The Pine Debate

[WingedWolfPsion]

That's the problem, you can't take the individual experiences of a few people, and say 'oh, see, well that proves it, it's safe'.

If snakes aren't reacting to pine in a similar fashion to the way rats do, then they aren't very likely to show elevated liver enzymes if kept on pine, the way rats do. If that is so, then it might be safe for them, but you cannot know until you test it.

Your argument simply makes no sense.
Rats carry mycoplasma, it makes them very sensitive to respiratory irritants. Ball pythons have one large primary lung, and only a tiny secondary lung, and they have no diaphragm, so they can't cough--that makes them sensitive to respiratory issues as well, though possibly not as sensitive as rats.
But this isn't about a simple respiratory irritant, it's about toxins that affect other organ systems in the body.

Where is the logic in taking an unnecessary chance with the health of valuable animals that we care about?

Are you honestly trying to claim that 'so and so does it and he says he never had a problem' is equal to an actual scientific study? Are you honestly trying to claim that because you haven't NOTICED a problem, that means there isn't one, period?

Why are you trying to promote pine as safe, when you have no scientific evidence to back it up? Since we know pine is not safe for some other animals, FOR WHAT REASON would we take the risk without the data on whether or not it is completely safe for snakes?

That's what I'm asking her--my main question--WHY TAKE THAT RISK?