Stage 3 (Dry Season)

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Y...I brought up matters because it is rumoured (nothing scientific about it)...Pure conjecture on my part though and I'm okay with that....

did you really just use that as part of an argument against an idea which is claimed to have no scientific basis? (despite the fact, that there is far more scientific evidence to suggest that dry season may well important)

So "natural causes" was the determined factor in the 3 inconclusive deaths? Were these the young ones in "optimal" conditions or "cool/dry" seasons?

again, No cause of death was found, and each one was kept at ''optimum''., if you dont know what optimum is, then read Infernalis' website.

You are right. A lot of people know more about "healthy" than I do. The question to ask though is are all the animals seeing the same qualified vet? Are they seeing different vets with different levels of experience with not only savannah monitors but reptiles in general?

that point was not directed at you, hence the quote.

As I said at the start by all means do as you please I am just pointing out areas of needed improvement to garner any real knowledge from this "experiment" for anyone involved or reading this.

once again, I never claimed this was a scientific experiment.

as for the survey, of course there are improvements which can be made, there are ALWAYS improvements which can be made.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by formica

did you really just use that as part of an argument against an idea which is claimed to have no scientific basis? (despite the fact, that there is far more scientific evidence to suggest that dry season may well important)

I never said there's no scientific basis it's just that it's full of holes to come to any conclusive information. From your updates it's clear that you are coming to conclusions based on your simple findings.

I would also think if you were trying to have a scientific basis then you would account for all factors, such as the barometric pressure I mentioned, and have done the necessary research prior to see if there's any grounds for it.

again, No cause of death was found, and each one was kept at ''optimum''., if you dont know what optimum is, then read Infernalis' website.

It's why I posed questions. How do you know the person doing the necropsy was competent? Was it the same person across the board? It's why I mentioned the vet aspect of this "study" or whatever you call it.

You've brought in a lot of extra factors and trying to draw conclusions based on what you personally want to see. It's faulty at the ground level.

The foundation of your "study" is actually flawed. Why? You have no idea if anyone filling out the survey is lying or not. You have never met these people or know much about them. They could be lying because they don't want to be seen as a bad keeper.

All the best but as it currently stands you should go back to the drawing board or just stop.

I also noticed you didn't refute or respond to any of the other points I made. I take it you have no rebuttal to the again the fact that these are fundamental flaws within your "study" or whatever. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but at this point you're simply putting an animal (at least) at risk for you to prove some silly point.

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

I never said there's no scientific basis it's just that it's full of holes to come to any conclusive information. From your updates it's clear that you are coming to conclusions based on your simple findings.

I would also think if you were trying to have a scientific basis then you would account for all factors, such as the barometric pressure I mentioned, and have done the necessary research prior to see if there's any grounds for it.





It's why I posed questions. How do you know the person doing the necropsy was competent? Was it the same person across the board? It's why I mentioned the vet aspect of this "study" or whatever you call it.

You've brought in a lot of extra factors and trying to draw conclusions based on what you personally want to see. It's faulty at the ground level.

The foundation of your "study" is actually flawed. Why? You have no idea if anyone filling out the survey is lying or not. You have never met these people or know much about them. They could be lying because they don't want to be seen as a bad keeper.

All the best but as it currently stands you should go back to the drawing board or just stop.

I also noticed you didn't refute or respond to any of the other points I made. I take it you have no rebuttal to the again the fact that these are fundamental flaws within your "study" or whatever. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but at this point you're simply putting an animal (at least) at risk for you to prove some silly point.

what study? who said I was doing a scientific study?

of course I dont know if anyone is lying, how does anyone know if someone is lying? frankly I believe that you are picking holes for arguments sake, not because you actually give a toss about this discussion.

ALL of the information will be validated once it reaches a large enough data set, systems are in place to ensure this can happen and provide a useful starting point for further discussions on the topic.

at least I am doing something and finding out more information, rather than simply relying on a dogmatic approach which completely ignores 60% of a Savs life cycles.

what are YOU doing? other than arguing the toss on the internet...

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by formica

what study? who said I was doing a scientific study?

of course I dont know if anyone is lying, how does anyone know if someone is lying? frankly I believe that you are picking holes for arguments sake, not because you actually give a toss about this discussion.

ALL of the information will be validated once it reaches a large enough data set, systems are in place to ensure this can happen and provide a useful starting point for further discussions on the topic.

at least I am doing something and finding out more information, rather than simply relying on a dogmatic approach which completely ignores 60% of a Savs life cycles.

what are YOU doing? other than arguing the toss on the internet...

I don't know what you call it so I put "study" in quotation marks and called it "whatever you call it" as well. I have no clue what you are doing and "study" or "experiment" is the best I can use to describe it.

See you have missed every point I made here. There is no system in place to ensure any useful starting point for further discussion. There will not be a large enough data set because I have pointed out many flaws to the way things are currently being conducted. Far too many variables.

You seem to dislike my posts as you don't respond to the actual points but now simply saying I'm here "poking holes" for arguments sake. I do not need to poke holes because you already had them.
Secondly, am I not allowed to discuss? Is that not what YOU say gets people to change for the better? If no one is pushing against what's being said then how do grow for the better? Or does this only count for when YOU do it to others?

Also, before you come tell me that that is what you're doing with your little "thing" (pushing against the status quo) I would like to say that is fine but you need to remove your blinders and fix the foundation and plug the holes I pointed out. By all means, do something worthwhile but ensure it actually makes sense before doing it.




Here's a good example of something simple. Brian and BHB (big snake breeder) wanted to do a small "experiment" that he determined was on a small scale and NOT to be taken as the be all end all to snake feeding.

He wanted to see what kind of feeding regime would affect some corn snake growth. Different prey sizes and whatever else...
Anyway, he took corns ALL from the same clutch. Kept them ALL on the same rack system in the same room in the exact same manner. Fed them the same prey item (various sizes and frequency which was the experiment) which he got from the same supplier feeding the same thing to all the adults.

That's already much better than yours. He controlled everything he possibly could to exclude it from the findings. You should learn to do this as I have pointed out. Many factors you have overlooked.