Okay, I write this post with respect and a willingness to learn. However, I am having a hard time believing the following "recycled" statements (both of which I happen to abide by):

1. Ball pythons need to have two identical hides. One on the cool side and one on the hot side. This is because if they prefer one over the other they will not thermoregulate properly. They will choose security over their own well being.

2. If an enclosure is to big, the snake may become stressed out and refuse food. Thus, you should get a smaller enclosure or put lots of extra hiding spaces.

I would argue against these two theories based on the life of ball pythons in their natural environments. Having said that, I understand there are things you would not allow to happen with captive animals that happen in the wild.

For instance, I understand that many feed f/t because of the fear of rodents biting the snake. In this case, the naturalist would argue that if they eat live in the wild they should be able to do the same in captivity? In theory, this is true. Snakes in the wild feed live and probably get bitten. The difference is, in the wild the snake dies and balance is maintained. However, in captivity the owner is out anywhere from 100-20,000 dollars! So, in that case I could see how the natural environment theory would not hold any water.

Nevertheless, I do not know if there is evidence or a good theory that could suggest that BP's in the wild are dying/living shorter lives because they could not find an identical burrow to hide in or that they will not eat anymore because they left their 3 - 4.5 square foot territory.

I am open to some new, out of the box, non recycled theories that would support the aforementioned statements (the hides, enclosure size and even the live vs. f/t statements).

I understand this post is long but I feel it could spark new knowledge about the hobby we all love so much.

Peace out,

Jimmy