Stage 3 (Dry Season)

[murrindindi]

Originally Posted by formica

dont care for what? that he survived in good health?

or that the oldest recorded captive Sav in the survey so far, also goes thru dry and cool seasons, and has somehow made it to 15 years old? ...while many that are kept at ''optimum'' conditions are lucky to live to 10

well I can see why that wouldn't sit well with many people

Hi, considering your monitor is still only around ONE YEAR old (or less?), to suggest it "survived in good health" is ludicrous, it`s also meaningless because you have no idea what "healthy" means for any captive Varanid.....

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

It is relevant because one animal (or 3) can be an exception to a rule. Just like a single person can drive drunk every single weekend and never experience an incident and then another guy does it once and kills someone.

yes of course there are exceptions, I posted a thread called ''anomalies'', about that very topic, in relation to the survey. 3 exceptions on the other hand, is something worth investigating.

Besides, you are taking surveys from around the globe I presume.

yes, worldwide

Are the 6 animals you mentioned being fed the same diets?

yes, 50/50 inverts/whole prey (question is in survey)

Held in the same enclosures?

yes, all enclosures, apart from the oldest, where 6ft or larger, with soil/sand substrate for burrows. the oldest had soil/sand which was not deep enough for burrows. all had the same ambient humidity of 60%, all had the same basking spot tempreture (except the oldest, at 120), and all where provided with UV

(various questions in survey to determine husbandry)

Given the exact same barometric pressures?

this question was not asked, if the consensus is that this would be an important question to ask, then it will be added to the list for when the final validation take place.

Were they all collected/bought from the same place?

so far all but 5 entries have been Wild Farmed or Wild Caught Hatchlings, 3 where CB, and 2 listed as unknown origin

Were they all raised from babies or were some "rescues" some months down the line?

not specifically asked, can be added later on depending on consensus regarding its importance.

Have all of them been regularly vet checked and a necropsy done to see cause of death?

3 of the Savs entered into the database as deceased had been examined by a vet after death, 2 others had known medical problems diagnosed by vets prior to death.

(questions relating to death and professional consultations are included in the survey)

Maybe those 3 had cancer or some sort of illness that had nothing to do with how they were kept.

one Sav died at the age of 7 from cancer, the 3 listed above all died suddenly but cause of death was not found

(cause of death, as determined by a vet, is asked in the survey)

All factors that could change any "scientific" research.

there are far more factors than that, as many as possible where included in the survey to get as clear a picture as possible of the husbandry, source of the animal, veterinary involvement and other areas


i'm not the idiot you would like to think I am

Originally Posted by murrindindi

Hi, considering your monitor is still only around ONE YEAR old (or less?), to suggest it "survived in good health" is ludicrous, it`s also meaningless because you have no idea what "healthy" means for any captive Varanid.....

the specialist vet, who carried out the examination and blood tests, before and after, knows a allot more about what healthy means, than either myself, or you.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by formica

yes of course there are exceptions, I posted a thread called ''anomalies'', about that very topic, in relation to the survey. 3 exceptions on the other hand, is something worth investigating.

You are welcome to spend your time doing whatever you want but 3, out of an ENTIRE world population begs investigation? I personally disagree.

yes, 50/50 inverts/whole prey (question is in survey)

Ah but what specific inverts are being fed? Are the feeders coming from the same source and fed the same food items across the board? Are the feeders all kept the same from the various places around the world?

See. This just brings more questions to the table than answers.

yes, all enclosures, apart from the oldest, where 6ft or larger, with soil/sand substrate for burrows. the oldest had soil/sand which was not deep enough for burrows. all had the same ambient humidity of 60%, all had the same basking spot tempreture (except the oldest, at 120), and all where provided with UV

(various questions in survey to determine husbandry)

They are not all kept the same. Why? You ranged the enclosures from 6ft to larger. That would indicate that some were kept with more room than others. Were the soils all brought from the same place? Did all of them have soil/sand at the same depth? Were all the soils bought or dug up from areas around their places?

this question was not asked, if the consensus is that this would be an important question to ask, then it will be added to the list for when the final validation take place.

The barometric pressure question I brought up matters because it is rumoured (nothing scientific about it) that in the ball python world the females/males can sense the pressure change. In general, it changes with a storm and everyone finds that these animals breed better during said storms. The thought process is that it triggers something in the snakes that has to do with the rainy season in Africa. The rainy season in Africa is breeding season for ball pythons. So if it's believed that ball pythons sense it and are affected it by it it could mean that savannah monitors MAY have the possibility as well. Pure conjecture on my part though and I'm okay with that.

so far all but 5 entries have been Wild Farmed or Wild Caught Hatchlings, 3 where CB, and 2 listed as unknown origin

Were they all farmed from the same place? Were they all wild caught from the same area? Were the farmed ones fed the same items as they are getting here? Could this be a factor? yes? No? Maybe?

not specifically asked, can be added later on depending on consensus regarding its importance.

I would believe knowing if the animal had bad husbandry given beforehand would be an important factor. Considering it could affect lifespan. Diet and the like...

3 of the Savs entered into the database as deceased had been examined by a vet after death, 2 others had known medical problems diagnosed by vets prior to death.

(questions relating to death and professional consultations are included in the survey)



one Sav died at the age of 7 from cancer, the 3 listed above all died suddenly but cause of death was not found

(cause of death, as determined by a vet, is asked in the survey)



there are far more factors than that, as many as possible where included in the survey to get as clear a picture as possible of the husbandry, source of the animal, veterinary involvement and other areas


i'm not the idiot you would like to think I am



the specialist vet, who carried out the examination and blood tests, before and after, knows a allot more about what healthy means, than either myself, or you.

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

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?

There are MANY cases where the vet believes they know more about reptiles when in fact they do not. I would believe my questions about their abilities would be apt.

My point is simple. There are FAR too many factors involved that are not accounted for in your experiment to determine anything more than conjecture at the expense of some animals.

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.

[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.