Are ball pythons even [I]slightly[/I] arboreal?

[Skiploder]

I have to disagree and say that the terms we use to define these snakes is very important. Further I would say that there behavior in captivity does not in anyway prove what their behavior in the wild is. The problem I have is that merely demonstrating what an animal can and will do in the wild tells us nothing about how we should keep that animal in captivity. Its a starting point but not the final say. Again I will compare humans to BP's knowing full well that we are a far more adaptable species. If an alien species were to come down and abduct humans to keep as pets how would they keep those humans? If they abducted people who live above the artic circle they might be fed a diet high in fat and kept at near freezing temperatures with low humidity. Taken from the tropic they would be kept with plenty of water to swim at high temperatures and high humidity with a diet high in fish fruits. If enough study was done they would find that neither is an ideal habitat. The question is not what will a BP do in the wild and what will it eat. The question is under what circumstances will a BP thrive. Further the question becomes what is the easiest environment to keep a BP and still have it thrive. If you think you have answered those questions then great. Pointing to how an animal lives in the wild is not necessarily helpful.

Ball pythons don't live in a greatly varied habitat - they live in fairly geographic similar locations throughout their natural range. Optimum thermoregulation temperatures and prey vary little throughout the range.

That's why we try not to apply cookie-cutter approaches across species lines. Montane species from Africa (afromontane) have completely different needs from those, let's say, on the savannas.

What I am sure of is that ball pythons aren't found in tupper ware boxes in the wild either. They also aren't obligate rodent feeders.

Very few people on this board can claim that they have kept their snakes into old age. That's not a knock, just an observation of the age of many of the posters and the transient nature of the hobby.

This comes into play because there are some of us who have kept different species well into the limits of their lifespans. What we are learning is that sometimes an attempt to dumb down husbandry to the lowest common denominator can have unintended long term affects.

Example: for well over 11 years, I have kept my original group of thrasops on an all rodent diet. What has occurred as a result is an almost across the board issue with fatty tumors and cholesterol deposits on the corneas. My one captive dispholidus died riddled with tumors and blind in both eyes. My oldest thrasops female has had several surgeries to remove tumors and is completely blind.

These are sister species which in the wild, are mainly reptile and bird eaters. My vet is 100% convinced that the diet I have provided them out of convenience has resulted in these issues. As a result, the next generation is being fed a more natural prey model.

Likewise any attempts to keep select other species confined in boxes, in the manner balls are kept, can results in egg binding and other health issues.

So to respectfully disagree with your stance as to how an animal lives in the wild, I would argue that oftentimes it is of critical importance.