Is it ok if my bp eats a live mouse, live?

[WingedWolfPsion]

The rat did initially get ahold of my snake, but that's what scales are for, and it didn't do any damage.

Scales aren't as tough as your fingernails, and a rodent can bite through metal if it has a mind to.
If your snake wasn't harmed by the bite, that's lucky, but what you said proves my point--the rat bit your snake before you were able to intervene. That your snake was uninjured by the bite is more a matter of luck.
I don't personally feel that even a minor bite is acceptable, and I do all I can to avoid it.
If frozen animals were less nutritious than live, then zoos wouldn't be feeding them.
Likewise, if the issue with f/t is nutrition, then fresh pre-killed prey is the safest way to feed.

Also, the question on 'what is so inhumane about natural predator/prey relationships'...that's a silly question. There's nothing natural about feeding a live rodent to a pet snake. A natural predator/prey relationship occurs in the wild, not in your living room in a plastic tub with you standing by to try to save the predator from a bite if the prey turns mean.

Humane: marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering.
What is inhumane about feeding a live rodent to a snake when you have a choice? You are facilitating suffering. The rodent doesn't die painlessly or without distress, and it's your fault.
If you're ok with that, then fine. But don't pretend that the rodents aren't suffering, or that it's not your fault that they do, when you have other options for feeding your snake. That's simply dishonest. Your snake may be doing the 'dirty work', but the RESPONSIBILITY is still yours.

My concerns with live feeding have nothing to do with what's humane, because the brief amount of distress the rodents suffer before they are eaten doesn't bother me. I prefer to kill them instantly, because there's no need to cause suffering uneccessarily, but my primary problem with live feeding is that rodents bite snakes. I wonder if some of the smaller bites are simply going unnoticed by the folks who are feeding live regularly. A snake's scales don't offer any protection from a rodent's teeth at all. They offer some minor protection from scratches, that's about it.
All I can guess is that the folks who are feeding live all the time are either missing the small bites, or they're just extraordinarily lucky, since so many of the rest of us have had snakes be bitten even with us hovering with tongs in hand to try and prevent it.
Why take such a risk? I simply doing understand the reasoning behind it.

Feeding live is not the only way to ensure that the prey animals are healthy.
Pre-killing works just as well for that.
So does freezing rodents you raised yourself. That has to do with the source of your feeders, not with their state at the time you feed them. If you buy live feeder from somewhere, you might see obviously sick animals, but for the rest, you won't know what they've been eating, or their overall state of health.

Can anyone explain why NOT to prekill to eliminate the risk of a bite? Other than rather odd statements about what's natural for snakes that are living in plastic tubs on the other side of the world from their native habitat, of course.

All I can see in this is a group of people saying that if done properly, live feeding is safe...and another group of people with a ton of anecdotes about feeding live properly, and having their snakes bitten. Either feeding live properly is something that requires a lot of skill and possibly an apprenticeship to accomplish, or it's just not that safe after all.

Then there's something about how frozen/thawed is dangerous if done improperly. Any feeding method is dangerous if done improperly, that was never the question.

[Adam_Wysocki]

Can anyone explain why NOT to prekill to eliminate the risk of a bite?

Because FOR ME, after feeding live rodents to hundreds and hundreds of ball pythons every week for years and year, I am confident in my abilities to feed my animals without the risk of a bite ... so FOR ME, there is absolutely no need to pre-kill anything.

Just because one person may or may not believe that there is a "risk" to feeding live prey to ball pythons doesn't mean that everyone should have to or not have to believe that.

Hope this helps.

-adam

[Aric]

Of course, this could be much simpler.
What do zoos do?

They have access to the best husbandry advice, specialized exotic animal veterinarians, and they presumeably know what they're doing.

So, how do zoos feed their snakes?

The simple logic factor here....dead rodents cannot bite. Live rodents, unless you have dressed them up with little masks like Hannibal Lector, CAN bite. You may never have it happen, but they can. That RISK is what makes live feeding not as safe. It's not a certainty--it's a RISK. A risk that doesn't exist with dead prey.

We mainly feed pre-killed rodents at the Knoxville Zoo but we will also feed live if it were needed, no risk at all if you do it responsibly. The main reason we feed p/k is not because it is "less risk for the snake" but mainly for the public. We dont want a small child to see a snake constrict a live mouse/rat or a venomous snake to strike a live rodent and the public watch the process of how the venom works.

As for me, I feed everything from live to pre-killed to frozen, ive never had a problem with live feeding.

[kc261]

If frozen animals were less nutritious than live, then zoos wouldn't be feeding them.

That is a big assumption. Using similar logic, one could assume that if formula were less nutritious than breastmilk, then mother's wouldn't feed it to their babies. Or if the canning process causes vegetables to lose a large percentage of their vitamin content, people would always eat fresh veggies. Or if Big Macs were really bad for you, then no one would eat them and McDonald's would go out of business.

But the fact is people don't always do what is best. Sometimes people do things because they think it is best. Maybe they don't know there is an alternative, or they are misinformed about the issue. Sometimes people do things because it is the only way they know how. Even if they know other choices exist and are better, they may be afraid to try them, or feel they can't for some reason. Sometimes people do things because they are more convenient. Sometimes people do things because they think the risk is worth it, or the downside is negligible. That's just the way it is.

Personally, I'd rather see fewer of these lengthy debates on this forum. I think we all realize that no one is going to get everyone to agree, and by now most of us pretty much know who stands where on the issue. But often when reading these threads I get the feeling that some people feel that they have to get the last word in. Why? Do you (generic you, not talking to anyone in particular) really think you are going to convince everyone? Get them to admit you are right? Get them to change what they do?

I think most, if not all of the people posting, would agree that when done properly, the risks of any feeding method are reasonably small, both in how often a problem will occur, and how big the problem will be. So why not spend all that time and energy emphasizing how to be as safe as possible with whatever feeding method each person chooses?

[Adam_Wysocki]

That is a big assumption. Using similar logic, one could assume that if formula were less nutritious than breastmilk, then mother's wouldn't feed it to their babies. Or if the canning process causes vegetables to lose a large percentage of their vitamin content, people would always eat fresh veggies. Or if Big Macs were really bad for you, then no one would eat them and McDonald's would go out of business.

But the fact is people don't always do what is best. Sometimes people do things because they think it is best. Maybe they don't know there is an alternative, or they are misinformed about the issue. Sometimes people do things because it is the only way they know how. Even if they know other choices exist and are better, they may be afraid to try them, or feel they can't for some reason. Sometimes people do things because they are more convenient. Sometimes people do things because they think the risk is worth it, or the downside is negligible. That's just the way it is.

Personally, I'd rather see fewer of these lengthy debates on this forum. I think we all realize that no one is going to get everyone to agree, and by now most of us pretty much know who stands where on the issue. But often when reading these threads I get the feeling that some people feel that they have to get the last word in. Why? Do you (generic you, not talking to anyone in particular) really think you are going to convince everyone? Get them to admit you are right? Get them to change what they do?

I think most, if not all of the people posting, would agree that when done properly, the risks of any feeding method are reasonably small, both in how often a problem will occur, and how big the problem will be. So why not spend all that time and energy emphasizing how to be as safe as possible with whatever feeding method each person chooses?

One of the best posts that I've read on this site since joining 4+ years ago ... Thank you!

-adam

[MeMe]

One of the best posts that I've read on this site.

-adam

ditto that junks.