tank too high for him to injure himself from. He's in a 20L tank, so it's long and low.

I would love to see a vid of your ball doing that. xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anya

Yeeeah...That did occur to me. haha, I have since edited my post, as I realized *I* was the one being defensive.

Thanks for the great answers, guys. I feel a little more educated. :D

---

Sorry if my post seamed over the top. The the reason for my "intensity" is that you yourself have read threads that seam conflicted. I wanted to reply in no uncertain terms. The words we use are really important because whether we know it or not people may build on what we say. Case in point, people talk about how their BP like to climb and you wonder if the jury is out. I certainly didn't mean my post as an attack on you. You did the right thing. You asked in no uncertain terms for an answer. I wanted to make my answer as clear as possible. I felt that if I had said "no they are not arboreal" then the next person who says "Well mine likes to climb" would be on equal footing. So I wanted to shoot down any posts like that preemptively. My problem is that people put too much weight on the facets of husbandry. Your job is to provide hides, heat gradient and humidity (in that order or importance in my opinion). Branches and vines and all that can be a great decorative element and can help to provide a sense of security but they should be afterthoughts compared to hides, heat and humidity. I have heard many times on this forum, people who don't want to use tubs, talk about how they love their tank because of the space for cool climbing branches and then in another post talk about how they can't keep the humidity right, they had a bad shed, snakes not eating, or worst of all "my snake escaped". I don't mean to bash people who use tanks. Tanks can work great as long as you have your priorities straight. I have a branch in my enclosure. Its something for my BP to rub his nose against to help shed. Its nice to look at and it clutters up the enclosure.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_c...0/IMG_0296.JPG

Thanks so much for the clarity, Egapal. :oops:

Funny thing, I actually started out in a tub, but switched over to a tank for the health of my ball. I live in a really humid area, and it always stays right around 55-70. When I used a tub, it shot right up to 80-100. I completely agree, the husbandry and safety of the animal should come first.

I like the part of your setup I can see, very pretty! :D

here is a link to a thread along these same lines. on page 2, there is a post with cited references of people doing research on bps in the wild

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...gestions/page2

i found it useful and refreshing to have documented, cited evidence to support a claim...I do think the term arboreal is reserved for snakes that live almost exclusively in trees, but the post in the aforementioned thread indicates that they have been found in trees and some were found to feed almost exclusively on birds
Hope you find it helpful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gardenfiend138

here is a link to a thread along these same lines. on page 2, there is a post with cited references of people doing research on bps in the wild

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...gestions/page2

i found it useful and refreshing to have documented, cited evidence to support a claim...I do think the term arboreal is reserved for snakes that live almost exclusively in trees, but the post in the aforementioned thread indicates that they have been found in trees and some were found to feed almost exclusively on birds
Hope you find it helpful!

---

Thank you so much!! :bow: Very helpful, I really appreciate it!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gardenfiend138

here is a link to a thread along these same lines. on page 2, there is a post with cited references of people doing research on bps in the wild

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...gestions/page2

i found it useful and refreshing to have documented, cited evidence to support a claim...I do think the term arboreal is reserved for snakes that live almost exclusively in trees, but the post in the aforementioned thread indicates that they have been found in trees and some were found to feed almost exclusively on birds
Hope you find it helpful!

---

Ok this is what I am taking about. Where are the documented cited evidences that you mention. I read the whole thread and saw one person claiming they read something. That's not evidence. As a culture we set the bar far far to low for what we will consider evidence. I fail to see any in that thread. I am certainly not arguing the benefits of exercise for a BP, I would not argue that there are shrubs and trees in their natural habitat. I would not be surprised to see a BP in a shrub or a tree, just like I would not be surprised to see a person in the ocean. Further I would not debate that wild BP and captive BP for that matter will regularly eat birds. There are a large number of ground dwelling birds by the way. Snakes are also ambush predators. Here is a youtube clip of a crocodile eating a bird http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLf7VQ5fYDk. Are crocodiles likewise arboreal? I could be wrong, BP could climb more than I believe they do based on my research. I would be shocked though, to find an expert in the field stating that BP are even semi-arboreal.

climbing over driftwood is like climbing over a downed log in the wild. Most terrestrial snakes are actually pretty good about living in and around downed logs, and getting over them.

So I'm going to have to say no, they aren't arboreal, not even a little, not even as hatchlings.

I posted that purely to give the op some additional information. I never said bps would be considered arboreal, but I maid an unfair assumption when reading this thread that the real question was "do bp's climb", but I don't think the person who posted the information in the thread I linked would like it cited in a way that claims to say that bps are arboreal, so I apologize to that person if it seems that way.
And at least he cites the information he posted; no one would have anything to gain on this forum by purposefully falsifying information or citations. And that is an excellent point about the ground dwelling birds.

I have a 52 gal enclosure for mine. I put drift wood (its been cured) in just so it looked a little nicer. My bp like to crawl under it. Its a sure sign for him that he's hungry and ready to eat when he's chilling under it waiting on me. He'll crawl over it but only moving from point A to point B. Not a climber- not even to look around or try to get out.

Your post more than been answered but like PitOnTheProwl said today seems to be the day to type. :D

Here's the video if you want to buy it and check it out.

http://www.stevegorzulapresents.com/

They're not actually studying them in the same sense that a professionally-produced nature documentary would be studying them, however--they're just counting animals for the CITES survey. So the "territories of an acre each" is really just based on density.

In order to make the counting easier, they do the surveys during the middle of the day, when the pythons are asleep in their burrows. The scientest are not out filming the snakes' behavior at night, when they're more likely to be awake and moving around. Nothing like that, unfortunately.

So there's no video clips of them actively hunting or climbing trees. So my assertion that ball pythons climb in the wild is solely based on the fact that there ARE trees and low bushes in the daytime shots, and on the fact that MY snakes would sure as heck be climbing and falling out of those things on a regular basis, if their behavior during handling time and escape attempts is anything to judge by....

Bird eating and arboreality are not correlative events in snakes. In other words, just because ball pythons have been proven to eat birds, bush babies and squirrels in the wild does not mean that they are arboreal.

FWIW, out of 8 of the bird species that they have been proven to feed on, 6 nest in trees.

And no, not all of the birds and arboreal mammals ingested by ball pythons were nestlings who fell to the ground. It has been studied in published papers that male ball pythons are often seen climbing trees in search of prey.

So to answer the OPs question - I think they can be safely considered semi-arboreal when it comes to feeding patterns. If you had asked the question what do BPs eat in the wild, most people have no idea that birds and arboreal mammals make up a considerable part of their diet. The common misconception is that they are dedicated ground-dwelling snakes that eat mainly rodents.

However, that does not mean that you need to provide them with an arboreal set up in order to maintain proper husbandry. It does mean that if you wish to provide otherwise and do so properly, your snake will be just as happy.

Thank you for this information! I tried looking up ground dwelling birds of Africa, but my research was fruitless; where do you find these peer reviewed articles on bps? I've found a few general ones on google scholar, but any other tips would be appreciated!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

So to answer the OPs question - I think they can be safely considered semi-arboreal when it comes to feeding patterns. If you had asked the question what do BPs eat in the wild, most people have no idea that birds and arboreal mammals make up a considerable part of their diet. The common misconception is that they are dedicated ground-dwelling snakes that eat mainly rodents.

However, that does not mean that you need to provide them with an arboreal set up in order to maintain proper husbandry. It does mean that if you wish to provide otherwise and do so properly, your snake will be just as happy.

---

Thanks so much!!! I've learned so much in the course of this thread...I really appreciate all the replies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Bird eating and arboreality are not correlative events in snakes. In other words, just because ball pythons have been proven to eat birds, bush babies and squirrels in the wild does not mean that they are arboreal.

FWIW, out of 8 of the bird species that they have been proven to feed on, 6 nest in trees.

And no, not all of the birds and arboreal mammals ingested by ball pythons were nestlings who fell to the ground. It has been studied in published papers that male ball pythons are often seen climbing trees in search of prey.

So to answer the OPs question - I think they can be safely considered semi-arboreal when it comes to feeding patterns. If you had asked the question what do BPs eat in the wild, most people have no idea that birds and arboreal mammals make up a considerable part of their diet. The common misconception is that they are dedicated ground-dwelling snakes that eat mainly rodents.

However, that does not mean that you need to provide them with an arboreal set up in order to maintain proper husbandry. It does mean that if you wish to provide otherwise and do so properly, your snake will be just as happy.

---

The older I get the more worried I get over how information will be received, incorporated into a person and then used. I would just add that its my understanding that in the wild juvenile BP and small males are more likely to climb trees. They are not particularly well suited for it. I have not seen any papers where a professional has called BP's semi-arboreal although I would love a citation to prove me wrong. Again I have to state that what happens in the wild is not necessarily something we want to replicate in the wild. In fact many things that a BP would encounter in the wild we fight hard to protect our snakes from, predators, parasites, wild temperature and humidity fluctuations, drought, and lack of food. I would argue that we should also try and protect our snakes from injuries from falling. Of course some properly treated drift wood can be a great addition to an enclosure but its not necessary or necessarily beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

The older I get the more worried I get over how information will be received, incorporated into a person and then used. I would just add that its my understanding that in the wild juvenile BP and small males are more likely to climb trees. They are not particularly well suited for it. I have not seen any papers where a professional has called BP's semi-arboreal although I would love a citation to prove me wrong. Again I have to state that what happens in the wild is not necessarily something we want to replicate in the wild. In fact many things that a BP would encounter in the wild we fight hard to protect our snakes from, predators, parasites, wild temperature and humidity fluctuations, drought, and lack of food. I would argue that we should also try and protect our snakes from injuries from falling. Of course some properly treated drift wood can be a great addition to an enclosure but its not necessary or necessarily beneficial.

---

No one is calling them semi-arboreal. Their feeding behavior clearly indicates that they are semi-arboreal in terms of hunting for prey. While that alone doesn't make them arboreal or even semi-arboreal, it does mean that they have successfully adapted to taking to the trees to hunt prey.

I think that in a 12" or 18" high enclosure, that a keeper (if they chose to) could safely provide for branches for them to perch on and noodle around with. A drop of less than 2' isn't going to do them a great deal of harm.

Believe me, semi-arboreal or not (Which, is up for much debate) I would never give my snake any situation where he could come to harm. I'm enjoying this discussion between intelligent people, and I would never use any information here as reason for doing something potentially dangerous for my bp.

Just, you know, for the record, lol.

Arboreal or semi-arboreal are misused terms. My BP, Aurora will climb but is defiantly not arboreal. She does it when shes hungry and ir roaming her cage for food and its more of climbing and staying for like a minute, And then searching for food elsewhere until shes fed and then shell hide for a week or so only to come out again to eat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy Browning

Arboreal or semi-arboreal are misused terms.

---

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!

First I posted the quotes and do not take my word for it READ THEM YOURSELF that is why there are references. Agree with field studies or not your choice. I did not collect the data or interpret the data I just parroted what I read. In one case it was a translation, I can read a bit of Italian but no where near enough to read a scholarly paper.

There has been a number of other journal articles that reference the same articles so to me that means the scientific community accepts the results. So yes they can be found in trees, yes they can climb yes the will in the wild on occasion forage in trees and have been proven to take young birds. The authors in jest called sub adult semi arboreal as they were seen in trees on multiple occasions. That is from a single region in Nigeria where they conducted the study as for the rest of the range it is unlikely as there are not very many trees at all.

They don't live in trees, and to this point there is no evidence I have found that an adult has been found to have eaten birds. Only sub adults, that I can support in my own collection, the adults generally show no interest in climbing at all, but all of my sub adults do climb and are willing climbers, and that aligns with scholarly research.


Luiselli,L, and F. M Angelici 1989 Italian Journal of Herpetology, 65: 183-185

Luiselli,L, G C Akani, and D Capissi, 1989 Journal of Zoology, London 246: 125-133

Luiselli,L and G. C. Akani 2002. African Journal of Ecology 40: 220-227

Yes, for sure semi, arboreal is mis used.

"Ball Pythons do not climb trees in the wild " Is not backed up by any evidence at all. I can cite at least two accounts of them being found in trees, and have. At least in Northern Nigeria, Royal Pythons have been found climbing and foraging in trees not semi arboreal but as the OP stated slightly arboreal yes I think there is enough evidence from published scientific Journals to support a claim of slightly.

They whole argument is silly, the simple frequency of posts about Royal pythons climbing busts the argument wide open. If they climb in captivity I see no logical reason why they would not do so in the wild.

"Three royal pythons were found outside of burrows. They were all males. Number 22 was in a mango tree, 26 was in open grassland, and 98 was found in a trench. Two other males (numbers 32 and 75) vomited rodents after capture, indicating that some males are active and feeding during the dry season."


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cite...thon_ghana.pdf

Page 11 Dr Stefan GORZULA Consultant, CITES Secretariat.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anya

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.

---

I believe I understand the question you were asking. The problem is that this is a forum, so when someone answers you they are answering other people as well. Its like when you are taking a class and a student asks a question. The teacher knows that their answer isn't just for the student asking but for the whole class. That being said you reinforce my point with your above statement. Your real question I believe is "how can I provide for my snakes happiness as well as its health?" and more specifically "Will providing climbing opportunities have a positive effect on either my snakes happiness or health?" That's a much more complicated question. I would say no. Don't provide things for your snake to climb as thats not your snakes goal. A green tree python seeks trees for safety, ball pythons will follow prey into trees. The motivation is key. People will talk about how climbing is good exercise. So is being handled on a regular basis. I think more floor space trumps climbing opportunities every time. Providing stable branches on the floor of your snakes enclosure gives your snake something it would seek out in the wild. Cover from predatory birds. Your snake doesn't want to be out in the open.

I don't think I am underestimating everyones intelligence, in the same way that a teacher giving a detailed answer above and beyond the question a student asks is not. Individuals are smart, people are stupid. I am trying to not let information be taken out of context by readers as well as posters. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anya

In no way was I asking a leading question. I was GENUINELY curious. I am not an idiot.

---

I should clarify that the reason I consider "Are ball pythons even slightly arboreal?" a leading question is because its phrased in such a way as to make it easy to say yes. You are nearly guaranteed an answer of YES. I also believe that its misdirected question. By that I mean that its not your real question. It conceals a real question of how do I best provide for my BP. I don't in anyway mean to imply that you are an idiot, being intentionally leading or misdirecting. Its just how we are conditioned as people. The problem is that your second question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anya

I''m about to put some baked driftwood branches in Axel's tank, partly for attractiveness, partly for (hopefully) functionality. Will he actually use them?

---

is entirely unrelated to whether or not BP's are arboreal. So you have a whole punch of people answering your question, but what question are they answering. I tried to answer both. No to the arboreal, yes to the drift wood.

Egapal I deeply respect you approach and opinions. I believe firmly that debate will increase depth and understanding of a given situation or lesson. I teach in a university as well as manage a mac computer lab. I get where you perspective and how your background influences your statements. (have your re-started it? :cool: )

The original question of slightly arboreal I think we are agreeing has been answered there is ground evidence to support that. Moving on, I don't like using terms like happiness as I am not sure it can be applied. If we say over all heath and stress free I think that can be applied. Do they need to climb no I don't believe so, is there benefit to sacrificing floor space to branches or other *SECURE* climbing items?

The benefits as I see then that if the snake chooses to climb or not it provides over head cover, as anyone whom has dealt with ball pythons many (I think I can say most here) will react quickly to a shadow or object passed over their heads. Most long term captives have shorter lived reactions than young Royals but most will have some reaction. A jerk or stop or a complete withdrawal and coil over the head. Having a static object to provide cover seems to have a calming effect. This is the base principal behind a rack as well a large low over head object.

The second as you mentioned a climbing snake is working muscles and that aids in digestion when not being handled regularly. The regular handling of some snakes causes them stress and that can lead to bigger issues down the road.

The last point I'd make is hard to qualify with any kind of evidence. I have been trying something just out of curiosity, I have 9 Royal Pythons 3 in a rack, one in a screen top tank, one in a side converted tank and 3 in custom snake enclosures. I have been rotating every 8 months or so the 3 from the rack to enclosures and vice versa. Given some time to adjust to the new enclosure (a week or so) they all start to eat and adjust. The interesting part is there seems to be a personality shift. I have been using my most timid and most boisterous and one that is average. All of them seem to alter in the enclosure with lots of cover and stuff to explore. They across the board become less timid (most apparent with my really timid girl) and more attuned to what is going on around them. If I change the water in the enclosure they will often come out sometime that evening and check what is different quite carefully. The rack snakes hide, the only time they make an appearance (looking into the tub) is the night before feeding day and the night of feeding day. The others will often be seen head out of the hide in the late evenings most of the week but for a day or two after feeding day.

It is hard to document that shift and it is not a large enough cross section to be definitive for sure and it also has not been near enough time but it is interesting results so far. Does that mean they are more or less healthy NO NOT AT ALL!!! it just means that in a more naturalistic enclosure I have observed a wider range of behaviour than I observe in a rack. I know that Philippe De Vosjoli in 'The Art of Keeping Snakes' suggests that he has also observed something similar.

There can be benefits to providing climbs and 'sky' cover, and at this point I have not seen any points against providing a climbing opportunity that is beyond they can't climb, or they are really poor climbers and will fall and hurt them selves. I have never encountered a snake that hurt itself from falling in its own enclosure, from unsecured items falling on the snake yes from dropped snakes also yes from falling off a desk or something quite high yes but not from within a enclosure typically seem housing Royal pythons (12-18 inches high)

SECURE CLIMBS ones that WILL NOT FALL. Is very important here, if you cannot secure a climbing structure it should not be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

Egapal I deeply respect you approach and opinions. I believe firmly that debate will increase depth and understanding of a given situation or lesson. I teach in a university as well as manage a mac computer lab. I get where you perspective and how your background influences your statements. (have your re-started it? :cool: )

The original question of slightly arboreal I think we are agreeing has been answered there is ground evidence to support that. Moving on, I don't like using terms like happiness as I am not sure it can be applied. If we say over all heath and stress free I think that can be applied. Do they need to climb no I don't believe so, is there benefit to sacrificing floor space to branches or other *SECURE* climbing items?

The benefits as I see then that if the snake chooses to climb or not it provides over head cover, as anyone whom has dealt with ball pythons many (I think I can say most here) will react quickly to a shadow or object passed over their heads. Most long term captives have shorter lived reactions than young Royals but most will have some reaction. A jerk or stop or a complete withdrawal and coil over the head. Having a static object to provide cover seems to have a calming effect. This is the base principal behind a rack as well a large low over head object.

The second as you mentioned a climbing snake is working muscles and that aids in digestion when not being handled regularly. The regular handling of some snakes causes them stress and that can lead to bigger issues down the road.

The last point I'd make is hard to qualify with any kind of evidence. I have been trying something just out of curiosity, I have 9 Royal Pythons 3 in a rack, one in a screen top tank, one in a side converted tank and 3 in custom snake enclosures. I have been rotating every 8 months or so the 3 from the rack to enclosures and vice versa. Given some time to adjust to the new enclosure (a week or so) they all start to eat and adjust. The interesting part is there seems to be a personality shift. I have been using my most timid and most boisterous and one that is average. All of them seem to alter in the enclosure with lots of cover and stuff to explore. They across the board become less timid (most apparent with my really timid girl) and more attuned to what is going on around them. If I change the water in the enclosure they will often come out sometime that evening and check what is different quite carefully. The rack snakes hide, the only time they make an appearance (looking into the tub) is the night before feeding day and the night of feeding day. The others will often be seen head out of the hide in the late evenings most of the week but for a day or two after feeding day.

It is hard to document that shift and it is not a large enough cross section to be definitive for sure and it also has not been near enough time but it is interesting results so far. Does that mean they are more or less healthy NO NOT AT ALL!!! it just means that in a more naturalistic enclosure I have observed a wider range of behaviour than I observe in a rack. I know that Philippe De Vosjoli in 'The Art of Keeping Snakes' suggests that he has also observed something similar.

There can be benefits to providing climbs and 'sky' cover, and at this point I have not seen any points against providing a climbing opportunity that is beyond they can't climb, or they are really poor climbers and will fall and hurt them selves. I have never encountered a snake that hurt itself from falling in its own enclosure, from unsecured items falling on the snake yes from dropped snakes also yes from falling off a desk or something quite high yes but not from within a enclosure typically seem housing Royal pythons (12-18 inches high)

SECURE CLIMBS ones that WILL NOT FALL. Is very important here, if you cannot secure a climbing structure it should not be there.

---

I agree with almost everything you are saying. I keep my Ball Python and King Snake in more natural enclosures. I fully agree with the idea of providing cover. My only point of contention is that I don't consider small branches that can fit in a 12" to 18" high enclosure to be providing a climbing opportunity. I think we are castrating the word climb. If I saw a snake in the wild climbing over a branch that had fallen out of the tree I would not use that as evidence to support it being semi arboreal. I would just say there is a terrestrial snake exploring. My biggest issue here is the use of the words climb and arboreal. If we are talking climb as in climb a tree and arboreal as in prefers to be in the trees then no no no. If we are talking climb as in my dog climbed onto the bed with me, then sure.

The op has used slightly arboreal. But I see your point, it appears we are on the same page of sorts the real misuse is terrestrial. They are a terrestrial species but as demonstrated by 1000s of photos they often seek higher observation ground (periscoping)

I have a pet theory that adults as they can gain a higher vantage do not feel the need to seek out small platforms that the sub adults do. That may account for the drive to gain elevation, my thought anyway.

I think that the general consensus, and certainly what I defined in my mind. Is that a climb in terms of a captive snake is a branch that allows to reach a elevation to near the top of the enclosure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Ball Pythons do not climb trees in the wild

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

I would just add that its my understanding that in the wild juvenile BP and small males are more likely to climb trees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

You fail at science.

---

...and you are failing at consistency. Tell you what - let's do away with the catty little swipes. I always love a good debate and enjoy reading your posts, but I am really not interested in snark right now.

There have been recent papers written on the subject of diet related health issues and some of our own native north american snakes.

I'll save you the trouble of a lengthy Google search and having to fork over $35 to purchase the pdfs of the research and instead focus on what is going on with my animals.

Studies have previously been done on using domestic mice as a prey source for captive omni/carnivores. What these studies have shown is that mice contained cholesterol levels that exceeded other prey sources and that the intake of excessive levels led to eye and tissue abnormalities.

It was also discovered that as the intake of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids increases, the dietary requirement for vitamin E increases. Researchers concluded that it is important that lipid profiles of feeder mice therefore be known and considered when examining captive animal diets.

As the only person I know keeping and breeding thrasops in the US, I actually forked over a lot of money to have tests done on three of my older thrasops afflicted with both fatty deposits and lipid keratopathy. These were compared to my younger and middle aged animals who are being raised on a natural prey model diet.

What we are finding is that the offspring of animals affected with corneal deposits probably won't develop the disease. At the age of seven, all of my original, unrelated group was developing corneal deposits to some degree or another. At roughly the same age, an unrelated WC group is clear.

The blood cholesterol level of my older pair is off the chart. The blood cholesterol level of my reptile and avian fed +/-7 year olds and my neonates is relatively equal.

So my vet and our local university, are pretty much sure that thrasops have an issue with metabolizing lipids and subsequently processing high fat diets.

In short, they aren't metabolizing them, and corneal opacity and lipid deposits on the body are the end result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

...and you are failing at consistency. Tell you what - let's do away with the catty little swipes. I always love a good debate and enjoy reading your posts, but I am really not interested in snark right now.

There have been recent papers written on the subject of diet related health issues and some of our own native north american snakes.

I'll save you the trouble of a lengthy Google search and having to fork over $35 to purchase the pdfs of the research and instead focus on what is going on with my animals.

Studies have previously been done on using domestic mice as a prey source for captive omni/carnivores. What these studies have shown is that mice contained cholesterol levels that exceeded other prey sources and that the intake of excessive levels led to eye and tissue abnormalities.

It was also discovered that as the intake of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids increases, the dietary requirement for vitamin E increases. Researchers concluded that it is important that lipid profiles of feeder mice therefore be known and considered when examining captive animal diets.

As the only person I know keeping and breeding thrasops in the US, I actually forked over a lot of money to have tests done on three of my older thrasops afflicted with both fatty deposits and lipid keratopathy. These were compared to my younger and middle aged animals who are being raised on a natural prey model diet.

What we are finding is that the offspring of animals affected with corneal deposits probably won't develop the disease. At the age of seven, all of my original, unrelated group was developing corneal deposits to some degree or another. At roughly the same age, an unrelated WC group is clear.

The blood cholesterol level of my older pair is off the chart. The blood cholesterol level of my reptile and avian fed +/-7 year olds and my neonates is relatively equal.

So my vet and our local university, are pretty much sure that thrasops have an issue with metabolizing lipids and subsequently processing high fat diets.

In short, they aren't metabolizing them, and corneal opacity and lipid deposits on the body are the end result.

---

You mis quoted me I said "Ball Pythons do not climb trees in the wild and spend large amounts of time in those trees." They are not ment to be separate statements. They should be taken as one. My point was that they do climb opportunistically not as a rule. I fail to see an issue with my consistancy. Your last post was much better from a science stand point. It still tells us nothing about BPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

You mis quoted me I said "Ball Pythons do not climb trees in the wild and spend large amounts of time in those trees." They are not ment to be separate statements. They should be taken as one. My point was that they do climb opportunistically not as a rule. I fail to see an issue with my consistancy. Your last post was much better from a science stand point. It still tells us nothing about BPs.

---

You asked questions about thrasops - I expanded on what was going with my snakes.

As for ball pythons and an all-rodent diet - your guess is as good as mine.

There is a mountain of research out there that first covers normal blood panels form different species and how lipids change from a recently consumed meal up to two months into a fast.

There is also enough evidence out there on the dietary content of mice and rats that shows that their lipid levels may exceed those of avian, amphibian and reptilian prey. They is also evidence to show that these elevated levels result in systemic disease in snakes.

I've never seen any research on the long term effects of balls and I have no idea what their feeding + 56 days fast lipid panels look like. The fact that some people have successfully fed them an all rodent diet for decades would leave me to believe that they can metabolize the additional lipids in rodent prey fairly effectively.

Those quotes were taken from two separate posts a page or so apart.. It seemed to me that you were pretty adamant that they don't climb, and then relented when confronted with the study. If that wasn't the case, then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

Egapal I deeply respect you approach and opinions. I believe firmly that debate will increase depth and understanding of a given situation or lesson. I teach in a university as well as manage a mac computer lab. I get where you perspective and how your background influences your statements. (have your re-started it? :cool: )

The original question of slightly arboreal I think we are agreeing has been answered there is ground evidence to support that. Moving on, I don't like using terms like happiness as I am not sure it can be applied. If we say over all heath and stress free I think that can be applied. Do they need to climb no I don't believe so, is there benefit to sacrificing floor space to branches or other *SECURE* climbing items?

The benefits as I see then that if the snake chooses to climb or not it provides over head cover, as anyone whom has dealt with ball pythons many (I think I can say most here) will react quickly to a shadow or object passed over their heads. Most long term captives have shorter lived reactions than young Royals but most will have some reaction. A jerk or stop or a complete withdrawal and coil over the head. Having a static object to provide cover seems to have a calming effect. This is the base principal behind a rack as well a large low over head object.

The second as you mentioned a climbing snake is working muscles and that aids in digestion when not being handled regularly. The regular handling of some snakes causes them stress and that can lead to bigger issues down the road.

The last point I'd make is hard to qualify with any kind of evidence. I have been trying something just out of curiosity, I have 9 Royal Pythons 3 in a rack, one in a screen top tank, one in a side converted tank and 3 in custom snake enclosures. I have been rotating every 8 months or so the 3 from the rack to enclosures and vice versa. Given some time to adjust to the new enclosure (a week or so) they all start to eat and adjust. The interesting part is there seems to be a personality shift. I have been using my most timid and most boisterous and one that is average. All of them seem to alter in the enclosure with lots of cover and stuff to explore. They across the board become less timid (most apparent with my really timid girl) and more attuned to what is going on around them. If I change the water in the enclosure they will often come out sometime that evening and check what is different quite carefully. The rack snakes hide, the only time they make an appearance (looking into the tub) is the night before feeding day and the night of feeding day. The others will often be seen head out of the hide in the late evenings most of the week but for a day or two after feeding day.

It is hard to document that shift and it is not a large enough cross section to be definitive for sure and it also has not been near enough time but it is interesting results so far. Does that mean they are more or less healthy NO NOT AT ALL!!! it just means that in a more naturalistic enclosure I have observed a wider range of behaviour than I observe in a rack. I know that Philippe De Vosjoli in 'The Art of Keeping Snakes' suggests that he has also observed something similar.

There can be benefits to providing climbs and 'sky' cover, and at this point I have not seen any points against providing a climbing opportunity that is beyond they can't climb, or they are really poor climbers and will fall and hurt them selves. I have never encountered a snake that hurt itself from falling in its own enclosure, from unsecured items falling on the snake yes from dropped snakes also yes from falling off a desk or something quite high yes but not from within a enclosure typically seem housing Royal pythons (12-18 inches high)

SECURE CLIMBS ones that WILL NOT FALL. Is very important here, if you cannot secure a climbing structure it should not be there.

---

As a person who keeps some very arboreal snakes - I can safely say that they also fall.

They are quite funny when mine do one in particular seems to think he can balance on the top edge of the thermometer probe. He is 1800 gm and as big around as my wrist... when he fails he look around to see if anyone is laughing at him... again. Ok not quite but if feels that way sometimes.

Interesting debate, I really wish there was more studies being done they are a huge hobby snakes but biologists don't seem very interested. They either want to study the flashy species or the rare ones. There is so much knowledge on the captivity end but very little on the wild end. Maybe I need to find a biologist to team up with and write a grant proposal or two... :rolleyes: