Where do these myths come from?

[CameronVarnish]

Originally Posted by wrecker45

I had a couple tell me. They watched a milk snake suck milk from a cow. A woman told me today she had a 10 ft. eastern fox snake on her property.

Yea and I saw a corn snake eat an ear of corn once... And then there was a 65 foot anaconda in my backyard in NJ. And it sprayed venom at me.

[jarich]

Originally Posted by red ink

Not looking to twist your words mate... those qoutes are verbatum .

Neither am I misrepresenting what you're saying. You made a sweeping statement about sand as it eluded to being a myth. I sought to correct that sweeping statement.

Firstly by stating that some species do get sand stuck in their scales, secondly by stating that it can cause impaction in reptiles. Another poster even provided an X-ray on the matter.

I am not bickering either, we are having a discussion.

I don't see how a discussion on a topic you brought up in your opening statement is de-railing the thread?

Ya, you know how I like a good argument.

The difference is in the additives. "Calci sand" and various other reptile branded substrates have a cementing agent added to them. Concrete is sand, water and a cementing agent, nothing more. But sand alone (washed play sand) doesn't give you a sidewalk. Small particulate matter is something reptiles, like all ground dwelling animals, are adapted to digesting. If you swallow a handful of dirt, it's not going to impact you anymore than it will a healthy reptile. Take that same reptile, put it in a tiny enclosure where it's dehydrated and can't get normal peristaltic movement, and all of a sudden even small particulates can become a problem. It's got nothing to do with the small particulate, it's to do with the animal and the husbandry. If you are dehydrated enough, even enough water will kill you. It's not because water is bad for you, anymore than sand is bad for you. It's that the conditions are set to make just about anything problematic.

In short, sand doesn't cause impaction, bad husbandry causes impaction.

[red ink]

Originally Posted by jarich

Ya, you know how I like a good argument.

The difference is in the additives. "Calci sand" and various other reptile branded substrates have a cementing agent added to them. Concrete is sand, water and a cementing agent, nothing more. But sand alone (washed play sand) doesn't give you a sidewalk. Small particulate matter is something reptiles, like all ground dwelling animals, are adapted to digesting. If you swallow a handful of dirt, it's not going to impact you anymore than it will a healthy reptile. Take that same reptile, put it in a tiny enclosure where it's dehydrated and can't get normal peristaltic movement, and all of a sudden even small particulates can become a problem. It's got nothing to do with the small particulate, it's to do with the animal and the husbandry. If you are dehydrated enough, even enough water will kill you. It's not because water is bad for you, anymore than sand is bad for you. It's that the conditions are set to make just about anything problematic.

In short, sand doesn't cause impaction, bad husbandry causes impaction.

Agreed.. I've already eluded to that in my post that wayne qouted.

Originally Posted by red ink

You made a sweeping statement about "reptiles/snakes" myths and sand... I gave you a specific scenario where its not a myth in regards to scales. Neither you or poison own a carpet, but you do own reptiles yet still believe otherwise. Sand in captivity can cause impaction in bearded dragons... again a reptile. Not really a myth, poor husbandry does play a factor in it and sand is not the only cause. It is'nt entirely a myth either in the same respect.

I have kept a bearded dragon in a sanded enclosure for over a decade... I also hear stories of BDs being kept in sand and being impacted within a month. The details in husbandry practices is the difference. Regardless of the difference in the details.. it was sand that was in the stomach.

Being dismissive about the so called "myth" is just as bad as not knowing anything about particulate substrate husbandry. To simply make a sweeping statement about sand use (and the dangers it may pose) being a myth is rather short sighted.

I also agree that reptiles are adapted to ingesting small particulate... adapted meaning in a natural environment. In all my post I have refered to the use of sand in captivity, there's a difference there.

[red ink]

While we are on the subject of substrates... there's a myth over there that I've always found funny.

The myth that most of my country's terra closely ressemble tiles... hence it's wide and taunted use in Australian agamid husbandry.

No Idea where that has started from... I can assure you though that it did'nt start from us here.

[jarich]

Originally Posted by red ink

While we are on the subject of substrates... there's a myth over there that I've always found funny.

The myth that most of my country's terra closely ressemble tiles... hence it's wide and taunted use in Australian agamid husbandry.

No Idea where that has started from... I can assure you though that it did'nt start from us here.

Of course, everyone knows the ground there is made from paper towels. Just like Africa.

[aRepDysfunction]

There is a pretty simple answer for where these myths come from. Correlation. We have discussed the sand myth, and we have covered that impaction in such a case is a mixture of factors, not just the sand. But of course if you remove the sand from that equation the impaction doesnt happen. correlation = the sand causes impaction not bad husbandry. There you have a myth in the making. Just about any myth runs along the same line.

[Pareeeee]

Originally Posted by poison123

Interesting. I am using a sand/soil mix for my rosy and never had this problem. Were you using just pure sand?

Yeah, just pure Repti-sand.

[CosmicOwl]

Originally Posted by red ink

Agreed.. I've already eluded to that in my post that wayne qouted.



Being dismissive about the so called "myth" is just as bad as not knowing anything about particulate substrate husbandry. To simply make a sweeping statement about sand use (and the dangers it may pose) being a myth is rather short sighted.

I also agree that reptiles are adapted to ingesting small particulate... adapted meaning in a natural environment. In all my post I have refered to the use of sand in captivity, there's a difference there.

I didn't really have time to respond to this until now, so I'd like to try to explain what I meant my calling it a myth.

Firs of all, we have to consider what substances are being referred to as "sand". Often, the sand in question is one of the various products found in pet stores. These products often contain dust, additives and/or dyes. So right from the start, we have several different substances being called "sand" and maligned as dangerous.

There is a real potential for ingested sand to cause an impaction, but how is that different than any particle substrate? Is natural sand more likely to cause an impaction in an animal that aspen, cypress mulch or coco fiber? Would you rather have a bearded dragon accidentally eat one of those substrates instead of sand?

Dry, pure sand would be a terrible substrate for most animals but for a variety of other reasons that would be worse than the risk of impaction. As such, I think that using a sand substrate for animals that naturally don't live on pure sand would fall into the category of bad husbandry. Sand as a part of dirt is a common substrate that many reptiles encounter in the wild. If sand were such a serious threat to their health, we wouldn't find any reptiles living in the soil. If it's used properly, I don't believe it poses a greater risk to reptiles than any other substrate except maybe tiles.

[red ink]

Originally Posted by CosmicOwl

I didn't really have time to respond to this until now, so I'd like to try to explain what I meant my calling it a myth.

Firs of all, we have to consider what substances are being referred to as "sand". Often, the sand in question is one of the various products found in pet stores. These products often contain dust, additives and/or dyes. So right from the start, we have several different substances being called "sand" and maligned as dangerous.

There is a real potential for ingested sand to cause an impaction, but how is that different than any particle substrate? Is natural sand more likely to cause an impaction in an animal that aspen, cypress mulch or coco fiber? Would you rather have a bearded dragon accidentally eat one of those substrates instead of sand?

Dry, pure sand would be a terrible substrate for most animals but for a variety of other reasons that would be worse than the risk of impaction. As such, I think that using a sand substrate for animals that naturally don't live on pure sand would fall into the category of bad husbandry. Sand as a part of dirt is a common substrate that many reptiles encounter in the wild. If sand were such a serious threat to their health, we wouldn't find any reptiles living in the soil. If it's used properly, I don't believe it poses a greater risk to reptiles than any other substrate except maybe tiles.

I don't get it? You explained all of that which would mean you considered it and yet you still made a sweeping statement about sand and its impact upon being as myth in your opening post. A comparative discussion of natural substrate and sand in captivity is void as you have already stated natural substrate isn't the items sold in pet stores and labelled "sand"

If natural additives are added to the sand as a substrate (i.e. soil, clay, loam, etc) in captivity then it is no longer "sand", rather a "sanded" substrate.

Let's focus on one discussion at a time rather than introducing other substrates such as aspen, coco fiber or cypress mulch into the discussion (we wouldn't want the thread to get de-railed now do we?)... and yes those substrates also pose a chance for impaction in captivity, any particulate substrate does. They would pose an impaction possibility in a natural setting in the wild if the peice ingested was big enough and not digested. The mouth is bigger than the cloaca in reptiles.

[CosmicOwl]

Originally Posted by red ink

I don't get it? You explained all of that which would mean you considered it and yet you still made a sweeping statement about sand and its impact upon being as myth in your opening post. A comparative discussion of natural substrate and sand in captivity is void as you have already stated natural substrate isn't the items sold in pet stores and labelled "sand"

If natural additives are added to the sand as a substrate (i.e. soil, clay, loam, etc) in captivity then it is no longer "sand", rather a "sanded" substrate.

Let's focus on one discussion at a time rather than introducing other substrates such as aspen, coco fiber or cypress mulch into the discussion (we wouldn't want the thread to get de-railed now do we?)... and yes those substrates also pose a chance for impaction in captivity, any particulate substrate does. They would pose an impaction possibility in a natural setting in the wild if the peice ingested was big enough and not digested. The mouth is bigger than the cloaca in reptiles.

The reason I called it a myth is because various products are labeled as "sand" and then blamed for causing impactions. That would be akin to labeling aspen, bark and cypress as "mulch" and then claiming they are bad because they don't hold humidity. When I said sand in my original post, I meant natural sand, or washed play sand, not reptile products calling themselves sand. I think people continue to assert that sand causes impactions because many products are labeled as sand, or because the right husbandry wasn't provided.

Additionally, sand is singled out for being more likely to cause impactions than other substrates. So the issue is not a sand issue, as much as it is an issue of particle substrates possibly causing impaction. If the all the animals that had died of sand based impactions had been put on another substrate, do you think they would still be alive?

[Mikoh4792]

Wouldn't sand cause impaction when consumed in large numbers and clumps together /clogs the GI tract even with high temps/hydration? I thought only small amounts were passable.

[bigsnakegirl785]

Originally Posted by limey

Not sure where they come from, but being a zookeeper/curator I have heard many ridiculous things come out of the mouths of the public whilst in the reptile house.

Here are the silliest of them all:

* "Milk snakes drink milk, son. That's why they are called milksnakes."

* "Corn snakes are poisonous"

* (Pointing at skink) "Look at that snake, it has little legs"

* "That anaconda is about 5 feet long, it could eat you whole."

* Excuse me sir, snakes eat biscuits, right? Just like dogs?

* (I have 7 ft burmese around my shoulders) *Black woman with 2 kids freaks out* "Oh my gaWWWWWD!!! Is it poisonous??? Stay away from it, kids!!!"

* "Snakes need to be wet or they'll dry out and die" (mother says to young son)

* "I don't want a snake because they are pointless, smelly, dirty animals. Snakes smell, really bad" - Random middle-aged woman

* "We find a snake near our house, we shoot it dead." - Macho man visiting our zoo

* (Points to me cleaning out alligator pond) "Look, son, that's why you go to college. So you don't have to clean out gator poop for a living like that guy."


Just thought I would share...

This was my favorite, like people are thinking about cleaning out alligator pens/ponds when they go college. I always thought that was flipping hamburgers at McDonald's. Although I guess it depends on where you live, if alligator ponds are where you for the weekend I could see that comment being made I guess. haha

[red ink]

Originally Posted by CosmicOwl

I didn't really have time to respond to this until now, so I'd like to try to explain what I meant my calling it a myth.

Firs of all, we have to consider what substances are being referred to as "sand". Often, the sand in question is one of the various products found in pet stores. These products often contain dust, additives and/or dyes. So right from the start, we have several different substances being called "sand" and maligned as dangerous.

There is a real potential for ingested sand to cause an impaction, but how is that different than any particle substrate? Is natural sand more likely to cause an impaction in an animal that aspen, cypress mulch or coco fiber? Would you rather have a bearded dragon accidentally eat one of those substrates instead of sand?

Originally Posted by CosmicOwl

The reason I called it a myth is because various products are labeled as "sand" and then blamed for causing impactions. That would be akin to labeling aspen, bark and cypress as "mulch" and then claiming they are bad because they don't hold humidity. When I said sand in my original post, I meant natural sand, or washed play sand, not reptile products calling themselves sand. I think people continue to assert that sand causes impactions because many products are labeled as sand, or because the right husbandry wasn't provided.

Contradictory statements... First you acknowledge there are multiple substrates labelled as "sand".... and "maligned" as being dangerous. On your next post you call the causality of them being reason for impaction a myth.

We are going around in circles here... and I have been trying to get you to see the point so I will just be blunt about it.

Do not make sweeping statements about a fallacy when you do not have evidence about it.
As I sated natural or not.. some species of reptiles should not be on sand (carpet pythons for one).

Be succinct in what you are saying as ironically, that's how myths get started. So if you mean "sand" as a natural substrate... say that. By your own admission plenty of products are called sand which are actually dangerous, therefore not a myth in the potential harm they can cause.


As I've already stated:
"Being dismissive about the so called "myth" is just as bad as not knowing anything about particulate substrate husbandry. To simply make a sweeping statement about sand use (and the dangers it may pose) being a myth is rather short sighted."

[Derek Roddy]

Originally Posted by CameronVarnish

Yea and I saw a corn snake eat an ear of corn once... And then there was a 65 foot anaconda in my backyard in NJ. And it sprayed venom at me.

Haven't seen a snake eat corn but, I have seen this.......




D

[Derek Roddy]

As far as digesting substrate....has anyone watched a snake kill and eat something in the wild?
They ingest huge amounts of sand, bark, small stones....all types of foreign objects with no ill effect.

Any ill effect from digesting such materiel would be because of captive conditions. Too dry, too hot/cool, size of living space, frequency of movement, access to optimal conditions, etc

D