Corns living together?? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

k, before i start

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

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/sho...d=1#post504686

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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)

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by HaisseM

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?

Originally Posted by HaisseM

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?

Originally Posted by HaisseM

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.

Originally Posted by zwyatt

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

Originally Posted by HaisseM

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.

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.

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???