zoos housing snakes together

[SaintTawny]

Zoo animals are also under a level of scrutiny you might be surprised to learn about. In addition to the patrons walking around the zoo all day, several employees will work behind the scenes, checking the animals, feeding them, weighing them, observing them from the outside, and even rotating them out with other hidden stock in some cases when they even suspect a problem. I have had the opportunity on a few occasions to visit a wonderful lady who works in the Smithsonian National Zoo, and she showed us around behind the cages. You really would never realize how much attention is paid to these animals unless you had been back there yourself and seen the detailed logs they keep. You could never hope to provide such attention to detail to your own collection in part due to the funding and partly due to the volume of staff. This is why they can be successful housing multiple snakes together.

[Pyrate81]

...The zoo is co-habbing a copperhead with a timber rattler.

...They probably care more than you realize. It actually can cost much more money to house them together correctly - and most hobbyists who keep only a couple of species are completely and utterly ignorant to the fact that many species can be cohabited with no problems whatsoever....

:agrees with skip:


Why is is so terrible to house these 2 snakes together?

Using this pic and statements and adding an example: In PA copperheads and timber rattlers live in the same area and have similar husbandry. So in the wild, it is quite possible for these 2 snakes to cross paths without incident and possibly overlap territories. When I was a kid and watched the discovery channel and they would show pictures or video of rhinos, zebras, giraffes, lions, hyhenas etc all drinking from the same water hole at the same time without incident, does that mean the rhinos and zebras kept at the philly zoo should be cohabbed together? There are many animals outside of snakes in the philly zoo which are cohabbed. If their needs are met, then why not? It gives a more natural veiwing of how these animals would intereact in the wild.

I will agree some enclosures should/could be set up bigger or better, IMO. Most of the time, they fit the need(s) of the animal/animals kept their in.


Sometimes studying our animals/pets instead of "keeping" them can open our minds to greater capacity for thinking, viewing, and understanding.

[wilomn]

Heh. I'm glad I came up long enough ago to have to try it myself instead of listening to a bunch of sockmonkeys give advice on something THEY'VE NEVER DONE.

While our scaly pals are living creatures, we are also the ones who keep them and if no one ever tried anything other than the 'accepted' methods, a LOT of us would not have any snakes at all. Sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the snakes thrive, and sometimes they die.

Strangely, this also happens to those very sockmonkeys who keep them alone, as their fellow pooflingers insist they must.

So tell me, oh monkeys both great in number and possessing boundless wisdom, why are you right again? How is it that YOU know so much?

Learn people. Try. Fail. Succeed. LEARN.

But don't let the sockmonkeys rule.

[bcr229]

Why is is so terrible to house these 2 snakes together?

The enclosure footprint was 3'x3'. In the wild yes, these two species will encounter each other or even over-winter in the same den, and then go their separate ways in the spring. It does not mean that two should be housed together in less than ten square feet of space, giving the public the impression that the practice is ok.

[SaintTawny]

Heh. I'm glad I came up long enough ago to have to try it myself instead of listening to a bunch of sockmonkeys give advice on something THEY'VE NEVER DONE.

While our scaly pals are living creatures, we are also the ones who keep them and if no one ever tried anything other than the 'accepted' methods, a LOT of us would not have any snakes at all. Sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the snakes thrive, and sometimes they die.

Strangely, this also happens to those very sockmonkeys who keep them alone, as their fellow pooflingers insist they must.

So tell me, oh monkeys both great in number and possessing boundless wisdom, why are you right again? How is it that YOU know so much?

Learn people. Try. Fail. Succeed. LEARN.

But don't let the sockmonkeys rule.

Most of the longtime members of this forum know your opinion on this matter, and you can continue to express it as long as you want. There is, however, no need to be juvenile about it.

[Painted]

:agrees with skip:


Why is is so terrible to house these 2 snakes together?

Using this pic and statements and adding an example: In PA copperheads and timber rattlers live in the same area and have similar husbandry. So in the wild, it is quite possible for these 2 snakes to cross paths without incident and possibly overlap territories. When I was a kid and watched the discovery channel and they would show pictures or video of rhinos, zebras, giraffes, lions, hyhenas etc all drinking from the same water hole at the same time without incident, does that mean the rhinos and zebras kept at the philly zoo should be cohabbed together? There are many animals outside of snakes in the philly zoo which are cohabbed. If their needs are met, then why not? It gives a more natural veiwing of how these animals would intereact in the wild.

I will agree some enclosures should/could be set up bigger or better, IMO. Most of the time, they fit the need(s) of the animal/animals kept their in.


Sometimes studying our animals/pets instead of "keeping" them can open our minds to greater capacity for thinking, viewing, and understanding.

Timbers and coppers live together in Kentucky as well. I have seen them huddled together in dens or underneath fallen trees. In my opinion it is not a bad thing to house animals together in captivity that house themselves together in the wild. As long as they are not predatory against each other or ill from overcrowding and stress.

EDIT: To go off what Bcr229 said, I do think the enclosure was extremely small if it's only 3x3 but then again I wonder if that is only a temporary display and if the animals are moved into larger enclosures away from public eye. I am not picking a side on the debate, because I know nothing of zoo practice. But I think there is a lot to be learned on both sides. The zoo perspective as well as the personal hobbyist or keeper.

[Pyrate81]

^^ good info on those snakes.



IMO, a 3x3 is probably fine for those snakes in a good/proper set up.

I also assume the PHD who decided to put them together in that enclosure wasn't a complete moron and actually studied the animals for an extensive amount of time before doing so.


I'll be the butt if I assume wrong.

[Painted]

^^ good info on those snakes.



IMO, a 3x3 is probably fine for those snakes in a good/proper set up.

I also assume the PHD who decided to put them together in that enclosure wasn't a complete moron and actually studied the animals for an extensive amount of time before doing so.


I'll be the butt if I assume wrong.

Haha, your Ph.D comment made me laugh. I do know a few herpetologists with Ph.D's who work in a zoo setting. And I can say from my own experience that they did their absolute best to study, provide and understand the animals they were attending to in their field. The real question comes down to this: are inappropriate settings the fault of the Ph.D's or the zoo itself?

I would argue the zoo almost always. I believe that when animals are being housed incorrectly (I am not referencing the coppers and timbers) the blame usually falls on the keepers. But in reality the keepers didn't build those enclosures- at least to my knowledge they didn't. Definitely not the dimensions, anyway. They were hired to take care of the animals already in them.
This is probably obvious information to 99% of everyone, but I wanted to go ahead and reiterate it in case someone runs across this post eons from now, lol.
When I am trying to think critically I usually sticky note all the questions and sub questions in my mind as I read the situation. In this case, the zoo, the herpetologists and care takers are all separate factors.
Anyway, that was my 1 cent, haha. It probably wasn't worth 2 xP

[Bluebonnet Herp]

There is, however, no need to be juvenile about it.

I don't know about you, but I giggled. Have fun being uptight.

[Pyrate81]

Haha, your Ph.D comment made me laugh. I do know a few herpetologists with Ph.D's who work in a zoo setting. And I can say from my own experience that they did their absolute best to study, provide and understand the animals they were attending to in their field. The real question comes down to this: are inappropriate settings the fault of the Ph.D's or the zoo itself?

I would argue the zoo almost always. I believe that when animals are being housed incorrectly (I am not referencing the coppers and timbers) the blame usually falls on the keepers. But in reality the keepers didn't build those enclosures- at least to my knowledge they didn't. Definitely not the dimensions, anyway. They were hired to take care of the animals already in them.
This is probably obvious information to 99% of everyone, but I wanted to go ahead and reiterate it in case someone runs across this post eons from now, lol.
When I am trying to think critically I usually sticky note all the questions and sub questions in my mind as I read the situation. In this case, the zoo, the herpetologists and care takers are all separate factors.
Anyway, that was my 1 cent, haha. It probably wasn't worth 2 xP

Good points. I'm in a situation where my nature center dictates what the animals are kept in. Which I'm working to improve. I figured a zoo would/should be more willing/able to provide better for their animals. But red tape and budgets and other factors dictate certain things...