It is kind of funny how so often the implication is that zoos set the standards in husbandry, or something to that effect. Once a person realizes that this whole animal welfare PR from zoos is questionably accurate everything starts to make more sense. Relevant if slightly dated book: Animal Underworld. There are still zoo offspring being sold at herp expos to literally anyone with money, so at least some of the stuff uncovered in the book still happens.
One thing to keep in mind is that zoos have a big version of that horrible affliction "empty enclosure syndrome", where a keeper has spare cage laying around and needs to shoehorn something into it. They need to fill enclosures with things that masses of people who don't know much about animals are going to pay $22.50 to see (and eat mediocre burgers in the cafe, and at least in the case of MPZ pay to ride the train and the zipline too). I personally think it questionable when hobby keepers get an animal just to fill a cage; it isn't any better when zoos do it.
“made sure Olive (anaconda) didn’t see them as prey.” Not sure where to start with that one. Perhaps this review of published documentation of Eunectes diet would be the most straightforward way to show what a foolish statement this is.
https://journals.ku.edu/reptilesanda...ad/15504/14058
Reply With Quote