Is keeping snakes humane?

Hello all!
First off I do have two snakes, a Suriname Red Tail and a Ball Python. I love them so much and provide a comfortable home for them so that they can be happy and healthy. However, I do want everybody's opinion on wether or not keeping these reptiles in captivity is best for them. Even though many snakes that we call pets are captive bred and are accustomed to living in enclosures and used to people, I can't help to think that we are depriving them of their natural inclinations. I do believe snakes are smart enough to know that responsible owners provide them with safe surroundings and will not hurt them, but truth is, their brains are tiny. Most of their actions are by instinct. Their natural behavior to feed, hide, regulate their body temps etc.. depends on us to provide it for them and deprives the animal to instinctively seek out their survival needs.

So, by keeping these wild animals as pets, is this humane for the animal or do you think that they would be better off in their natural environment where they rely on themselves for survival.

I believe that a snake can be perfectly happy in captivity and in the wild. Just curious on what others think. Plus, I think this will be an interesting conversation for all us snake owners.
Cheers!

Captive snakes have it made compared to snakes in the wild. Our snakes don't have to worry about predation at all. There is a reason that many wild snakes are quick to bite, because in the wild they are actually in danger of being eaten throughout their whole life. Wild snakes are almost always riddled with parasites, both internal and external. They are often exposed to extreme temperatures (this is survivable but probably not ideal), and are usually much thinner than captive snakes because they don't have a constant supply of food.

The fact is that being in captivity doesn't keep most snakes from acting on their natural inclinations. In the case of BPs, their natural inclination is to hide until another need forces them out into the open. Thermoregulation? We provide them with hides over various temperature spots so they don't even have to quit hiding to thermoregulate. Food? They may occasionally come out looking around feeding day, but typically we feed them before they even leave the safety of their hide to 'hunt'. The only thing that they may not get to act on depending on the keeper would be mating urges, but not every snake would mate in the wild either, and those that do are at far greater risk than the ones that mate in captivity.

Being primarily sedentary predators with simple brains is actually what makes them excellent candidates for captivity. As long as their basic needs are met, they routinely lead healthy lives that are longer than those of their wild counterparts. Where captivity becomes inhumane is when the animal is not allowed to meet its basic needs. IMO the perfect example of this is the orca. They have complex social needs that we can't recreate simply by sticking two whales together, the instinct to roam vast areas that we can't provide, and a diet that we cannot mimic properly. All of this leads to stress behaviors and an undeniably shorter lifespan in captivity than in the wild.

The argument could be made that captivity is inhumane for reptile species that are new to captivity, because there is almost always going to be a high death toll for animals being siphoned off wild populations when the exact husbandry parameters are unknown. But for species such as BPs that are very well established in captivity, the only excuse for their needs not being properly met is negligence.

^^ What DVirginiana said. I can't stand PETA and other groups saying a hamster or ferret is OK to keep as a pet but not reptiles. Ball pythons are basically becoming domesticated in a way I think. Not all reptiles do well in captivity just like not all mammals do but the ones who do that thrive and exceed their lifespan prove they can be kept in captivity without a problem. There is a huge difference between an orca and a ball python. Ball pythons live a pretty decent life with us humans if kept correctly but they hide 90% of the time which can be mimicked in captivity. An orcas natural habitat (the whole ocean) cannot be duplicated in captivity. A dark, tight termite mound can be.

Some wild snake populations are endangered due to destruction of their habitat by logging, development, etc. Captive breeding and keeping of these snakes should be encouraged so these species and locality variants aren't lost forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by queenelvis82

?...............I do want everybody's opinion on wether or not keeping these reptiles in captivity is best for them.......I can't help to think that we are depriving them of their natural inclinations. .........!

---

First off, if not for captive breeding you, we, most of us would not have exotic snakes to even consider this thought, or could afford the snakes if all were wild.

There is a reason nature gives 8-12-20 eggs to a clutch, and 20- 30 babies to a litter. Because the majority will not live long past birth due to predators.

What I'm leading up to is this, since the live bith success rate is much much higher than the natural wild, as well as the on suing months most of these Captive snakes are not deprived at all, unless abuse or neglect is involved. They have all of their needs met except for total freedom. But do they really WANT to wander the jungle? Or do they care as long as their needs are met?

This is a very interesting question, and one I go back and forth on frequently. On the one hand, I hate the fact that he is trapped. On the other, I do feel that there is something to be said for the fact that he will always be safe and cared for. I wonder all the time what he would choose if I could ask him. I like to think he would choose safety and security. Then sometimes I catch him trying to explore the area outside the glass and he looks so confused as to why he can't get to the things he sees outside his tank.

It is a valid point that they prefer hiding to exploring, but I have to admit that sometimes I feel that twinge of guilt that somehow his rights are being violated, as I really do feel that all living things should have freedom of choice. When I feel that way I try to remind myself that he wasn't taken from the wild and put in a tank, he was bred in a home in the city and would have gone to a different home if he hadn't come home with me. Maybe it is a case of anthropomorphizing, and I am just projecting the fact that I would hate to be shut in a tank onto him. It is worth remembering that the desires and values we have are not necessarily shared by all of our animal companions.

I really do feel that my little guy is in a good, healthy situation with me. I just wish I could know that he agrees. But hey, maybe this question is sort of like when people say that questioning your sanity is proof you are sane. Maybe questioning your ethics in keeping the animals you keep is proof you are the right kind of keeper. Maybe just wishful thinking. :oops:

I would still say to feel proud that you are providing him good care. We all see the awful classified ads for rehoming snakes that show photos of enclosures with one hide (or no hides) and no heat source (or the incorrect ones). That could have been your snakes had you not chosen to be their keeper. You have not deprived them of anything. Perhaps the pet trade has, but you are in no way at fault. If anything, it is admirable that you take the time to wonder if he is happy, instead of treating him as an object to be entertained by like some. I guarantee he is safer and will be healthier with you than he would be if he were in the wild. :gj:

It doesn't pertain to snakes so much as reptiles in general, but I have a box turtle that I rescued from the wild. This is a slightly different situation, but I feel like it applies to the ethics of the discussion. As an ecologist I am generally very much against taking animals from the wild, but she was completely blinded by eye infections and a severe RI when I found her, and by the time she was physically able to return to the wild (about eight months later) we had moved out of her home range and she had started associating humans with food.

Turtle doesn't display any of the signs of an animal that is stressed by captivity, such as fixating on one food item, attempting to escape her enclosure, or aimlessly wandering, which is something I've heard people say some w/c turtles will do in an attempt to get back to their home range. She doesn't even sleep 'properly' anymore; instead of huddling into her shell, she will often go to sleep with her neck and limbs completely stretched out (making me think she was dead on several occasions). Most importantly, she is curious about absolutely everything around her and willing to investigate new things much more quickly than a wild turtle would. I think all that points to her having some level of understanding that she is completely safe and can explore her surroundings without being cautious.

I often wonder if she prefers captivity to the wild, and if she still feels an instinctual pull to seek out certain food sources or hiding spots on her old territory that she will never see again. Based on her behavior, I think that not having the stress of starvation or predators outweighs any stress that might be caused by keeping her in captivity though.

I look at it a bit like the process of adoption, or even emigration (as in, encouraging/fleeing one troubled spot for security and safety in another). The human population has exploded, needs homes and, in the process, destroys wildlife habitat. Kingsnakes, as an example, have virtually disappeared from Florida and Iowa. I know of several breeders who are maintaining locale-specific colonies in captivity. I think the practice is noble because, in the wild, Kingsnakes (if they're lucky) reach an age of about 9 years, whereas they're capable of doubling that expectancy if well-cared for in captivity. I've seen 3 kingsnakes in my rural neighborhood in the past few months, and all were DORs, run over by cars. One respected naturalist laments the untold number of kingsnakes that get buried alive every time a new housing development goes up.

First, I disagree that a snake "knows" that the keeper is providing for him and won't hurt the keeper in appreciation. That discounts the fact that a snake usually acts on instinct and if you stick your hand in and for whatever reason that snake is cranky or sleepy or hungry and bites you, it's not as if that snake decided it hates the color hide you gave it. It's just doing what snakes do. They don't generally sit there thinking about whether they should appreciate what they have or not.

Secondly, a snake in the wild is constantly struggling to do one thing and one thing only. It wants to survive. It needs water, food, heat and a secure place that it won't get eaten. The snake you own wants exactly those things. It doesn't want a pretty flowery water dish. It just wants water. It doesn't care if that rodent was raised with loving tender care, it just cares that it's enough to feed him and doesn't fight back too much(frozen thawed rarely fight back much, heh).

Ball pythons are not really domesticated. They're identical in make to wild pythons, and the only differences between a wild and CB ball python are learned responses(CB have learned being picked up isn't going to end in them being eaten) and health(generally wild will have more infestations and less nutrition than a CB). Keeping several generations of BP doesn't make them domesticated, especially when they haven't been bred with any inclination towards more "domestic" behaviors or shape.

We keep pets(all pets) because we like to have the animal around. Some animals we keep because looking at them gives us pleasure(fish and birds). Some because we use them(horses and dogs). Some because it gives us comfort to hold them(a cat). Or just because having the animal in our life makes us happier.

I believe we have a responsibility towards any animal that we keep to provide the best life we can. For a ball python we have to realize this doesn't mean a giant open well lit aquairum... but a warm space that allows them to feel secure and relaxes.

ANd I disagree wholly with all the "Orcas don't belong in captivity" myth. The ONLY reason that people care about dolphins and orcas is BECAUSE of the animals that have been in captivity. People used to shoot them for fun and No One objected at all to it then. Not until the days of FLipper and Shamu did anyone start to care. I've seen a lot more than most people about Seaworld and such and they do a lot of things to make their whales comfortable and they DO generally live just as long as whales in the wild(longer in many instances). I wouldn't mention it, but since there's several responses that bring it up, here you are. It's my opinion and I won't respond back to any commentary on it here.

But overall, I think reptiles have very little cognitive ability to think about whether it is in captivity or wild, and simply is content as long as it's needs are being met. The difference is that a captive snake is usaulyl not subjected to any of the many dangers and stresses that wild snakes have.

Just think about the fact most morphs wouldn't even survive in the wild cause of their bright colors or better the lack of camouflage colors and as we all know BP's are ambush hunters and they depend on their camouflage to surprise/ambush their prey

as long as the animal is being properly cared for, it is 1000% humane, for reasons already listed by multiple ppl

Contrary to what the Peta/Hsus people say, it is more humane to keep snakes, if they are well cared for, than many of the other animals that we keep. Consider which is probably more humanely kept: a highly social animal that spends most of its days tied up in the back yard, waiting for its owners to come home, or a solitary animal that wants to hide in a nice warm spot until food comes by, being allowed to spend all day in a nice warm spot until its regular feeding time.

One is a dog, one is a ball python. Which seems like it is more suited to captive life?

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightrainfalls

Contrary to what the Peta/Hsus people say, it is more humane to keep snakes, if they are well cared for, than many of the other animals that we keep. Consider which is probably more humanely kept: a highly social animal that spends most of its days tied up in the back yard, waiting for its owners to come home, or a solitary animal that wants to hide in a nice warm spot until food comes by, being allowed to spend all day in a nice warm spot until its regular feeding time.

One is a dog, one is a ball python. Which seems like it is more suited to captive life?

David

---

Excellent point.

If all the proper requirements are met it is VERY humane. It's interesting that 1 out of every 3 houses in parts of Australia have 1 or more carpet pythons living in them, usually the attic. Why would that be? Heat, shelter, and prey attracted to the messes humans make.

In a sense they are caging themselves and living with humans. It's a bit of a stretch to say that, but they are certainly there because their survival requirements are being met.

Add a cage with an even more controlled environment and they have it made. You won't see many signs of distress unless you are keeping several snakes of the same or similar species and the males start to catch some of the pheromones the females release around breeding time. Then you may see cage roaming, and pressing in an effort to breed. But is a constant habitat with warmth, food and water better than living in an attic? Who knows, but I'll bet the snake doesn't care either way. As long as the basic needs are being met they are good to go.

As for as "domesticated" that all depends on what you think it means. Years of captive breeding have certainly led to less defensive animals. They certainly have the same instincts but even those instincts change in captivity over time. Some will not strike prey any longer, some will not constrict but simply eat, some won't eat unless the prey is a certain type, and all the lights are off and it is left in a certain spot in the cage.

Reticulated pythons have been shown to be able to identify their keeper, at least one author has claimed that and some retic keepers will attest to that.

The multitude of colors snakes come in now certainly can't be considered "wild" and many of the bright colored animals would eventually fail and die in the wild. Either by predation or lack of camouflage for ambush hunting.

So you could categorize some captive bred snakes as domestic reptiles I suppose.

For the sake of argument, see how comfortable somebody is standing in a pen with a "domesticated bull". Bull as in cattle/ranch bull.

They (cattle/bulls) are considered domestic animals by most, but they are not "pet domesticated", not predictable and not any safer than a snake.

Roosters are the same, a male chicken is not always going to be something you can go cuddle or hold. Sorry to the cat lovers (this is not a slam), but they retain many "wild" instincts and can turn like a switch. I've been petting a cat and a second later, been bitten and scratched, actually more-so by them than any snake I've held. But cats are domestic, even though they go ferrel quickly and they can and do survive on their own if they get out into the wild.

How about the "domestic rats" we feed?

There are a great many "domestic" animals that would never "keep" in a pet style environment so I'm not sure why snakes can't be considered domesticated in a sense.

I'm sure PETA will always refuse to admit the possibility that snakes, reptiles, or anything has the ability to change or adapt to captivity as they are leading a charge to ban them.

In reality when it comes to an "easy keeper" for a pet, snakes are a good one.

I have to pay a facility to watch our dogs when we leave town but with the snakes, I change the water, add an extra water bowl and feed them before we leave.

10 day trip is no problem. The downside is they aren't excited to see me when we get back like the dogs are LOL!

All food for thought, but the bottom line is there is nothing cruel about keeping a snake if you are doing it properly.

Well all arguments/discussions concerning what sort of cognitive abilities snakes have, it is a given fact that captive bred are well cared for in most cases. Certainly by everyone here I would guess. I think it helps to think of domestic animal enclosures as homes rather than cages. In the short time I've had my BP, he seems to enjoy being handled, but when I lower him to his home, he goes in on his own. Likewise the dwarf hamster and every pet rodent I've ever had. Same goes for dogs that are accustomed to being crated at night. All of those animals have very different levels of cognitive abilities, and every one that is kept by a responsible person feels that is their den/safe place. Their bed, treats or toys where applicable are all there. To me it's no more cruel than putting a child into a playpen to keep him/her safe while you are cooking dinner, or into a crib with bars until they are old enough to be safe. In my opinion pets are much like a perpetual child. We remain responsible to them for the entirety of their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Ball pythons are not really domesticated. They're identical in make to wild pythons, and the only differences between a wild and CB ball python are learned responses(CB have learned being picked up isn't going to end in them being eaten) and health(generally wild will have more infestations and less nutrition than a CB). Keeping several generations of BP doesn't make them domesticated, especially when they haven't been bred with any inclination towards more "domestic" behaviors or shape.

---

I disagree with this statement. Have you seen wild caught or captive hatched ball pythons or other snakes and how defensive they are compared to captive bred specimens? We are breeding lines of ball pythons so distant from the first generation lineage that they are becoming more and more hardy and relaxed. How are you going to compare a "domestic" hamster who will most likely bite out of fear or try to run away to a ball python that will adapt to tolerate handling by humans and just relax? I don't know about you but my snakes seemed way more "domesticated" then some of the hamsters, Guinea pigs, etc that I've dealt with as a child. Reptiles are becoming somewhat domesticated if PETA or HSUS like it or not. We haven't had hundreds of years of selected breeding with reptiles but we are getting there. And I'm talking about the most popular bred reptiles like ball pythons. Domestication is basically defined as taming down and breeding that results in physically altered changes. Do we not breed for physical appearances with ball pythons not found in wild stock? You know a type of moth, a beta fish, and a goldfish are all considered domesticated and still have wild instincts like their ancestors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8_Ball

I disagree with this statement. Have you seen wild caught or captive hatched ball pythons or other snakes and how defensive they are compared to captive bred specimens? We are breeding lines of ball pythons so distant from the first generation lineage that they are becoming more and more hardy and relaxed. How are you going to compare a "domestic" hamster who will most likely bite out of fear or try to run away to a ball python that will adapt to tolerate handling by humans and just relax? I don't know about you but my snakes seemed way more "domesticated" then some of the hamsters, Guinea pigs, etc that I've dealt with as a child. Reptiles are becoming somewhat domesticated if PETA or HSUS like it or not. We haven't had hundreds of years of selected breeding with reptiles but we are getting there. And I'm talking about the most popular bred reptiles like ball pythons. Domestication is basically defined as taming down and breeding that results in physically altered changes. Do we not breed for physical appearances with ball pythons not found in wild stock? You know a type of moth, a beta fish, and a goldfish are all considered domesticated and still have wild instincts like their ancestors.

---

Are any snake breeders really looking at temperament when pairing animals, though? It seems to me like it's low on the priority list, but I'm not in the breeder circuit so I don't really know if that's being taken into consideration. Is there really a notable difference between a captive hatched python and a captive bred one? The placid nature of ball pythons is one of the things that made them so popular in the pet trade in the first place. I don't think that can be called domestication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snake Judy

Are any snake breeders really looking at temperament when pairing animals, though? It seems to me like it's low on the priority list, but I'm not in the breeder circuit so I don't really know if that's being taken into consideration. Is there really a notable difference between a captive hatched python and a captive bred one? The placid nature of ball pythons is one of the things that made them so popular in the pet trade in the first place. I don't think that can be called domestication.

---

That is an interesting question. I know I have thought about the possibility of breeding my remarkably tolerant and even tempered pastel. I doubt I ever will, but it has crossed my mind that his temperament is so fantastic that it would be marvelous to carry on his calm disposition into a new generation. I assume that temperament is something that can be continued and refined through genetics, though I admittedly have very little knowledge when it comes to breeding. That being said, I agree with you that the focus seems to be on the morph and not their personality. I have never seen an ad discussing the parents disposition, but see het _____ all the time. I would sure love the opportunity to meet and interact with a wild ball python. I think it would be fascinating to observe what differences, if any, they have in behavior when compared to their CB relatives. Do you suppose they would be just as docile as the ones found in the pet trade?

The goal of anyone keeping reptiles or amphibians (or any pet, actually) should be:

a) to keep stress to an absolute minimum, and
b) to allow the animal to express as much natural behavior as reasonably possible

If that can be done in captivity, I don't think it's inhumane. Some species, such as ball pythons, are pretty well suited to captivity, because their natures are not contrary to being kept in a tight space and their basic needs are easily met, though I do think a lot of keepers get by with the bare minimum.

It gets a little hazier when very active or very large species are being kept, because of the enclosure size that can realistically be provided by most people.

I don't think that “well, they'd have a much harder time in the wild” is a good rationalization. An animal living in the environment that it is perfectly adapted to is always ideal. That's where it's meant to be. We do our best to emulate that in our husbandry. I'm not talking about morphs here, because those are designed by humans, not nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiiarah

I think it would be fascinating to observe what differences, if any, they have in behavior when compared to their CB relatives. Do you suppose they would be just as docile as the ones found in the pet trade?

---

I think so. I think a snappy baby wild ball python would mellow out just like a snappy CB baby does. Aside from the paint, I don't think we've done anything to change the animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snake Judy

I think so. I think a snappy baby wild ball python would mellow out just like a snappy CB baby does. Aside from the paint, I don't think we've done anything to change the animal.

---

False. Are goldfish bred for temperament? How are they considered domesticated and not a ball python. They will never be considered domesticated because most people do not like/appreciate reptiles. And I have friends who buy captive hatched ball pythons from Africa to get dinkers and 3/4 of the clutch is snappy and hissy usually. I dealt with picking through many captive bred clutches from friends and the temperament difference is very noticeable from captive hatched babies from Africa. I don't know but I read somewhere that offspring from boas and pythons of all kinds that have genes farther away from the first generation bred animals are likely to be more calm. It is like the start of domestication for reptiles who are more commonly bred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snake Judy

Are any snake breeders really looking at temperament when pairing animals, though? It seems to me like it's low on the priority list, but I'm not in the breeder circuit so I don't really know if that's being taken into consideration. Is there really a notable difference between a captive hatched python and a captive bred one? The placid nature of ball pythons is one of the things that made them so popular in the pet trade in the first place. I don't think that can be called domestication.

---

It's low on the priority list for ball pythons since a nip from one typically won't send you to the ER. They are bred, purchased, and sold for their paint jobs not their attitudes.

OTOH people keeping the larger snakes are more likely to keep and breed the mellower critters, simply because they don't care to deal with a 15-20 foot snake that wants to rip off your face every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8_Ball

False. Are goldfish bred for temperament? How are they considered domesticated and not a ball python.

---

The domestication of goldfish dates back to the Song dynasty (960-1279 AD) or earlier. It is a completely different animal from its wild carp ancestors.

You are confusing domestic with tame/docile.

We are starting to make changes to ball pythons. Colour morphs, scaleless, etc. But it has been a couple of decades, not centuries like most other animals we consider domestic.

Domestication doesn't really refer to temperament so much as a definable change in genetics from the wild ancestors, typically to the point that the domesticated animal is no longer classed as the same species but usually as a separate species or subspecies. In some cases these differences manifest as a difference in temperament (such as with dogs and horses) but it can also manifest as differences in build (such as in livestock bred for meat) or appearance (such as goldfish bred for ornamentation). Captive snakes have a variety of paint jobs that might not do so well in the wild, but that's not really enough of a difference to qualify as domestication.

I thought looking up the dictionary definition of "domestication" re. animals might help clarify. Unfortunately, the definition seems pretty loose - more or less, bringing in animals to live under human care for what ever purpose. (I don't have a paper dictionary handy to get anything better.) The scientists on the forum might have a more specific definition that the rest of us are not working from.

One thought about BP's vs Gold fish: We have the benefit of Mendelian genetics as a model for what we are doing. Did the Chinese have any working model? Maybe the BP morphs have expanded relatively recently is simply because the process of breeding morphs is now well understood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by distaff

One thought about BP's vs Gold fish: We have the benefit of Mendelian genetics as a model for what we are doing. Did the Chinese have any working model? Maybe the BP morphs have expanded relatively recently is simply because the process of breeding morphs is now well understood?

---

I'm not up on ancient Chinese history, but they were very scientifically advanced for the time. They may not have had the Mendelian model, but there was almost certainly some understanding of how traits were passed on.

I think the primary difference is in the SORT of mutations that captive BPs display, as opposed to those seen in goldfish. It's taken hundreds of years, but the majority of goldfish have mutations that far exceed the 'paint job' mutations that we encourage in BPs. They are MUCH smaller than their carp ancestors, and things such as bulging and displaced eyes, doubled tails and fins, truncated bodies, ect. are commonplace. Much different than just an oddly colored carp. If in a few hundred years all or most captive BPs had two tails and were a foot long, you could probably make the argument that they were domesticated, but as it is they are genetically indistinguishable from their wild counterparts (the mutations we deal with are a very small part of the overall code).

Generally, speciation occurs when physical, behavioral, temporal, or spatial barriers prevent two species or subspecies from interbreeding regularly. A typical pet store goldfish cannot breed with a carp. Behavioral and physical differences prevent widespread interbreeding of dogs and wolves (yes, it happens occasionally, but it is far more likely that a fight would break out, and a wolf cannot physically breed with, say, a chihuahua). Temporal pollination differences and polyploidy prevent many 'domesticated' plant species from pollinating their wild counterparts. Stick a wild BP with a captive one, and none of these things will prevent them from breeding successfully.

That is part of what I find interesting. The BP's have proven variable for color and pattern, but the body types seem identical. I don't see size, shape, or behavior differences. Compare that to the various breeds of dogs, pigeons, chickens... The BP has so far been remarkably stable for everything BUT color and pattern.

I am curious what drives the genetics in gold fish. You are correct about the morphs being so much more extreme - even, really, for other animal categories. No one has come up with a pigeon that has bulging enormous eyes that only face up. We have pouty full-breasted pigeons, but no hunchbacked pigeons with enormous trailing tails and fleshy wens growing over their foreheads. Gold fish morphs really are extraordinary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by distaff

That is part of what I find interesting. The BP's have proven variable for color and pattern, but the body types seem identical. I don't see size, shape, or behavior differences. Compare that to the various breeds of dogs, pigeons, chickens... The BP has so far been remarkably stable for everything BUT color and pattern.

I am curious what drives the genetics in gold fish. You are correct about the morphs being so much more extreme - even, really, for other animal categories. No one has come up with a pigeon that has bulging enormous eyes that only face up. We have pouty full-breasted pigeons, but no hunchbacked pigeons with enormous trailing tails and fleshy wens growing over their foreheads. Gold fish morphs really are extraordinary.

---

I think you have to take into account that snakes with traits like that are generally either culled or not allowed to breed. Also, the amount of time we've been working with BPs is incredibly small (about 40 years; just long enough that the first ones brought into the hobby are aging out) compared to centuries for even the most recently domesticated animals like goldfish. Thousands of years for things like dogs and horses.

As for the pigeons, I think the chicken is probably a good example. They come from similar ancestors, but look at what we've done to the chicken which we domesticated for meat and egg production, as opposed to the pigeon, which for the majority of the time they've been captive, was used primarily as a message courier; so really the 'default model' that could fly long distances and had coloration to avoid predators was perfect-- no need to modify that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by distaff

You are correct about the morphs being so much more extreme - even, really, for other animal categories. No one has come up with a pigeon that has bulging enormous eyes that only face up. We have pouty full-breasted pigeons, but no hunchbacked pigeons with enormous trailing tails and fleshy wens growing over their foreheads. Gold fish morphs really are extraordinary.

---

On the topic of extreme pigeons, take a look! http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/18-most-bizarre-pigeon-breeds

If people started selecting their breeding snakes for size, or for particular traits, like big eyes, or long noses, or ability to slither more quickly, who knows what we'd end up with! Probably nothing that would particularly benefit the animal, but artificial selection rarely does. Those goldfish with bulging eyes and huge, trailing fins can hardly function.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic I guess. But the distinction between domestic and wild is sort of important, because since captive bred snakes are no different, genetically or physiologically, from their wild counterparts, it means that their care should be modeled closely on their natural environment and behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snake Judy

On the topic of extreme pigeons, take a look! http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/18-most-bizarre-pigeon-breeds

---

Witchcraft is the only explanation for those birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DVirginiana

Witchcraft is the only explanation for those birds.

---

Haha I know! I kind of love them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8_Ball

False. Are goldfish bred for temperament? How are they considered domesticated and not a ball python. They will never be considered domesticated because most people do not like/appreciate reptiles. And I have friends who buy captive hatched ball pythons from Africa to get dinkers and 3/4 of the clutch is snappy and hissy usually. I dealt with picking through many captive bred clutches from friends and the temperament difference is very noticeable from captive hatched babies from Africa. I don't know but I read somewhere that offspring from boas and pythons of all kinds that have genes farther away from the first generation bred animals are likely to be more calm. It is like the start of domestication for reptiles who are more commonly bred.

---

That is really interesting. I would personally expect wild caught animals to be more defensive than those who have been around humans since they hatched. Perhaps it is not so much the genetics being refined for docile behavior as it is that the snakes do not perceive humans to be as much of a threat due to the familiarity and frequency of exposure to them. I am thinking something similar to the Konrad Lorenz "experiment" in which baby ducks imprinted onto him and treated him as their mother. Of course, snakes do not imprint on parents since the parents do not typically stick around to raise them, but it seems that early exposure has a lot to do with this in many species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcr229

It's low on the priority list for ball pythons since a nip from one typically won't send you to the ER. They are bred, purchased, and sold for their paint jobs not their attitudes.

OTOH people keeping the larger snakes are more likely to keep and breed the mellower critters, simply because they don't care to deal with a 15-20 foot snake that wants to rip off your face every day.

---

Haha oh man, that is so true. I guess there would be quite a bit more on the line if one was breeding something like retics or burms. I could definitely see breeding for temperament coming in handy in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snake Judy

The domestication of goldfish dates back to the Song dynasty (960-1279 AD) or earlier. It is a completely different animal from its wild carp ancestors.

You are confusing domestic with tame/docile.

We are starting to make changes to ball pythons. Colour morphs, scaleless, etc. But it has been a couple of decades, not centuries like most other animals we consider domestic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by distaff

I thought looking up the dictionary definition of "domestication" re. animals might help clarify. Unfortunately, the definition seems pretty loose - more or less, bringing in animals to live under human care for what ever purpose. (I don't have a paper dictionary handy to get anything better.) The scientists on the forum might have a more specific definition that the rest of us are not working from.

One thought about BP's vs Gold fish: We have the benefit of Mendelian genetics as a model for what we are doing. Did the Chinese have any working model? Maybe the BP morphs have expanded relatively recently is simply because the process of breeding morphs is now well understood?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DVirginiana

I'm not up on ancient Chinese history, but they were very scientifically advanced for the time. They may not have had the Mendelian model, but there was almost certainly some understanding of how traits were passed on.

---

I actually read something very interesting on this once. I keep fancy goldfish as well and agree with others who have commented on their remarkably diverse and amazing mutations. According to the article I was reading (which I wish I could find but it has been months now) the Chinese originally had no intention of breeding for any specific traits at all. They were originally breeding carp for food, however there existed at the time a superstition in regards to unusual golden coloring being lucky. Of course, given generations of fish, there are bound to be a few unusual natural variants. They took to sparing the lives of these unique fish by placing them in luck ponds. Originally it was just a belief that sparing a unique animal would bring good fortune. After some time however, the ponds wound up populated with nothing but uniquely colored fish. They had refined the genetics in the isoated environment almost entirely on accident, and as the fish mated they wound up with more and more brightly colored orange and red carp. Now of course some time later this became a deliberate endeavor, but originally it was really just sheer dumb luck that they stumbled upon it. That is, if the article can be believed. ;)

Well, the Barb pigeon just about qualifies as having a "wen," and the Budapest Highflier has buggy eyes, so I take it back on the pigeons. I was familiar with some of these, but not those. A very long time ago, I kept a pair of Fan Tail "doves" (Tasha Tudor's pigeon).

Interesting account on how the Gold fish breeding started. The whole idea of gold color bringing good luck is so very Chinese. Unless there is better documentation, I see no reason to doubt the story. LOVE Gold fish! They are like living gemstones. I have two basic "feeders" in a large livestock watering trough out back in the green house/shade house. Had them for about four years. One of the neighbors gave them to me. At the time, I was trying to start an aquaponics project that never really came to fruition.

I don't know but the term domesticated is very loose. I can breed lessers with bug eyes to make more lessers with bug eyes.. or super cinnamons with duck bills not found in wild stock. It is so similar to what we do with other domestic animals. Hamsters are considered domesticated. They were bred out for the pet trade for coat color in less than 100 years. And their temperaments suck lol. I have more trust that my snakes won't turn on me compared to a hamster or guinea pig. I do not consider many reptiles as "domestic". Ball pythons are such a big industry right now and I feel like everyone is breeding them compared to a lot of other snakes and they are, per say, "evolving" to captivity every generation little by little. I wish I could find the article about temperament and how captive bred balls seem to be getting more "hardy", eat better, etc. I do not know where I read but there was many valid points. Maybe domesticated is not the word yet..

Oh and by captive hatched I meant eggs taken from the wild, hatched in African farms and shipped around the world. I swear those little buggers are the meanest ball pythons ever and I do not even think its the stress from shipping because they do not tame down as fast as captive bred babies as they grow.

1. "Domestication is the process of adapting wild plants and animals for human use. Domestic species are raised for food, work, clothing, medicine, and many other uses. Domesticated plants and animals must be raised and cared for by humans. Domesticated species are not wild."
   
   Ok, well everything was "wild" at some point. And these complex morphs are not found in the wild besides single genes. We raise these snakes for our entertainment and for money from the diverse colors we make with them. And they are "wild animals" adapted to human use and captivity. Ball pythons somewhat fit the bill. :)

Thank you all for your thoughts. If anybody else out there wants to chime in, go for it!