Corns living together?? Yes or no?

[susang]

Do what someone else did and send me a PM then you don't have to worry about the ban

I'm totally sure you won't take advice, but be assured you can get banned for pm's.

 

[Roy Munson]

I'm not a redhead, but I am seriously trying to figure how long the ban would be and if it's worth it.

:roflmao: It wouldn't be worth it.

 

[jazzgeek]

We redheads have it ROUGH, what with the temper and all!

Did someone say redheads?

regards,
jazz

 

[Roy Munson]

Do what someone else did and send me a PM then you don't have to worry about the ban

Neither posts, PMs, nor chatroom exchanges are outside of mod jurisdiction. The site rules apply everywhere on this site.

If there was another way to detect stress from a corn snake besides regurging or not eating I would be more than willing to look into it.

You've pretty much admitted that you don't keep a close eye on your corns when you reintroduce them after feeding. I hate to say it, but I'm not so sure that you've kept a close eye on them the rest of the time either. Here are some signs of stress that I saw when I cohabbed corns:

-"Jerky" spasm behavior when corns were re-introduced after feeding. This is different from the "jerky dance" that pre-coital corns display. The engorged, post-feeding state is a vulnerable time for corns, and many seemed to react badly to the touch of another snake at this time.

-Combat between males during breeding season.

-Constant harrassment of females that had already been impregnated, at a time when a female needs a stress-free environment to develop viable embryos. In the wild, a female can retreat from unwelcome male advances to find proper gestation conditions. This is impossible in when a pair is cohabitated.

-Premature impregnation and slow recovery from egg-laying due to unwelcome attention from males.

It's like live-feeding-- in the wild a corn can escape the prey item if it isn't hungry or if it determines that the prey item isn't suitable. In the wild a corn can get away from another corn if it is stressed by the other corn's presence. This can't be done in a single captive enclosure.

 

[starsevol]

Did someone say redheads?

regards,
jazz

Yup, someone sure did!

 

[zwyatt]

Doesn't it have to be based on assumptions?

As a matter of fact, your argument does have to be based on assumptions. However, when you make assumptions, those assumptions have to be met in order for your argument to be valid. Does that make sense? If those assumptions aren't met, which they aren't in your case, then your entire argument breaks down.

In the wild, snakes have natural predators/enemys as well as competition for food source. Those two things alone either make a snake aggressive or died <-- is that a fair assumption?

No, quite frankly, it's not. Because you are assuming that only an aggressive animal can survive. For the competition argument to be valid you have to assume one of at least three things: 1) There is only 1 resource item available. Otherwise, if there is any number greater than 1, then either of the two competing animals can just go pursue that resource elsewhere. 2) Aggression directly between the two competing animals is the only way to determine which animal gets the resources. 3) That the aggressive animal always gets the resource. What if the more agile or swift competitor can get the resource easier than the aggressive one?
For the predator argument you have to assume that: 1) Aggressive animals have a survival advantage. 2) An aggressive animal always scares away its predator. What if aggressive animals that stand their ground get eaten, while the passive ones hide, run, etc.? If a cheetah kills a gazelle and a lion comes and tries to take that gazelle away, then the cheetah has a few options: 1) If it is aggressive, it can attempt to stand its ground and likely be killed by the larger, stronger lion. Therefore, the aggressive animals have little or zero survivorship. 2) It can be passive and live to see another day and go catch one of the million other gazelle roaming the Serengeti. Therefore, being aggressive has no survival advantage over being passive. 3) It can stand its ground and possibly win. But if a passive cheetah can just run away and catch a new gazelle tomorrow, then the aggressive cheetah still has no survival advantage over the passive.

So when you take the snake out of natural element where fighting for food sources is no longer a problem it should be less likely to be aggressive.

I think I addressed all the reasons that this argument breaks down about 10 times now including as recently as what I just wrote in this post.

Hence if you took a wild snake and a tame one, the tame one would either be killed or stress out the wild one because it hasn't been accolmated to its new surrodings

First of all, without doing experiments, you have no idea if the anti-predator response has been lost or not. And using only yourself and your snakes as anecdotal evidence does not count as an experiment. If we pooled all the anecdotal evidence from everyone on this forum, it wouldn't necessarily count for anything. We can't assume that we qualify as predators in the eye's of our snakes. Maybe they wouldn't respond to us in an "anti-predator" way, but if confronted with a natural predator (a hawk of some sort, for example) they very well might still harbor a response mechanism that just isn't provoked by humans because humans are arguably not that common of a predator in the wild.

However you are changing the factors that affect aggression...

How can you claim this? How?How?How? I have pointed out that you don't even know what those factors are. So how can you possibly claim that something that you can't even identify has changed?



I may have been a redhead at the start of this thread, but I think I'm tending more towards gray now.

 

[Nanci]

You guys should all just take a deep breath, blow it out, and go look at the funniest picture of Isabel EVER in General Chit Chat!

Nanci

 

[HaisseM]

As a matter of fact, your argument does have to be based on assumptions. However, when you make assumptions, those assumptions have to be met in order for your argument to be valid. Does that make sense? If those assumptions aren't met, which they aren't in your case, then your entire argument breaks down.

How come my assumptions aren't being met? and yours are?

No, quite frankly, it's not. Because you are assuming that only an aggressive animal can survive. For the competition argument to be valid you have to assume one of at least three things: 1) There is only 1 resource item available. Otherwise, if there is any number greater than 1, then either of the two competing animals can just go pursue that resource elsewhere. 2) Aggression directly between the two competing animals is the only way to determine which animal gets the resources. 3) That the aggressive animal always gets the resource. What if the more agile or swift competitor can get the resource easier than the aggressive one?

wait wait wait.... I understand that not only the aggressive animal can survive, however in the wild one has to assume their is a competition for food, if there was not then you would have an abudance of animals running around, both predator and prey. Just like a spider lays thousands of eggs a snakes lays quite a few because they are not all going to survive. What other reasons would you have for snakes dying in the wild besides being eaten or lack of food? (besides normal death) You're taking for granted an abundance of food that does not exist in the wild

For the predator argument you have to assume that: 1) Aggressive animals have a survival advantage.

The do

2) An aggressive animal always scares away its predator.

Aggression is used even as a form or marking territory and courtship in animals

What if aggressive animals that stand their ground get eaten, while the passive ones hide, run, etc.? If a cheetah kills a gazelle and a lion comes and tries to take that gazelle away, then the cheetah has a few options: 1) If it is aggressive, it can attempt to stand its ground and likely be killed by the larger, stronger lion. Therefore, the aggressive animals have little or zero survivorship. 2) It can be passive and live to see another day and go catch one of the million other gazelle roaming the Serengeti. Therefore, being aggressive has no survival advantage over being passive. 3) It can stand its ground and possibly win. But if a passive cheetah can just run away and catch a new gazelle tomorrow, then the aggressive cheetah still has no survival advantage over the passive.

[/quote]a cheetah will run 9/10 times because it can't risk injury because its whole eating depends on it being in perfect health, heck a cheeth will run from a smaller more aggressive animal all the time because of this

I think I addressed all the reasons that this argument breaks down about 10 times now including as recently as what I just wrote in this post.

funny I feel the same way, but like you i'll continue

First of all, without doing experiments, you have no idea if the anti-predator response has been lost or not. And using only yourself and your snakes as anecdotal evidence does not count as an experiment. If we pooled all the anecdotal evidence from everyone on this forum, it wouldn't necessarily count for anything. We can't assume that we qualify as predators in the eye's of our snakes. Maybe they wouldn't respond to us in an "anti-predator" way, but if confronted with a natural predator (a hawk of some sort, for example) they very well might still harbor a response mechanism that just isn't provoked by humans because humans are arguably not that common of a predator in the wild.

I think its safe to assume they do get defensive around us until they are comfortable and no longer feel threatened.. we may not a predator as much as a threat to their well being... The more I read your post I think too much of an emphasive is on aggresions (my word) instead of threat ... I would think two snakes in the wild would normally consider each other a threat for resources... however once that threat is removed either by going away or your belly being full reduces the urgency that was once there

How can you claim this? How?How?How? I have pointed out that you don't even know what those factors are. So how can you possibly claim that something that you can't even identify has changed?



I may have been a redhead at the start of this thread, but I think I'm tending more towards gray now.

I make that claim based on the we do know some of those factors... We do know isn't an abudance of food, we do know corn snakes are prey for certain animals

 

[Roy Munson]

Rodents are VERY abundant. I'll bet that few wild corns fall prey to starvation unless they are injured.

 

[zwyatt]

How come my assumptions aren't being met? and yours are?

What assumptions have I made? More importantly, what assumptions have I made that aren't reasonably likely to be met?

wait wait wait.... I understand that not only the aggressive animal can survive

Those two things alone either make a snake aggressive or died <-- is that a fair assumption?

In your last reply to me you stated the assumption that an animal must be aggressive or die. Logically, this means that an animal that is not aggressive would not survive. But now you are stating that that is not the case. Ain't this a pickle!

Now do you still wonder why your assumptions can't be met? Your own assumptions apparently don't even hold true from one of your posts to the next.

HaisseM]however in the wild one has to assume their is a competition for food

While this assumption is not always met in the wild, it is a fairly reasonable one in most cases. Kudos.

if there was not then you would have an abudance of animals running around, both predator and prey.

Welllll, actually, no. Because for there to be an abundance of predator and prey just from a lack of competition you would have to assume that the only mortality risk is starvation. You would also have to assume that not only is starvation the only mortality risk, but that it is a purely two-way interaction between only one predator-prey complex. However, food chains and food webs are often much more complex consisting of far more than just two species and there are almost always mortality risks other than just starvation (disease, extreme weather events, etc).

What other reasons would you have for snakes dying in the wild besides being eaten or lack of food? (besides normal death)

At the rate you're going why don't you just throw abnormal death in there too and you should have all your bases covered? Off the top of my head: disease, infection, egg binding, weather (flash flood, tornado, earthquake, etc), hit by a car, rock slide, falling out of a tree, stepped on by a person, smashed with a shovel, caught in a bear trap, caught in a mouse trap, falling off a cliff, made into boots, caught in a wildfire, hit by a stray bullet,....should I keep going?

For the predator argument you have to assume that: 1) Aggressive animals have a survival advantage.

The[y] do

Umm, no. Not necessarily they don't. That's an assumption that you have no proof of and no reasonable support to believe it is met. Remember, you said this yourself...

I understand that not only the aggressive animal can survive

Aggression is used even as a form or marking territory and courtship in animals

First of all, I don't even know why this is in here or what relavance it really has. It adds nothing to your argument.

a cheetah will run 9/10 times because it can't risk injury because its whole eating depends on it being in perfect health, heck a cheeth will run from a smaller more aggressive animal all the time because of this

I'll admit that that's true. But let's both be honest, that statement is made on a weekly basis on Animal Planet. Besides, it doesn't matter. I was using the cheetah example as...an example! Try looking at it again this way:

What if aggressive animals that stand their ground get eaten, while the passive ones hide, run, etc.? If a [INSERT ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] kills a [INSERT PREY OF ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] and a [INSERT BIGGER, STRONGER ANIMAL SPECIES 'B' HERE] comes and tries to take that [INSERT PREY OF ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] away, then the [INSERT ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] has a few options: 1) If it is aggressive, it can attempt to stand its ground and likely be killed by the larger, stronger [INSERT ANIMAL SPECIES 'B' HERE]. Therefore, the aggressive animals have little or zero survivorship. 2) It can be passive and live to see another day and go catch one of the million other [INSERT PREY OF ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] roaming the Serengeti. Therefore, being aggressive has no survival advantage over being passive. 3) It can stand its ground and possibly win. But if a passive [INSERT ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] can just run away and catch a new [INSERT PREY OF ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] tomorrow, then the aggressive [INSERT ANIMAL SPECIES 'A' HERE] still has no survival advantage over the passive.

HaisseM]I make that claim based on the we do know some of those factors... we do know corn snakes are prey for certain animals

One. YOU claim to know one of those factors. Predation. And you are assuming that predation is not a perceived risk of captive bred corns. How do you know that. It's just another assumption that has no basis and hasn't been tested. And I'm not positive because I couldn't really make heads or tails of what you were saying, but I think you might have proven this with your own words:

they do get defensive around us until they are comfortable and no longer feel threatened.. we may not a predator as much as a threat to their well being...

And if they do perceive us as predators at some point, at what point can you confidently say that they have lost that instinctive anti-predator response? How do you know that they haven't just become desensitized to humans? Just like I asked before: How do you know how they would react to another predator such as a hawk? You can't reasonably presume to know whether a snake has truly lost it.

 

[HaisseM]

What assumptions have I made? More importantly, what assumptions have I made that aren't reasonably likely to be met?





In your last reply to me you stated the assumption that an animal must be aggressive or die. Logically, this means that an animal that is not aggressive would not survive. But now you are stating that that is not the case. Ain't this a pickle!

Now do you still wonder why your assumptions can't be met? Your own assumptions apparently don't even hold true from one of your posts to the next.




While this assumption is not always met in the wild, it is a fairly reasonable one in most cases. Kudos.



Welllll, actually, no. Because for there to be an abundance of predator and prey just from a lack of competition you would have to assume that the only mortality risk is starvation. You would also have to assume that not only is starvation the only mortality risk, but that it is a purely two-way interaction between only one predator-prey complex. However, food chains and food webs are often much more complex consisting of far more than just two species and there are almost always mortality risks other than just starvation (disease, extreme weather events, etc).



At the rate you're going why don't you just throw abnormal death in there too and you should have all your bases covered? Off the top of my head: disease, infection, egg binding, weather (flash flood, tornado, earthquake, etc), hit by a car, rock slide, falling out of a tree, stepped on by a person, smashed with a shovel, caught in a bear trap, caught in a mouse trap, falling off a cliff, made into boots, caught in a wildfire, hit by a stray bullet,....should I keep going?




Umm, no. Not necessarily they don't. That's an assumption that you have no proof of and no reasonable support to believe it is met. Remember, you said this yourself...









First of all, I don't even know why this is in here or what relavance it really has. It adds nothing to your argument.



I'll admit that that's true. But let's both be honest, that statement is made on a weekly basis on Animal Planet. Besides, it doesn't matter. I was using the cheetah example as...an example! Try looking at it again this way:








One. YOU claim to know one of those factors. Predation. And you are assuming that predation is not a perceived risk of captive bred corns. How do you know that. It's just another assumption that has no basis and hasn't been tested. And I'm not positive because I couldn't really make heads or tails of what you were saying, but I think you might have proven this with your own words:



And if they do perceive us as predators at some point, at what point can you confidently say that they have lost that instinctive anti-predator response? How do you know that they haven't just become desensitized to humans? Just like I asked before: How do you know how they would react to another predator such as a hawk? You can't reasonably presume to know whether a snake has truly lost it.

ok, I I'm going to just accept defeat here, because I don't think we (I) can fully explain my theory thru typing on a forum and answering questions...... but give me a minute to finish uploading some current pictures of my snakes and their eggs then i'll try to respond

 

[HaisseM]

k, before i start

here is a picture of my snake cage and new snakes (babies)

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=504686&posted=1#post504686

 

[HaisseM]

In your last reply to me you stated the assumption that an animal must be aggressive or die. Logically, this means that an animal that is not aggressive would not survive. But now you are stating that that is not the case. Ain't this a pickle!

That was an incorrectly stated assumption

At the rate you're going why don't you just throw abnormal death in there too and you should have all your bases covered? Off the top of my head: disease, infection, egg binding, weather (flash flood, tornado, earthquake, etc), hit by a car, rock slide, falling out of a tree, stepped on by a person, smashed with a shovel, caught in a bear trap, caught in a mouse trap, falling off a cliff, made into boots, caught in a wildfire, hit by a stray bullet,....should I keep going?

lol

Umm, no. Not necessarily they don't. That's an assumption that you have no proof of and no reasonable support to believe it is met. Remember, you said this yourself...

You don't think aggressive animals eat more than no aggressive ones where aggression is needed to eat? meaning there has to be some type of aggression to eat live prey (which actually goes to the point that corn snakes still have some type of aggression in their system since I believe they need that aggression to constrict and eat live prey (a point for your arguement)

First of all, I don't even know why this is in here or what relavance it really has. It adds nothing to your argument.

because when i say aggression I sense you are hinging on words not the whole thought behind it

I'll admit that that's true. But let's both be honest, that statement is made on a weekly basis on Animal Planet. Besides, it doesn't matter. I was using the cheetah example as...an example! Try looking at it again this way:

lol I know

One. YOU claim to know one of those factors. Predation. And you are assuming that predation is not a perceived risk of captive bred corns. How do you know that. It's just another assumption that has no basis and hasn't been tested. And I'm not positive because I couldn't really make heads or tails of what you were saying, but I think you might have proven this with your own words:

hence i changed it from predator to threat, like i said before, it seems you are focusing on the words i use (i'll be the 1st to admit I don't always use the right words to get my point across and I take for granted people are taking the context of what i'm saying over certain words

And if they do perceive us as predators at some point, at what point can you confidently say that they have lost that instinctive anti-predator response? How do you know that they haven't just become desensitized to humans? Just like I asked before: How do you know how they would react to another predator such as a hawk? You can't reasonably presume to know whether a snake has truly lost it.

well you make the point of desenitization, which is my whole point....

Nobdoy knows any of this for sure thats why their are assumptions made

 

[zwyatt]

You don't think aggressive animals eat more than no aggressive ones where aggression is needed to eat?

I never conceited to the assumption that aggression is needed to eat. Eating is like breathing. It's born out of necessity due to the fact that all animals must eat or face starvation, it's not exactly a good measure of aggression. Because clearly not all animals are "aggressive" but all animals do eat. See my point?

because when i say aggression I sense you are hinging on words not the whole thought behind it

I think it's more due to the fact that you are applying the term aggression to so many different aspects of animal life regardless of how justly that can actually be done. How am I supposed to possibly keep up with your definition of the word when you change the context every time you post?

hence i changed it from predator to threat, like i said before, it seems you are focusing on the words i use

Well, seeing as I'm not a mind reader and words are the basis for a written/typed argument...yeah, I'm relying pretty heavily on your words.

 

[HaisseM]

I never conceited to the assumption that aggression is needed to eat. Eating is like breathing. It's born out of necessity due to the fact that all animals must eat or face starvation, it's not exactly a good measure of aggression. Because clearly not all animals are "aggressive" but all animals do eat. See my point?





I think it's more due to the fact that you are applying the term aggression to so many different aspects of animal life regardless of how justly that can actually be done. How am I supposed to possibly keep up with your definition of the word when you change the context every time you post?




Well, seeing as I'm not a mind reader and words are the basis for a written/typed argument...yeah, I'm relying pretty heavily on your words.

dude you crack me up.... Sorry it took me so long to realize the word game we were playing LOL.. give roy credit he caught on early

 

[zwyatt]

dude you crack me up.... Sorry it took me so long to realize the word game we were playing LOL.. give roy credit he caught on early

Well, to be honest, a majority of this hasn't just been about word games. However, over the last few posts it seems to have become more of that.

 

[suecornish]

Good thing this conversation between zwyatt and Haissem is in writing or else I wouldn't be able to follow it.

Wonder what happened to the OP, the one who started all of this, again. But the good news is that there will be someone else who will ask the same question sooner or later and the whole routine will start all over again.

You guys both put up good points and counterpoints but it all boils down to this: We all have to take responsibility for our actions and make our own decisions with the realization that if a corn snake gets hurt or dead because of our decision then WE are the ones responsible/irresponsible. No matter what the animal - when we take that animal into our homes and provide food, water, shelter we also must provide safety.

I personally don't cohabitate snakes (I do so with the boas very hesitatently) because it is easier for me to deal with them one on one and I feel they are content to be by themselves but I also can understand the other side of the "coin".

Those of us who say "No Cohabitation" and leave it at that is probable because we are so tired of this theme. This dead horse has been beaten so much the bones are dust.

 

[ssmith_1187]

I'm not a redhead, but I am seriously trying to figure how long the ban would be and if it's worth it.

I dated a redhead once, granted it was years ago and well technically she was probably more of a strawberry blonde than a redhead…but does that count?

On a serious note, I applaud both sides of this argument for their passion and determination. While I do not agree with co-habitation (dang it…there I go again, I can’t agree or disagree because I only have 1 snake) I do appreciate the fact both sides have articulated their opinions.

Regards,
Steve

P.S. Without trying to open a new Pandora’s Box…I am assuming mono-habitation is acceptable??? :grin01: