Are we keeping our snakes improperly, a study on snake housing.

I don't remember seeing this posted here before, but it seems particularly relevant to keepers of large pythons. Here is a published study looking at the captive housing of snakes and it doesn't look so good for us. The study suggest that we as reptile keepers should have much larger enclosures for our snakes than nearly anyone provides. For the vast majority of people the recommendations would be nearly, if not totally, impossible for the larger species such as burmese, amesthystine and reticulated pythons. I doubt most of us would say larger enclosures are bad but is the significance as great as a cursury read of the study implies? Thoughts on the matter?

Link to the study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...58787818302211

So, going by the short of the article that snakes should be in enclosures where they can fully stretch in a straight line, the overriding majority of owners both aren't and reasonably can't provide such housing for anything the size of, say, a full-grown boa constrictor upwards. Not only would such an enclosure be incredibly expensive, but fitting an 8 foot+ enclosure (let alone the 15-20 feet of the giants) would be a tall if not impossible order for many dwellings due to sheer space logistics.

I would agree that many or most "enclosures" fall short of what is optimal for keeping snakes. I think we all need to work on that- even if that puts many of them "off the table" as pets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snagrio

So, going by the short of the article that snakes should be in enclosures where they can fully stretch in a straight line, the overriding majority of owners both aren't and reasonably can't provide such housing for anything the size of, say, a full-grown boa constrictor upwards. Not only would such an enclosure be incredibly expensive, but fitting an 8 foot+ enclosure (let alone the 15-20 feet of the giants) would be a tall if not impossible order for many dwellings due to sheer space logistics.

---

While it may be difficult to provide a "full length" enclosure for some of the largest of pythons, it's not difficult or unreasonable to provide that for a full-grown boa constrictor in most cases. Alot of boas never exceed the 5 to 7ft range. You might get a few 8ft+ females sometimes. Larger than that is quite rare, if not unrealistic. People usually think of the largest possible snake sizes, when most never reach those sizes (like the 20ft number you mentioned).

Not a very good study. There are too many different species being used, an extremely small sample size, and no controls to speak of. The only measure being taken is if allowed, the snakes will straighten out or try to, not that it is of any benefit to them. Then it has the audacity to call everything we believe in the hobby "folklore"/"mythology" without any evidence, when some things might be, but many are tried and true across sample size far greater than what was used in the study. This is not how science works.

It think some species really do need more space than the avg keeper gives them to be healthy, but I am basing this on measurable evidence, not just wild assumption. We can look at obesity for example, and notice that some species of giant snakes (like retics) kept in small enclosures tend to either be obese, or have low muscle percentage compared with animals who are given more space. Ability to climb is another factor in obesity in retics we need to consider, because they really do love to climb. When the animal is being negatively effected by the enclosure size, there is clear evidence that we are sacrificing their wellbeing for money/space savings. Oftentimes these giant snakes aren't even given LxW>=length of the snake like we give others, despite them being a pretty active species if allowed. Time outside the enclosure should be taken into account as well. If a keeper does not have time to supervise their animal exercising outside the enclosure on a regular basis, the animal is going to need more room inside the enclosure.

IMHO any study that attempts to combine every single species of snake is going to be seriously faulty because the needs vary between species drastically. Breeders may have biased, but at least they have a large sample size of a single species to gather information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

Not a very good study. There are too many different species being used, an extremely small sample size, and no controls to speak of. The only measure being taken is if allowed, the snakes will straighten out or try to, not that it is of any benefit to them. Then it has the audacity to call everything we believe in the hobby "folklore"/"mythology" without any evidence, when some things might be, but many are tried and true across sample size far greater than what was used in the study. This is not how science works.

It think some species really do need more space than the avg keeper gives them to be healthy, but I am basing this on measurable evidence, not just wild assumption. We can look at obesity for example, and notice that some species of giant snakes (like retics) kept in small enclosures tend to either be obese, or have low muscle percentage compared with animals who are given more space. Ability to climb is another factor in obesity in retics we need to consider, because they really do love to climb. When the animal is being negatively effected by the enclosure size, there is clear evidence that we are sacrificing their wellbeing for money/space savings. Oftentimes these giant snakes aren't even given LxW>=length of the snake like we give others, despite them being a pretty active species if allowed. Time outside the enclosure should be taken into account as well. If a keeper does not have time to supervise their animal exercising outside the enclosure on a regular basis, the animal is going to need more room inside the enclosure.

IMHO any study that attempts to combine every single species of snake is going to be seriously faulty because the needs vary between species drastically. Breeders may have biased, but at least they have a large sample size of a single species to gather information.

---

Also REALLY didn't like the little quip about how "the government should step in and mandate regulations" because we have enough of that garbage going on in the reptile hobby as it is, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I think the common rule of "enough size for a snake to fully extend itself in two directions" is adequate personally, but there can always be exceptions on a species or even individual basis.

If anything, I'm more interested in the study of enrichment that was barely touched upon in the article. How much value do snakes place on environmental enrichment? If and how does it vary between species (notably sedentary vs more active groups)? What do snakes consider as enrichment and how does it differentiate among species (not only sedentary vs active but also burrowing/terrestrial vs semi/fully arboreal)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snagrio

Also REALLY didn't like the little quip about how "the government should step in and mandate regulations" because we have enough of that garbage going on in the reptile hobby as it is, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I think the common rule of "enough size for a snake to fully extend itself in two directions" is adequate personally, but there can always be exceptions on a species or even individual basis.

If anything, I'm more interested in the study of enrichment that was barely touched upon in the article. How much value do snakes place on environmental enrichment? If and how does it vary between species (notably sedentary vs more active groups)? What do snakes consider as enrichment and how does it differentiate among species (not only sedentary vs active but also burrowing/terrestrial vs semi/fully arboreal)?

---

I agree. Herp fans and keepers suffer enough from government regulations. More regulations equals less people who can enjoy the ownership of animals because of the licensing that would grow in price as the regulations do. The answer is simple. Be responsible to the animals you care for. I always tried to give my animals as much room and as natural as possible but it is difficult to provide a space that is large enough for a 15-20+ Ft snake. In the wild they have a territory and they have a way of life that would prove almost impossible without a zoo quality enclosure. We do need to keep in mind that they think and adapt to what is available. Sure my experience is some what limited. My Rainbow was 18ft at age 6 and I often wished her 8ft X 4ft X 4ft cage was larger. It did however have a cave with proper heat, A warm swimming area large enough to get all the way in and submerge when she so desired and she was also allowed time to roam the living room under controlled conditions. Was this adequate? She seamed to enjoy her enclosure. She would go back to it once she was done roaming the living room and curl up after having some time to explore. Keep in mind she was pet quality from birth and was also used for educational shows. We (herp) owners all do our best. Should we? That is a moral issue and I feel we all have to answer that on a personal level.

I agree the article is limited in sample size and the way it was presented seamed bias.

According to those parameters a lot of us aren’t keeping our animals properly. I won’t be able to provide 10’ enclosures for my scrub and olive but I’m working on their 8 footers. Hopefully they’ll be here by years end.

This article makes the rounds in FB groups frequently. If you research the backgrounds of the authors you will discover they are highly intertwined with animal-rights groups, specifically PETA, which is the source of at least two of the pictures in the article.

That being the case, it is small wonder that they would conclude that we are keeping our animals wrong. Anything to discredit us is going to be in their favour. The real bothersome thing is that people in the community keep latching onto it, thereby bedding down with the devil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

This article makes the rounds in FB groups frequently. If you research the backgrounds of the authors you will discover they are highly intertwined with animal-rights groups, specifically PETA, which is the source of at least two of the pictures in the article.

That being the case, it is small wonder that they would conclude that we are keeping our animals wrong. Anything to discredit us is going to be in their favour. The real bothersome thing is that people in the community keep latching onto it, thereby bedding down with the devil

---

PETA.

Well, now I know where to put that whole article.
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/3c0...2&odnBg=ffffff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdWies0okKE
Basically he's citing the exact same study that was posted here and is worried that if we don't self-regulate then governments will continue to legislate what we are and aren't allowed to have.

Ultimately, it's a fool's errand. Probably would help a little and we as hobbyists should strive to improve and adapt to the best of our abilities, but in the end such people don't actually care about animal welfare. It's all about telling the little guy what they can and can't do.

Any given domesticated mammal has undergone and STILL goes through horrendous breeding practices (I'm sure many of you are familiar with puppy mills for example and their association with places like Petland) yet you don't really see government outcry to ban a bunch of dogs (it does happen with specific breeds sometimes granted) because of bad egg breeders and owners that don't take care of their dogs properly. To give another example, this summer someone's pet spitting cobra escaped in North Carolina, and of course the entire thing was sensationalized even though it was eventually caught with no harm done to anybody, yet that was all it took for figureheads to start making sweeping ideas about what's allowed to be kept in the state. Meanwhile just this year so far, 28 people have been killed by dogs in the US, yet you don't see national headlines about it.

The reality is, reptile keeping has unfortunately reached peaks in popularity at a time where powers in high places increasingly want to restrict what the common man can accomplish in their lives, and being as generally reviled as reptiles are in the first place, the hobby is all too easily caught in the crosshairs.

I feel like I should present a bit of a counterpoint, as there are quite a few of us in the hobby who agree with the first article linked as well as the video linked later in the thread. So fair warning: this is a rant. But I'm going to try to make this my only post on the issue, as these boards are a safe haven for me and I want to keep it that way. Sincere apologies if I come off too strong here. I promise I won't be engaging in any arguments or further discussions about this. I think I just needed to get it said and then let it be.

I am well aware that the study was supported in part by groups that want to ban reptile keeping. That doesn't make the study meaningless. Data is data, and the study isn't perfect (no study is perfect), but it was decently constructed and the conclusions were reasonable. I guess I should clarify that my whole career has been research centered and that searching, reading, and interpreting research has been virtually a daily activity for years.

American standards of husbandry for reptiles are abysmally low, and I've suspected for a long time that this particular batch of chickens is going to come home to roost in ways that a lot of us won't like. We're seeing some of the consequences already playing out in the form of bans on specific species, with the legislation supported in part by groups whose long-term goal is to ban keeping all reptiles.

Trying to pretend that articles like the one linked are worthless because we don't like some of the groups who sponsored the study is just sticking our collective heads in the sand, because there are plenty of studies out there reaching similar conclusions and making it crystal clear that husbandry improvements are needed for the welfare of reptiles. Some of those studies were funded in part by anti-keeping groups, but many were not. And believe me, the anti-keeping groups are happily noting every single one of the studies and using them as ammunition against us.

Instead of responding effectively, keeper discussion groups often mock and ridicule many advocacy efforts for improved husbandry, and prefer to nitpick either the studies or the authors while steadfastly ignoring the larger issues the studies highlight, because we won't freaking acknowledge their importance and can't be bothered to consider changing or regulating our own hobby.

This has nothing to do with the oh-so-evil government wanting to control citizens. How do I know this? Because I've worked directly with legislators and legislation on more occasions than I care to recall. Well-organized anti-keeping groups are very effective at lobbying. "The government" (legislators) responds to those organized efforts. In the meantime, we as breeders and keepers have frankly done a lousy job of responding in any effective, organized way. And we have utterly failed to address husbandry standards, instead leaving ourselves completely vulnerable to the imposition of bans on keeping and misguided legislation informed only by the fanatics who are the only groups organized enough to exert influence.

In general, American keepers rarely bother to follow what's going on with proposed laws, much less offer public comment on pending legislation or make regular donations to support USARK. They just complain after the laws get passed.

Yes, I am frustrated and a little angry. I am sick to death of being accused (not here - in other settings) of being some sort of anthropomorphizing animal rights nut because I advocate for providing snakes with large, environmentally complex and enriching habitats. I'm tired of the crew that gets defensive and refuses to accept the idea that maybe we should change the generally accepted standards for keeping, and who reject change because minimalistic rack systems are more convenient and cost-effective for them. I'm tired of being accused of being a mindless sheep who wants government control when I say that based on what I've seen among legislators, we as keepers should consider implementing mentoring/permit systems for some reptiles in order to prevent outright bans.

Articles like the one the OP linked, and the current scattered incidents of legislation and local ordinances that result in irrational bans and restrictions are just the tip of the iceberg. I do a lot of work in other settings to try to ensure that things don't get worse for us as keepers, but honestly, based on the longstanding resistance I've encountered to any hint that maybe we need to attend to matters in our own house before someone else does, I'm not optimistic.

Rant over.

There’s plenty of room for various methods and happy mediums. I don’t care if you use minimalistic tubs or room size enclosures. As long as your animals aren’t being abused or neglected then do what works best for you and your critters and be happy. We should also respect the rights and beliefs of others that think and operate differently. Live by your standards and let others do the same. ✌🏾❤️