Live food...why? Honestly & with facts!

[Missy King]

Ball Pythons, or any snake for the matter, are not domesticated animals. I am an animal biologist pre-vet. I think you misunderstand the wiki definition (and wiki isn't always correct).

I used Dictionary.com

Domestication is selective breeding for human use and manipulation - to control an animal or plant's behavior and/or to make them dependent on humans for survival. ...

Correct. I agreed with that in my second to last post.

Dogs have been selectively bred from wolves to do certain duties such as herding, retrieving, & guarding. Some dogs, such as terriers, are bred to kill rats. But do they know that the rats are a source of food? Probably not. They were bred to kill vermin, not eat them. (I'm sure there are exceptions). A dog in a city setting can survive off trash and scavenging. You throw that same dog into a remote wilderness, and the chances of survival are low because they are dependent on humans.

True. However, i have a couple of snakes that have been bred from lines that have been in captivity for 20 years, and one for 15 years. Both of these snakes to not strike their food. THey do not like their food to move. THey only eat dead food. If put in the wild, i believe these two snakes could not take care of themselves, and are therefore, slightly domesticated. They, and their parents, were selected as pets because they were docile, easy going, and content to be reliant on humans for their needs. They were selected, and manipulated by the breeders to continue a line of friendly and easy going f/t eating snakes, because that is what was easiest to sell as a pet. How, by your own definition of domestication, can they not be even slightly domesticated? It's a broad generalization to say that all BPs in captivity were only selected for color and not behavior. This is where i say it strays from fact, and goes into opinion (which i said was frustrating and i didn't like)...because i interpret the definition of domestication to include these two snakes in-particular, based upon their actions and reactions to stimuli.
You also said

(Snakes have not been modified for behavior. Just their looks.)...

This is a generalization, and I believe that exceptions to this exist....which mean those exceptions fall into the "domesticated" definition. This is an opinion which can be tested to create fact either way it is said. it just CAN be tested, i mean.
Saying "All ball pythons are domesticated" was incorrect on my part, just as saying "all by pythons are not domesticated" was incorrect on your part. What is more accurate is to say that "It can be proven that many ball pythons do not fit into the domesticated definitions..." thus also concluding that there may be some that can.

(Snakes have not been modified for behavior. Just their looks.)

this just frankly cannot be a truth for ALL snakes like this statement implies

Just because we take out a snake's water dish and don't throw a rat into their tub does NOT mean they naturally rely on humans. They rely on humans because they're forced to, not because they don't know how to survive w/o aide.

Correct and exactly what i was trying to say...except you go on to say

You return a BP(even those that are captive hatched) to Africa, and the chances of their survival is significantly higher than a true domesticated animal returning to the wild.

which is probably true, however, there are exceptions. Even basic statistics will agree there are exceptions.

Also, checking a water bowl is an acclimation, not adaptation to humans or domestication. Acclimation happens w/i an organism's life. Adaptation occurs over many generations.

True. I still think there are many examples of domestication, that come from a few generations of adaptation to the dependence on humans for survival, as stated by the definition of domestication.

With so many generations of snakes out there, and for as many years as they have been being bred, it cannot be a 100% true statement to say that there are not some domesticated bps. That's my point.