feeding live pinkys??

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Okay, I don't have time to write it all out, so naturally I will copy and paste from another thread a little excerpt about my view on live feeding. I feel very strongly about this topic and am glad this thread got re-opened. And may I add that the fact that it illegal to feed live prey in the UK is no good. Some snakes simply must be started on live food.... there must be a lot of law breakers out there!

Snakes are captive yes, and are obviously treated as such, seeing as they are not free to roam as they please. But, they are not domestic, hence their special requirements... sure, the glass box is not natural... BUT...the heat, the substrate, the lighting, the hiding places... we do those things because it replicates what IS natural because that is the only way our reptile will feel completely comfortable...and I don't see why food has to be any different. Your dog is more than happy to curl up on the sofa with you sqeak a rubber toy and eat cooked processed kibble...which is incredibly NOT what a dog is supposed to eat... which they have unfortunately adapted to eating. Your dog does not need you to provide for him a small forest and a den to be happy. He is domesticated and there is different treatment for animals that are domestic, and captive. Captive animals ranging from wild dogs to snakes to insects often have to be convinced to try an already dead animal in the first place. Just because they will adapt to it does not mean it's best for them and their prey. Snakes, for the most part, only accept f/t prey because they have figured out that it's that or nothing. Much like a bearded dragon made to eat pellets would still MUCH rather have real vegetables and fruits. Domestication does nothing but weaken and distort the genetics until you get a totally inferior animal to it's wild counterpart... so why try to do it with reptiles? F/t is only the beginning of alienating snakes from their wild conterparts..... but I suppose I can deal with it. BUT, Let's put it this way.... the day they start trying to commercialize snake food (and its already on the way with disgusting snake sausages), I am OUT!! people try to personify their animals and try to reason that further separation from their instinct is what's best... but is it really... or is that just what's best in OUR interests and need to feel like we are doing some good and right?

Is death by Carbon Dioxide in a dark box REALLY a better, more relaxing, happier death? Who are we to really decide... none of us have ever died to feel it. In both euthanasia AND death by snake.... the victim is still going unconcious and suffocating. Death by snake is quicker than the other, that's for sure. It takes a few minutes for an animal to die from co2... They lay there and gasp and gasp yet there is no relief and they have to miserably sit and wait for it to end... it takes under a minute for an animal to go unconcious and die when being wrapped by a snake thanks to the complete stopping of bloodflow. I would take that death any day.

[Stefan-A]

Okay, I don't have time to write it all out, so naturally I will copy and paste from another thread a little excerpt about my view on live feeding. I feel very strongly about this topic and am glad this thread got re-opened. And may I add that the fact that it illegal to feed live prey in the UK is no good. Some snakes simply must be started on live food.... there must be a lot of law breakers out there!

You know, I had actually planned to respond to several of your posts in that thread, I even saved my reply as a .txt, like I sometimes do when I decide for one reason or another to leave things unsaid. Here's the segment, that was intended to respond to that particular post of yours, with some minor modifications. Without the context of the first 2/3 of the original text, it's probably going to seem exceptionally random.

Snakes are captive yes, and are obviously treated as such, seeing as they are not free to roam as they please. But, they are not domestic, hence their special requirements... sure, teh glass box is not natural... BUT...the heat, the substrate, the lighting, the hiding places... we do those things because it replicates what IS natural because that is the only way our reptile will feel completely comfortable...

I'm not convinced that they feel completely comfortable in the wild or in captivity. Nature still is their biggest killer. What we do for them in captivity is not for their comfort, but for their survival. Since we don't know if they are comfortable at any point, what we're left with are the things that keep them alive and healthy.

and I don't see why food has to be any different. Your dog is more than happy to curl up on the sofa with you sqeak a rubber toy and eat cooked processed kibble...which is incredibly NOT what a dog is supposed to eat... which they have unfortunately adapted to eating. Your dog does not need you to provide for him a small forest and a den to be happy. He is domesticated and there is different treatment for animals that are domestic, and captive.

According to studies conducted some 30-40 years ago, even our domesticated animals don't lose their natural instincts that readily, so the distinction between domesticated and captive is pretty arbitrary. In other words, domestication is a bit of a misnomer. Sure, we've selectively bred them to a point where they seem like they would not make it without us, but even several thousand years of "domestication" doesn't erase the drive to hunt or dig dens, which is obvious from the fact that every one of our domesticated animals has been able to form feral populations as well.

Domestication does nothing but weaken and distort the genetics until you get a totally inferior animal to it's wild counterpart...

Once the wolves have gone extinct, there will still be hundreds of millions of dogs in the world. By what measure would dogs be inferior, if not by their ability to survive?

so why try to do it with reptiles? F/t is only the beginning of alienating snakes from their wild conterparts.....

Why would it matter if they became as alienated from their wild counterparts, as dogs or cats, for example? How alienated are dogs from their wild counterparts, by the way?

people try to personify their animals and try to reason that further separation from their instinct is what's best... but is it really... or is that just what's best in OUR interests and need to feel like we are doing some good and right?

If rendering the old instincts obsolete (is that even what happens?) is the byproduct of a change in conditions that improves their survival rate, why object to it? As I see it, good and right don't enter into it, especially since they aren't obvious in cases like this.

Is death by Carbon Dioxide in a dark box REALLY a better, more relaxing, happier death? Who are we to really decide... none of us have ever died to feel it.

You don't have to die to feel it, it can be tested although not safely. But who is to decide if not us?

In both euthanasia AND death by snake.... the victim is still going unconcious and suffocating. Death by snake is quicker than the other, that's for sure. It takes a few minutes for an animal to die from co2... They lay there and gasp and gasp yet there is no relief and they have to miserably sit and wait for it to end... it takes under a minute for an animal to go unconcious and die when being wrapped by a snake thanks to the complete stopping of bloodflow. I would take that death any day.

It took my mice between 3 and 20 seconds to go unconscious and at no point were any teeth penetrating their skin, the breath wasn't physically squeezed out of them and they weren't swallowed alive, either. Neither did they risk dying a slow death at the hands (pun) of a snake that just didn't quite get the coils right, that didn't get enough venom into its prey, or that simply doesn't kill its prey before swallowing it. That last one sounds incredibly familiar, have you heard of any snake that doesn't kill its prey by constricting it or by envenomating it?

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

You know, I had actually planned to respond to several of your posts in that thread, I even saved my reply as a .txt, like I sometimes do when I decide for one reason or another to leave things unsaid. Here's the segment, that was intended to respond to that particular post of yours, with some minor modifications. Without the context of the first 2/3 of the original text, it's probably going to seem exceptionally random.

I'm not convinced that they feel completely comfortable in the wild or in captivity. Nature still is their biggest killer. What we do for them in captivity is not for their comfort, but for their survival. Since we don't know if they are comfortable at any point, what we're left with are the things that keep them alive and healthy.

According to studies conducted some 30-40 years ago, even our domesticated animals don't lose their natural instincts that readily, so the distinction between domesticated and captive is pretty arbitrary. In other words, domestication is a bit of a misnomer. Sure, we've selectively bred them to a point where they seem like they would not make it without us, but even several thousand years of "domestication" doesn't erase the drive to hunt or dig dens, which is obvious from the fact that every one of our domesticated animals has been able to form feral populations as well.

Once the wolves have gone extinct, there will still be hundreds of millions of dogs in the world. By what measure would dogs be inferior, if not by their ability to survive?

Why would it matter if they became as alienated from their wild counterparts, as dogs or cats, for example? How alienated are dogs from their wild counterparts, by the way?

If rendering the old instincts obsolete (is that even what happens?) is the byproduct of a change in conditions that improves their survival rate, why object to it? As I see it, good and right don't enter into it, especially since they aren't obvious in cases like this.

You don't have to die to feel it, it can be tested although not safely. But who is to decide if not us?

It took my mice between 3 and 20 seconds to go unconscious and at no point were any teeth penetrating their skin, the breath wasn't physically squeezed out of them and they weren't swallowed alive, either. Neither did they risk dying a slow death at the hands (pun) of a snake that just didn't quite get the coils right, that didn't get enough venom into its prey, or that simply doesn't kill its prey before swallowing it. That last one sounds incredibly familiar, have you heard of any snake that doesn't kill its prey by constricting it or by envenomating it?

I simply dont have time to respond to everything right now stefan, as I need to get to bed, but for one every time i look at an english bulldog, the genetic inferiority in dogs to wolves is apparent. Thank god the day they are roaming the earth free, I will be dead.

I absolutely considered thamnophis, nerodia, drymarchon and others when making the post that they eat by over powering, but the fact is that I did not feel like getting into that, it woudl ahve been a whole 'nother paragraph and I was making a general statement about snakes eating at the time and the fact that most pet snakes kill their prey first. Either way, my opinion remains unchanged and I will continue to feel the way that I do. I don't go out of my way to feed live, ever, in fact any prey i feed is killed before it's fed anyways, save for that rare snake that won't have it any other way. I still don't see any problem with those who choose to do it provided they do it with all the knowledge available to them.

[infernalis]

You know, I had actually planned to respond to several of your posts in that thread, I even saved my reply as a .txt, like I sometimes do when I decide for one reason or another to leave things unsaid. Here's the segment...

So I am not the only one That is scary familiar, I save so much stuff that transpires here it's not even funny.

Now the one thing I do wish to point out, I have never seen a Thamnophis "constrict" its prey, it has always been observed by me swallowing it's food live, and often can be observed with live food still thrashing in it's stomach.

One of the Blacknecks that died ate a salamander that was later regurgitated only to begin running around in the enclosure some time later.

However, once again, as has been pointed out within this thread, Between the parasites and possible ingestion of mouse "blocks" feeding W/C pinkies should be deterrent enough that any sensible snake keeper would not consider it.

The initial posting to this thread reads....

A coworker was cleaning up out side the shop and found a mouse nest w/ 4 babies. Itook them home and offered them to all three garters only one ate them, my female that just had a clutch.

[drache]

I don't know that even death by constriction or venom is fast
didn't it say they found a ton of defense injuries on that boy that was eaten by some big boid?
but I have to say, getting swallowed alive has got to be worse than dying while fighting

[infernalis]

I have to agree Rhea, We once very ignorantly purchased a live pinky for my corn when he was a baby, Cy had no interest in feeding, so I (stupidly) put the pinky in our freezer.

Later when I checked, I was quite shocked to have found the evidence that the poor thing suffered terribly before it finally expired.

I feel TONS better selling my mice to the pet trade and using the money to buy bulk bags of "flash frozen" pinks.

They are frozen so fast, they expire quicker than C02 chambers ever could perform, and are already dead before I have to see them.

Initially it was James' clever Zebra reply that prompted me to resurrect this thread, I laughed at him, even if it was an old reply.

I never went to the zoo and saw them throw a live zebra in with the lions!

Even if I have stared in fascination watching "wild kingdom" or Animal Planet specials depicting just that!

[drache]

the fact that garters have been observed eating road kill, leads me somehow to believe that they're more interested in eating and survival in a general sense, than living out their wild nature in a specific way
I think humans have lots of fanciful ideas about that wild nature stuff, and perhaps there is some yearning to experience something "wild" or to return to something
I'm not sure why watching something get killed tends to be the aspect of the wild people are often most interested in - must be some Freudian thing
or perhaps it's the only "wild" thing we have sufficient control over to actually "make" happen?
these are just some musings
and I too have written lengthy posts and then not posted them
as I stated earlier - I don't have a big emotional charge around this issue, but I question the idea that live food could be in any way more beneficial than pre-killed

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

my point was merely that snakes who swallow their prey live make up a tiny percentage of snakes overall, to a point that it was not worth mentioning for another paragraph. most snakes kill their prey first. I still don't see anything wrong with it, and I never will! My opinion on live feeding will never change...

and no, I would never feed wild caught mice to my snakes.

[ssssnakeluvr]

Now the one thing I do wish to point out, I have never seen a Thamnophis "constrict" its prey, it has always been observed by me swallowing it's food live, and often can be observed with live food still thrashing in it's stomach.

vagrans are known to grab a mouse and wrap a coil or 2 around them....don't actually constrict and suffocate the mouse, but do hold it so they can eat and also helps restrain the mouse while the saliva mildly sedates the mouse....I have seen this myself with some wild caught vagrans.

[Loren]

I feed live, frozen/thawed, or fresh killed to my snakes.