Challenging Modern Keeping Standards
Charlotte James, Post Graduate Researcher in Animal Welfare Science, The University of Nottingham.
Ball pythons have received this reputation as being “pet rocks” in the hobby partly because of the persistent myths that they only live in termite burrows which they never leave in the wild. However, they are quite active at certain times of the year (eg. breeding season) and males in particular are documented climbers, feeding off avian prey and even having very different parasite burdens in the wild compared to females because of this. Of course, ball pythons are also nocturnal. So even given the opportunity to make use of space and climbing things in captivity they often won’t be doing it at when the keeper is watching them. Reinforcing this idea that they “don’t do anything.”
Standard rack systems are popular because they save money, time and space for the keeper when compared to setting them all up in fully furnished vivariums or large tubs. Giving them more space would address the one concern: sitting in ammonia. If an animal does not have the ability to move away from its own waste that should signal alarm bells that the enclosure is definitely not big enough (Though I know snakes love to sit on top of it for no reason sometimes but at least they should have the option to be sensible).
But the issue is not JUST space because ball pythons are such a shy secretive species giving them more space also means they need proportionally more hides and visual barriers etc to feel secure. Just scaling this tub up and saying “ta da- now you have more space” won’t work. So if you have a larger number of snakes… That just starts to add up to a LOT of cleaning, a lot of space required and a large expense.
The ball python industry wants to hold on to the outdated opinion that ball pythons “are scared of space, never move, and thrive in tiny barren tubs - Just add water!” because it’s how they turn profits. They also promote it to new people getting in to the hobby because otherwise that would be admitting they are not doing the best they can. This is also why it is not something that is discussed rationally in ball python Facebook groups either. It angers/upsets people that are in too deep to change their ways without going to huge extra costs or dramatically reducing the numbers of animals they have to make room for fewer better enclosures… So they would rather deny any is wrong to avoid that. The argument also gets wrapped up with irrelevant details or oversimplified to “tanks vs tubs” or “vivs vs tubs” or “naturalistic looking vs non naturalistic looking”
At the end of the day this is an issue about good husbandry, good enclosure design and good animal welfare which is not always cheap, nor is it always good for “productivity”. The truth of it is that there is NO scientific studies confirming that small barren tubs allow snakes to thrive and PLENTY of evidence that environmental enrichment is beneficial for their welfare. Restricting stimuli captive animals are exposed to is not good for their physical and psychological well-being and can negatively impact behavioural expression, neural development, learning ability, activity levels and even lead to chronic stress, immunosuppression and thus increased disease susceptibility.
Ball pythons are victims of their own hardiness and adaptability- they may not show stress or appear to suffer when kept like this as much as a more active colubrid might… But that still doesn’t make it an acceptable standard. They still eat, shed, poop and breed, which is all well and good, but not necessarily an indicator of good welfare.
It also sets a worrying trend for how the hobby itself measures and assesses reptile welfare and quality of life. Already the model of “if it eats, poops, sheds and breeds then its thriving” has spread and is applied to keeping other more active species. I’ve seen arboreal asian colubrids in the same 6″ high tubs with no climbing stuff, even emerald tree boas, green tree pythons, and amazon tree boas kept in similar barren set ups, retics and other large constrictors in boxes they can not even stretch out half their length in etc. etc. unless they drop dead or rub their faces off in stress the individual animal or even the whole species, will get the stamp of approval for “doing fine in a tub!”.
This is not how animal welfare scientists assess welfare. Our hobby is under attack from animal rights groups we have GOT to do better… and promote husbandry based on science.
Some may claim: “When an animal is brought into captivity and protected from natural dangers its behaviour changes”
Animals are hardwired to perform natural behaviours linked to their survival, these are intrinsically rewarding for them regardless of their necessity in captivity. These instincts DO NOT go away. Eg. Some animals often still choose to actively forage even if an “easy” option of a bowl full of food is provided (called contra-freeloading), indicating they find the act of foraging and performing that routine of behaviours that have evolved as essential parts of their survival more rewarding than simply EATING.
The ability to perform natural behaviours is extremely important for animal welfare and allowing for it in captivity shouldn’t be viewed as an “unrealistic burden on the trade”.
In fact most “ behavioural changes in captivity” develop because there is an element of natural behaviour which the animal cannot express for some reason, sometimes this can manifest as obvious stereotypical behaviours and sometimes these changes are subtle and hard to asses without structured behavioural analysis.
The field of welfare science in reptiles specifically is new but thankfully growing. But we KNOW enrichment benefits reptiles and even fish.
It is not based on anthropomorphism- it is based on actual differences in brain development, learning ability and resistance to stress, better activity levels, better muscle tone, better immune function….better standards of welfare. And the hobby is resistant to those ideas because they only operate on the completely unscientific basis that “if it eats, sheds, poops and breeds its thriving” hence the above pictures are not only normal and widespread but considered by many to be gold standard!
I hate that so many breeders I’ve seen approach this issue with “aw what’s with all the rack hate, different people just have different approaches you just gotta let people do what’s best for them!” Because where the animals are concerned, the two arguments are NOT supported by equal evidence.
-Charlotte James, Post Graduate Researcher in Animal Welfare Science, The University of Nottingham.
Standard rack systems are popular because they save money, time and space for the keeper when compared to setting them all up in fully furnished vivariums or large tubs. Giving them more space would address the one concern: sitting in ammonia. If an animal does not have the ability to move away from its own waste that should signal alarm bells that the enclosure is definitely not big enough (Though I know snakes love to sit on top of it for no reason sometimes but at least they should have the option to be sensible).
But the issue is not JUST space because ball pythons are such a shy secretive species giving them more space also means they need proportionally more hides and visual barriers etc to feel secure. Just scaling this tub up and saying “ta da- now you have more space” won’t work. So if you have a larger number of snakes… That just starts to add up to a LOT of cleaning, a lot of space required and a large expense.
The ball python industry wants to hold on to the outdated opinion that ball pythons “are scared of space, never move, and thrive in tiny barren tubs - Just add water!” because it’s how they turn profits. They also promote it to new people getting in to the hobby because otherwise that would be admitting they are not doing the best they can. This is also why it is not something that is discussed rationally in ball python Facebook groups either. It angers/upsets people that are in too deep to change their ways without going to huge extra costs or dramatically reducing the numbers of animals they have to make room for fewer better enclosures… So they would rather deny any is wrong to avoid that. The argument also gets wrapped up with irrelevant details or oversimplified to “tanks vs tubs” or “vivs vs tubs” or “naturalistic looking vs non naturalistic looking”
At the end of the day this is an issue about good husbandry, good enclosure design and good animal welfare which is not always cheap, nor is it always good for “productivity”. The truth of it is that there is NO scientific studies confirming that small barren tubs allow snakes to thrive and PLENTY of evidence that environmental enrichment is beneficial for their welfare. Restricting stimuli captive animals are exposed to is not good for their physical and psychological well-being and can negatively impact behavioural expression, neural development, learning ability, activity levels and even lead to chronic stress, immunosuppression and thus increased disease susceptibility.
Ball pythons are victims of their own hardiness and adaptability- they may not show stress or appear to suffer when kept like this as much as a more active colubrid might… But that still doesn’t make it an acceptable standard. They still eat, shed, poop and breed, which is all well and good, but not necessarily an indicator of good welfare.
It also sets a worrying trend for how the hobby itself measures and assesses reptile welfare and quality of life. Already the model of “if it eats, poops, sheds and breeds then its thriving” has spread and is applied to keeping other more active species. I’ve seen arboreal asian colubrids in the same 6″ high tubs with no climbing stuff, even emerald tree boas, green tree pythons, and amazon tree boas kept in similar barren set ups, retics and other large constrictors in boxes they can not even stretch out half their length in etc. etc. unless they drop dead or rub their faces off in stress the individual animal or even the whole species, will get the stamp of approval for “doing fine in a tub!”.
This is not how animal welfare scientists assess welfare. Our hobby is under attack from animal rights groups we have GOT to do better… and promote husbandry based on science.
Some may claim: “When an animal is brought into captivity and protected from natural dangers its behaviour changes”
Animals are hardwired to perform natural behaviours linked to their survival, these are intrinsically rewarding for them regardless of their necessity in captivity. These instincts DO NOT go away. Eg. Some animals often still choose to actively forage even if an “easy” option of a bowl full of food is provided (called contra-freeloading), indicating they find the act of foraging and performing that routine of behaviours that have evolved as essential parts of their survival more rewarding than simply EATING.
The ability to perform natural behaviours is extremely important for animal welfare and allowing for it in captivity shouldn’t be viewed as an “unrealistic burden on the trade”.
In fact most “ behavioural changes in captivity” develop because there is an element of natural behaviour which the animal cannot express for some reason, sometimes this can manifest as obvious stereotypical behaviours and sometimes these changes are subtle and hard to asses without structured behavioural analysis.
The field of welfare science in reptiles specifically is new but thankfully growing. But we KNOW enrichment benefits reptiles and even fish.
It is not based on anthropomorphism- it is based on actual differences in brain development, learning ability and resistance to stress, better activity levels, better muscle tone, better immune function….better standards of welfare. And the hobby is resistant to those ideas because they only operate on the completely unscientific basis that “if it eats, sheds, poops and breeds its thriving” hence the above pictures are not only normal and widespread but considered by many to be gold standard!
I hate that so many breeders I’ve seen approach this issue with “aw what’s with all the rack hate, different people just have different approaches you just gotta let people do what’s best for them!” Because where the animals are concerned, the two arguments are NOT supported by equal evidence.
-Charlotte James, Post Graduate Researcher in Animal Welfare Science, The University of Nottingham.