Beautifully dangerous or dangerously beautiful: perceptions of southern African pythons (Python natalensis) in southern African rural and urban areas
- Open Access
- 28.11.2025
- Research
Erschienen in:
Abstract
Background
Snakes evoke strong feelings in humans - good and bad - with few people remaining neutral towards them [1]. Literature suggests that the fear of snakes is innate and even helps form the mammalian fear response; however, studies also show that there is a learned component to this fear [2, 3]. Snakes are steeped in mythology and have connotations worldwide in many different cultures and religions, ranging from being considered sacred to having divine status and being worthy of worship [3‐5]. They hold a complex place in culture, representing many different things; for example, in the Bible, they represent wisdom, evil and an agent for God’s vengeance [6]. In many myths surrounding snakes, they are portrayed in a negative light as harmful creatures, but this is seldom based on their natural history; rather, it is often the result of unnatural acts, driven by human fear, emotion, and assumption [3].
Different snakes hold similar relevance and meaning across different cultures and religions. The rattlesnake (family Crotalinae) in America and the python (Python spp.) in Africa are both associated with reincarnated ancestors, while snakes in general are associated with reincarnation for Hindus and are considered the “guardians of life” [3, 7, 8]. They are also strongly linked to weather and rainfall in many cultures worldwide, spanning across Asia, America, and Africa [3]. There are also some positive connotations associated with snakes, such as their representation of health, life, and good fortune, a sentiment echoed in African folklore and myths [9]. In the Bible, they are also associated with healing, as in American and African folklore [10]. Demographic aspects such as gender and level of education are known to impact these fears, with women being more scared than men and less educated people being more scared than those with higher levels of education [11, 12]. Although these myths and beliefs often originate from fear and ignorance, they can be dispelled through education [3]. Furthermore, the fear of snakes, regardless of its innate origins, can be overcome [1].
Anzeige
The southern African python (Python natalensis) is the largest snake species in Africa [13]. Although it is listed as “Least Concern” in the latest Red Data List because of its extensive and possibly expanding range, several populations have become locally extinct, and the overall population trend is declining [14]. Known anthropogenic threats include residential and commercial development, agriculture, electric fences, being killed to protect livestock, and harvesting for traditional medicine (muthi), as well as for meat, skins, and the pet trade [8, 14‐18]. They are protected under the National Environmental Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004): List of Terrestrial and Freshwater Species (ToPS list) in South Africa. According the the IUCN listing, the recommended conservation measures would be to quantify their use in the muthi trade and define their home range and requirements [18]. Muthi is the isiZulu word for a substance, which can contain animal or plant material and can have either spiritual or medicinal use [19], it can be used for various outcomes, ranging from healing, cleansing and protection from evil forces, to witchcraft and the infliction of curses and ill-health [20].
Southern African pythons are fond of water, often spending long periods largely submerged, especially after feeding or before sloughing, and frequently hunt from submerged positions in water [21]. They have large teeth and lunge and bite readily in defence, inflicting large, ripping wounds that bleed profusely [8]. They are the only southern African snake species that grow large enough to consider humans as prey. While there are no confirmed records of pythons consuming humans, fatalities have been reported [22].
According to a small study of 120 isiZulu respondents across a broad spectrum of age groups in 2016, snakes are the most feared animal, with 98% of respondents being scared of them [23]. In the literature, pythons are associated with much superstition by tribes in many parts of Africa [9, 24]. In some regions, they are considered a delicacy and are intentionally hunted down for food [25, 26]. Some revere and protect them as repositories for departed souls or the pets of witch doctors [9, 27], while still others believe that their fat works as a lubricant for rheumatism and can heal chest pains. Their internal organs have other medicinal uses [8]. In some cultures, they are revered for their proposed connection to water and rainfall; in others, they are sacrificed to induce rainfall events [24]. Whether spiritual, medical or simply as food, pythons are important in African societies and feature extensively in folklore and legend [9, 24, 26].
As so little is known about the beliefs, uses and attitudes towards these snakes, it is unclear what can be done to alleviate the culturally induced threats that they face. Our study aimed to assess the attitudes of people in southern Africa towards southern African pythons and to analyse what might influence either a positive or negative attitude towards pythons. These included the following: To assess if exposure to pythons influences attitudes towards these snakes; to establish the overall opinion of the public towards pythons and to assess how accurate the general perceptions of the negative and positive impacts of pythons are; to attempt to clarify some of the traditional beliefs around pythons and their uses in muthi and culture and to establish if this is still believed to the same extent as it was historically. Finally, we aimed to gather anecdotal information on breeding behaviour and burrow use from respondents that would likely not otherwise be documented. We predicted that there would be negative perceptions towards these snakes. Armed with the knowledge from this and similar studies, informed management and policy decisions can be made that can offer more relevant protection for this species.
Anzeige
Methods
Study area
The majority of the in-person interviews were conducted by an isiZulu-speaking individual conducting interviews in the Ongoye area of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Interviews were also conducted in Manguzi, Umkhanyakude District Municipality, and opportunistically in Pietermaritzburg and Hilton, KwaZulu-Natal. The questionnaires were opportunistically deployed, with focused in-person questionnaire sessions conducted in concurrence with other similar studies. Additionally, individuals from southern Africa who could or preferred to complete the questionnaire online did so. As such, the results provide a broad representation of the responses from people from southern Africa, rather than any specific group. The use of in-person interviews and online platforms allowed for a wider range and broader engagement with respondents.
Data collection
We designed a questionnaire (Supplementary information Table S1), which was granted permission by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Humanities Ethics Committee (HSSREC/00006162/2023) to be completed by individuals over the age of 18 who had agreed to the consent form (Supplementary information Table S2). The questionnaire was divided into five sections, gathering data on the respondents’ demographics, perceptions of pythons in relation to people, knowledge of python distribution and populations, python burrow use and breeding/social behaviour and, finally, python diet. Each section included a selection of multiple-choice questions, short-answer questions, or Likert scale questions. The questionnaire was translated into isiZulu, the predominant local language in KwaZulu-Natal, where most of the responses originated, and respondents were allowed to fill it out in their preferred language. Additionally, the questionnaire was formatted for online completion using Google Forms®.
The questionnaire’s online link was distributed as widely as possible through various platforms, including Facebook®, WhatsApp®, email, and printed flyers with QR code links to the Google Form® to encourage people from southern Africa to complete the questionnaire online. Likely Facebook® groups and pages were targeted, for example, “Snakes of Southern Africa” and other snake-related pages. Additionally, we distributed using mailing lists to likely participants, for example, the KwaZulu-Natal Conservancies network. Flyers with the link to the online questionnaire were distributed in likely areas to attract respondents, including tourism resorts and town notice boards.
Data analyses
A subset of questions from the questionnaire were posed as Likert scale questions. These questions typically ranged from four to five points, from very positive to very negative, or from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and were useful for gauging feelings around a topic where simple yes-or-no answers did not offer much insight. The data derived from the Likert scale questions were all treated as ordinal.
We performed basic descriptive statistics using the base R Core package [28], including Chi-Squared tests for significance. We performed a multinomial logistic regression model from the “nnet” package in R to analyse the factors likely to affect the negative or positive attitudes of respondents. The predictors we used were age, gender, education, province, employment status, and whether they had previously encountered a python. We conducted a binary logistic regression analysis using 349 respondents who either held a negative or positive attitude towards pythons. The independent variables we used were gender (male or female), age, level of education (school or tertiary), employment status (employed or unemployed), whether they lived within KwaZulu-Natal or not, and whether or not they had encountered a python. Graphics, including the Likert Scale heatmap, were created using the “ggplot” package in R, while “wordcloud2” was used for the word cloud.
Results
The majority of the questionnaires were completed in late 2023 and early 2024, with a final batch prior to analyses in early 2025. The majority of the responses were collected through the online questionnaire, which was completed by respondents from all over South Africa, as well as several from outside the country, within the southern African python’s distribution range. A few respondents came from outside the distribution range but had spent time within it and had experienced encounters with these snakes.
A total of 438 responses were recorded for the questionnaire, comprising both online responses and in-person interviews. All of these responses were used for the analysis of this study; however, respondents did not answer all questions, resulting in varying numbers of responses for certain questions (as indicated in parentheses). These differences were accounted for by some people only partially filling out the questionnaire, and additionally, many of the questions were only relevant to individuals who had had specific encounters (for example, pythons feeding or pythons in burrows), cultures, or beliefs.
The respondents were almost equally split between males and females, with 51% females (n = 225/438) (Table 1). The dominant age group was 18–33 year olds (n = 174), followed by 34–49 year olds (n = 138), and finally the 50 + year olds (n = 129) (Table 1). The vast majority (84%, n = 368) of the responses were submitted via the online questionnaire form, while the remaining 16% (n = 70) were completed as hard copies in person. The majority were completed in English, while 20% were written in IsiZulu and translated for the analyses.
Anzeige
Table 1
Demographics of the participants who completed the questionnaire in the present study
Demographics | No. of respondents | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 225 | 51.4 |
Male | 209 | 47.7 | |
Prefer not to say | 3 | 0.7 | |
(blank) | 1 | 0.2 | |
Age | 18–25 | 79 | 18.0 |
26–33 | 95 | 21.7 | |
34–41 | 78 | 17.8 | |
42–49 | 60 | 13.7 | |
50+ | 126 | 28.8 | |
Education | None | 4 | 0.9 |
Primary | 14 | 3.2 | |
Secondary | 118 | 26.9 | |
Tertiary | 294 | 67.1 | |
(blank) | 8 | 1.8 | |
Urban/Rural | City | 24 | 5.5 |
Rural | 87 | 19.9 | |
Town | 30 | 6.8 | |
(blank) | 297 | 67.8 | |
Home language | Afrikaans | 6 | 1.4 |
English | 57 | 13.0 | |
IsiZulu | 90 | 20.5 | |
Siswati | 1 | 0.2 | |
Venda | 1 | 0.2 | |
(blank) | 283 | 64.6 | |
Employment | Employed | 283 | 64.6 |
Student | 4 | 0.9 | |
Unemployed | 147 | 33.6 | |
(blank) | 4 | 0.9 | |
Province | Eastern Cape | 13 | 3.0 |
Free State | 1 | 0.2 | |
Gauteng | 37 | 8.4 | |
KwaZulu Natal | 299 | 68.3 | |
Limpopo | 34 | 7.8 | |
Mpumalanga | 9 | 2.1 | |
North-West | 2 | 0.5 | |
Outside SA | 24 | 5.5 | |
Western Cape | 13 | 3.0 | |
(blank) | 6 | 1.4 | |
There was a significant difference between the education status of the respondents (\(\:{\chi\:}^{2}\).= 505.55, df = 3, p < 0.001), with the majority of respondents having a tertiary education (67%, n = 294) (Table 1). Of the 141 people who responded to where they lived, significantly more lived in rural areas (62%, n = 87) (\(\:{\chi\:}^{2}\) = 51.447, df = 2, p < 0.001). The 155 people who responded about home language differed significantly, with the majority being isiZulu speakers (n = 90). A significant majority of respondents (65%, n = 283) were employed. It is presumed that most of the students identified as unemployed. The majority of respondents came from KwaZulu-Natal (68%, n = 299), with the second highest coming from Gauteng Province (8%, n = 37), followed by Limpopo Province (8%, n = 34), and the remaining 16% being split between the remaining six provinces, outside of South Africa and those that left this blank.
Attitudes, feelings, and perceptions of pythons
Regarding respondents’ feelings towards southern African pythons, 9% (n = 41) were neutral, 19% (n = 82) were negative, and 65% (n = 285) were positive, while 7% (n = 30) did not respond. Of the negative responses, the majority were scared of pythons, using words like “fear” and “frightening” to describe them, one used “deadly”, while 24 (5%) thought they were “dangerous” and seven (2%) used the word “hate” to describe their feelings towards them. Of the neutral respondents, the word predominantly used to describe pythons was “misunderstood”, while others were “avoid”, “ignorant”, and “big” (Fig. 1). The most frequently used positive word to describe pythons was “beautiful”, with 58 (13%) uses, while “love” was used 49 (11%) times and “important” 45 (10%) times. “Muthi” was used to describe them positively six times (1%), while “good luck” was used five times (1%) to describe pythons. Several different words were used to appreciate their role in the environment, for example, “essential”, “important”, and “necessary”. Meanwhile, several others described their feelings towards them, such as “wonderful”, “special”, and “amazing”.
Fig. 1
A word cloud of the overall feeling of participants towards southern African pythons, where the size of the font used indicates how frequently it was used to describe the snake
Anzeige
Our binary analyses generated a model that revealed several significant predictors, specifically age, with the 50 + age category (OR = 9.75, p < 0.001) having the highest likelihood of a positive attitude towards southern African pythons. Having encountered a python also significantly increased the likelihood of a positive attitude (OR = 5.00, p < 0.001). Additionally, respondents from outside KwaZulu-Natal were significantly more likely to have a positive attitude than those from within (OR = 3.33, p = 0.004). Unemployment also had a significant effect (OR = 0.26, p < 0.001), with individuals who were unemployed being significantly more likely to have a negative attitude towards pythons. Gender and education were found to have non-significant effects on the attitude of respondents. The model had an AIC of 270.67 and a residual deviance of 250.67, with a null deviance of 375.76. The summary of predictors is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of predictors for the binary regression model on respondents’ attitudes to southern African pythons
Predictor | Coefficient (β) | Odds Ratio (OR) | p-value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | −0.5225 | 0.59 | 0.3183 | |
Age 26–33 | 0.9448 | 2.57 | 0.0413 | * |
Age 34–41 | 1.8610 | 6.43 | 0.0013 | ** |
Age 42–49 | 1.0225 | 2.78 | 0.0516 | . |
Age 50+ | 2.2772 | 9.75 | < 0.001 | *** |
Gender (Male) | 0.1613 | 1.17 | 0.6255 | |
Education (Tertiary) | 0.3446 | 1.41 | 0.3337 | |
Employment (Unemployed) | −1.3561 | 0.26 | < 0.001 | *** |
Province (Outside) | 1.2037 | 3.33 | 0.0040 | ** |
Encountered (Yes) | 1.6101 | 5.00 | < 0.001 | *** |
Only a small subset of respondents provided information about their home language and whether they lived in rural or urban environments. Of the 74 people who responded that they lived rurally, 55% (n = 41) had a negative attitude to southern African pythons, while 9% (n = 7) were neutral and 35% (n = 26) were positive, while of the 53 respondents living in urban environments, 13% (n = 7) had a negative attitude while 11% (n = 6) were neutral and 75% (n = 40) were positive. We found a significant relationship between location and whether individuals were positive or negative towards pythons (χ² = 23.64, p < 0.001). The rural participants were disproportionately represented in the negative category compared with the urban participants. A two-proportion z-test revealed that rural respondents were significantly more likely to hold a negative attitude towards pythons than urban respondents (p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.277, 1.000]).
Regarding home language, of those who completed this question, the majority spoke isiZulu (n = 63), followed by English (n = 56), Afrikaans (n = 6), and Siswati and Venda, both with one respondent each. Of the 65 English home language speakers, 13% (n = 7) were negative, 7% (n = 4) were neutral, and 80% (n = 45) had a positive attitude towards southern African pythons. Of the 63 isiZulu home language speakers, 65% (n = 41) had a negative attitude, 11% (n = 7) were neutral, and 23% (n = 15) had a positive attitude. We found a significant association between language and attitude towards snakes (χ² = 53.09, p < 0.001). IsiZulu home language speakers were disproportionately represented in the negative attitude category compared with speakers of other languages. A two-proportion z-test confirmed that isiZulu home language speakers were significantly more likely to have a negative sentiment than non-isiZulu home language speakers (p < 0.001, 95% Cl [0.401, 1.000]).
Anzeige
When asked about the perceived positive impacts of southern African pythons, the dominant response was pest control, with 239 respondents (55%) identifying it as a benefit. Several combined it with other answers, for example, three combined ‘pest control’ with ‘income from selling the skins’. The second highest response was their importance in the food chain (13%, n = 58), which was similar to the pest control answer, but differed subtly in that their place in the food chain implies they are both an important prey item and a predator. The third highest response was that pythons have no positive impacts (13%, n = 56), and 25 respondents (6%) did not know if they did or not. Seven individuals (2%) recorded “muthi” as a positive impact, and 11 (3%) participants acknowledged the role of pythons in tourism as having a positive impact. Other interesting responses included six respondents (1%) who thought pythons ate harmful insects, two who identified them as seed dispersers, and one who believed they improved soil health with their burrows.
Regarding the perceived negative impacts of southern African pythons, 189 (43%) respondents believed they posed a threat to livestock, with 40 (9%) expressing concern about both pets and livestock, and 32 (7%) worrying about the impact on humans and livestock. Multiple respondents (n = 101, 23%) did not think there were any negative impacts of pythons. Some respondents (13%, n = 58) believed pythons posed a threat to human beings, especially children. Few (6%, n = 25) respondents were concerned about their pets being eaten by pythons; pets differ from livestock, as livestock implies a livelihood, whereas pets are more associated with pleasure. Other unusual answers included two respondents who believed pythons carried diseases, three who thought they were invasive, two who thought they were poisonous, and three who thought they were magical.
When asked about the cultural significance of southern African pythons, only 97 respondents (22%) provided an answer, with 61 (14%) associating them with positive cultural experiences and 36 (8%) with negative ones. Some respondents (9%, n = 39) were unsure whether pythons were culturally important, while many (52%, n = 229) stated that pythons were not culturally important to them. Additionally, 65 respondents (15%) left this question blank. Few respondents (5%, n = 21) associated pythons with muthi, while eight (2%) believed that pythons have healing properties (the implication is through fat and oil, thus also muthi). Six (1%) people thought pythons were evil; one said pythons are bad luck, while another said killing pythons resulted in bad luck. Several beliefs were mentioned, including that pythons are invisible (n = 2), that pythons carry messages and prophecies, and that pythons bring strength, wisdom, fertility, and protection from evil spirits. Pythons were also associated with rain and water. There were several references to their involvement with Sangomas (traditional health practitioners acting in the roles of diviners and spiritual mediums); two referred to them as part of their initiation rites, others mentioned pythons as their pets, and others linked them to their ancestors. Few (1%, n = 4) participants linked them with fertility, and two (0.5%) mentioned rebirth and new beginnings associated with these snakes. There were five (1%) who associated pythons with witchcraft and one who thought pythons were a bad omen.
In relation to which parts of the southern African pythons were used for muthi, only 47 people (11%) responded. The most frequently mentioned part was the fat or oil from the python, with 36 mentions, followed by the skin, with 24 mentions (Table 3). Other parts mentioned included two accounts of the bones being used, and a single account of the skull, gallbladder, organs, and meat of pythons being used (Table 3). These were used to treat a wide array of physical and spiritual ailments. Of the 24 ailments for which python muthi was used, 12 (50%) were related to physical complaints, and 12 (50%) were for spiritual/emotional healing (Table 3). The most common physical ailment was general healing when the fat is spread over a wound, and the second most frequently mentioned was the treatment of ear infections (12.5%, n = 3). The spiritual connotations reported centred on power, protection from spirits, longevity, and wealth.
Table 3
Physical and spiritual ailment uses of southern African pythons and parts used in traditional medicine (muthi)
Use | Count | Parts | Count |
|---|---|---|---|
Contacting ancestors | 1 | Bones | 2 |
Courage | 1 | Fat | 36 |
Diarrhea | 2 | Gall bladder | 1 |
Ear infection | 3 | Meat | 1 |
Healing | 9 | Organs | 1 |
Longevity | 1 | Skin | 24 |
Luck | 1 | Skull | 1 |
Power | 4 | ||
Protection | 1 | ||
Protection - lightning | 1 | ||
Protection - spiritual | 2 | ||
Removes bad omens | 1 | ||
Spiritual ailments | 1 | ||
Swelling | 2 | ||
Wealth | 1 |
Regarding the question of whether the participants were aware of any specific superstitions involving southern African pythons, the answers were highly varied. There were 184 (42%) responses to this question; however, 83 (45%) of these indicated that the respondents were aware of superstitions, while 14 (8%) stated that they were not aware of any superstitions. Of the remaining 87 (47%) answers, there was a wide range of superstitions involving ancestors and luck, both positive and negative, others indicating that pythons were evil and demonic. Some specific superstitions related to southern African pythons, as reported by respondents, are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4
Superstitions and/beliefs involving southern African pythons reported by some respondents
Superstitions and/beliefs about southern African pythons reported |
|---|
Pythons use their spurs to block a human’s nose in order to kill them |
Burying a python skull under a kraal keeps the herd safe |
Pythons cause a thunderstorm when they emerge from water |
Pythons change colour |
Pythons would not eat unweaned human babies because they smell like mothers’ milk |
Pythons are controlled by witches |
Pythons can hypnotise people to eat them |
People go blind having seen pythons |
Pythons eat humans, particularly near water sources |
Eating a python’s gall bladder causes other snakes to fear you |
Pythons bring money |
Pythons are harbingers of death |
The hook on the tail is to sweep your feet out from under you in order to eat you |
If a python is killed, there will be no rain |
Pythons can indicate pregnancy |
A rainbow indicates that a python is bathing |
Pythons use their tongues to suck out human brains |
Pythons can transform into humans |
White pythons live under waterfalls and can ensure good crops if they are sacrificed to |
Humans go insane if they kill them. |
Finally, when asked if there was a difference in the way people responded to southern African pythons depending on their age, the answers were varied: 5% did not answer, 16% were unsure, 24% did not think there was a difference, and 55% believed that there was a difference. Only 89 (20%) respondents clarified which age group they thought was more fearful, with 60 (67%) saying the older group was more scared, while 28 (31%) thought it was the younger group, and one said it was the children and elderly.
General views
We used a Likert scale for four questions. The first question was simply on a scale of positive to negative – the question being, “How do you view pythons?” Many respondents (46%) viewed them as purely positive, while 7% viewed them as purely negative. Most respondents (325 out of 438, 74%) were on the positive side of the scale, while 10% (n = 44) were neutral, and only 16% (n = 69) were negative (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2
Frequency of responses of how people felt towards pythons in the present study
When asked how they would respond to a python in close proximity to their homestead, the responses were mixed, with the most people (30%, n = 130) saying they would encourage it to be there, while 125 (29%) people would ignore it, 120 (27%) would chase it away but not kill it and only 61 (14%) would kill it immediately (Fig. 3). When asked about their ability to identify pythons over other species of snakes, 63% (n = 275) were confident of their identification abilities, followed by 22% (n = 96) who were fairly confident they would identify it correctly. Few people (8%, n = 36) were not confident in their identification, while 28 people (6%) were not confident at all and thought that all snakes look the same, and three refrained from answering.
Fig. 3
A heatmap of the responses from the four Likert scale questions about southern African pythons. (Note: For question 1, the responses were 1 = definitely yes, 2 = I think they could or have heard about it happening, 3 = I doubt it, and 4 = I know they don’t. For question 2, 1 = I’m absolutely certain I know exactly what they look like, 2 = I’m pretty sure I know what pythons look like, 3 = I’m not really confident, 4 = I’m not confident at all, they all look the same. For question 3, 1 = Absolutely deadly, one bite will kill me, 2 = They are very dangerous, if bitten I will get sick, but I won’t die, 3 = I will get sick but will recover, 4 = They are harmless to humans. For question 4, 1 = Kill it immediately, 2 = Chase it away but not necessarily kill it, 3 = Ignore it completely, 4 = Encourage it to be there)
The next question asked how dangerous the respondents thought pythons were to humans. Many (56%) thought that pythons were not dangerous to humans, while 17% thought they would get sick, but would recover quickly if bitten, 16% thought they were deadly, and 10% thought that you would get very sick, but would not die. This was linked to a follow-up question about whether respondents thought pythons ate humans. The responses to this question were less polarised, with 36% (n = 159) knowing that they did not, 26% (n = 118) thinking they could or had heard about it, 24% (n = 108) doubted that they could eat someone and 12% (n = 53) were convinced that they could. The responses to these four questions are summarised in Fig. 3.
The final two questions were comparing the past with recent sightings of pythons. While 111 participants (25%) thought they were seeing pythons as frequently as they did in the past, 20% felt that they were seeing pythons less frequently (n = 88), while 37% (n = 164) were of the opinion that they were seeing pythons a lot less frequently than in the past. Only 26 respondents (6%) thought they saw pythons a lot more regularly than in the past, and 34 (8%) respondents thought they were slightly more frequently seen. The last question compared the size of pythons seen previously with those seen recently and showed that many respondents (46%, n = 203) believed that the pythons they had seen recently were similar in size to those in the past. Some (28%, n = 116) of the respondents believed the pythons were smaller than those seen historically, while 21% felt that they had become bigger recently than those seen in the past. There were 25 respondents who did not answer this question.
Observations and experiences of pythons
Of the 438 respondents, 176 (40%) had encountered southern African pythons feeding. These observations included snakes that were actively eating, as well as those that had recently eaten, with the prey item clearly visible in their bellies. These included 31 identified animal species, including birds, mammals and reptiles (Table 5). There were also accounts of frogs and insects, as well as numerous non-specific reports of birds, antelopes, and rodents. Interesting feeding observations and methods mentioned in the questionnaire included multiple references to pythons feeding on small birds at watering holes, waiting on branches near water for birds to perch close enough, feeding on weaver birds in nests, ambushing from under the surface at water holes and artificial water points, lying in wait on game trails and lying in wait under cut grass on roads.
Only 22% (n = 97) of the respondents had seen southern African pythons in burrows. Of these, 41 (42%) had seen pythons sheltering or retreating into burrows upon approach. The second-highest number of respondents’ accounts (36%, n = 35) were related to pythons nesting with eggs visible in the burrows. Five pythons were seen to be digesting large meals; there were three accounts of snakes using the burrows for hunting; one account of hatchlings at a burrow mouth, and 12 respondents only reported that they had seen pythons in burrows.
Aardvarks (Orycteropus afer) were the species mentioned most often in relation to digging burrows for southern African pythons. Wild pigs (common warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus) and bushpigs (Potamochoerus larvatus) were mentioned the second most frequently, and Cape porcupines (Hystrix africaeaustralis) were the third most frequently mentioned. Other options included termite (Microhodotermes viator) mounds, rabbit holes, cavities where roots had once been and erosion.
Respondents were also asked if they had ever encountered multiple southern African pythons at the same time, and 63 (14%) people responded with details. Of these, 13 sightings (21%) were of pythons observed basking, with one case detailing a female with two males (presumably identified by size, as the females attain much larger sizes). There were seven accounts of hatchlings being found together, with one account mentioning over 30 hatchlings and another account mentioning that the female was still present. There were six (10%) accounts of snakes being mobile together and one account of males fighting. Finally, there were 38 (60%) accounts of pythons copulating, with one mentioning six males and one female, two accounts of three males and one female and one account of several males and one female.
Table 5
List of the prey species that respondents had identified pythons eating
Common name | Scientific name | Wild/Domestic |
|---|---|---|
Birds | ||
Domestic goose | Anser anser domestica | Domestic |
Domestic chicken | Gallus gallus domesticus | Domestic |
Hadeda ibis | Bostrychia hagedash | Wild |
Lilac breasted roller | Coracias caudatus | Wild |
Reed cormorant | Microcarbo africanus | Wild |
Dark capped bulbul | Pycnonotus tricolor | Wild |
Mammals | ||
Domestic cow | Bos taurus | Domestic |
Domestic dog | Canis lupus familiaris | Domestic |
Domestic goat | Capra aegagrus hircus | Domestic |
Domestic guinea pig | Cavia porcellus | Domestic |
Domestic cat | Felis catus | Domestic |
Domestic rabbit | Oryctolagus cuniculus domesticus | Domestic |
Domestic sheep | Ovis aries | Domestic |
Impala | Aepyceros melampus | Wild |
Red duiker | Cephalophus natalensis | Wild |
Samango monkey | Cercopithecus mitis | Wild |
Vervet monkey | Chlorocebus pygerythrus | Wild |
Giant rat | Cricetomys ansorgei | Wild |
Waterbuck | Kobus ellipsiprymnus | Wild |
Scrub hare | Lepus saxatilis | Wild |
Tree squirrel | Paraxerus cepapi | Wild |
Warthog | Phacochoerus africanus | Wild |
Rock hyrax | Procavia capensis | Wild |
Steenbok | Raphicerus campestris | Wild |
Sharpe’s grysbok | Raphicerus sharpei | Wild |
Common reedbuck | Redunca arundinum | Wild |
Common duiker | Sylvicapra grimmia | Wild |
Greater cane rat | Thryonomys swinderianus | Wild |
Nyala | Tragelaphus angasii | Wild |
Bushbuck | Tragelaphus sylvaticus | Wild |
Reptile | ||
Rock monitor | Varanus albigularis | Wild |
In relation to the ecosystem services that southern African pythons provide and the perceived positive and negative impacts that pythons have on the cohabitant human populations, 13% (n = 56) were not aware of any positive impacts that pythons have, while 23% (n = 101) were not aware of any negative impacts. Significantly more participants were not aware of the negative impacts than those who were unaware of the positive impacts (\({\chi}^{2}\)= 15.024, df = 1, p < 0.001). By analysing the responses to certain of the questions, we could deduce that 54% (n = 235) of the respondents had not seen pythons in real life before, meaning that less than half of the individuals responding had encountered live, wild pythons.
Discussion
The results were not as predicted, with a significant majority having an overall positive attitude towards southern African pythons. Valuable insights into the cultural significance of these pythons and how this trend is evolving over time were obtained, as well as some insight into the misinformation surrounding this species and the factors that influence these perceptions.
Attitudes, feelings, and perceptions of pythons
While preparing this study, it became clear that there is a severe lack of recorded information regarding perceptions and attitudes towards snakes, specifically in Africa. This dearth of information makes it impossible to predict people’s responses, reactions or sensitivities to snakes, which is an important consideration in environmental education initiatives as well as the conservation and management of species and areas [17, 20, 23, 24]. This becomes particularly relevant when Tolley et al.’s [15] concerns for the species are considered, which include the impact of traditional medicine and harvesting for markets, etc.
The overall positive attitude towards southern African pythons was encouraging, and the diversity of reasons behind this positive attitude was intriguing (Fig. 1). This data confirmed what has been mentioned in literature [3, 9, 10, 27], that southern African pythons hold an important and multi-faceted place in African society; it would be valuable to try to comprehend the intricacies of this relationship further in order to understand and document pythons’ cultural significance as well as to be aware of threats we may not otherwise be cognisant of, and thus be able to put suitable mitigating measures or protection in place. There appears to be an overall reluctance to kill pythons for cultural, environmental, or simply fear-related reasons (Fig. 3). However, there were several extremely negative responses, for example, where people mentioned “hating” them and associated them with evil. A surprisingly large proportion of the population believed they were dangerous to humans, while fewer thought they would eat people. This fear is understandable because of their size and extremely generalist feeding behaviours; however, to date, there are no authenticated published records of southern African pythons feeding on human beings [29]. There was, however, a documented case of a boy being killed by a python [22]. Given that pythons are such generalist and efficient predators, it seems likely that suitably sized humans would be considered prey by large pythons. However, considering their abundance in close proximity to human habitations for centuries, it is surprising that there are not more authenticated accounts. Pythons are intelligent and efficient predators; humans may be too “high-risk” as prey items to feature routinely.
There were several rumours (various pers. comm.) that the questionnaire attempted to investigate. One of which was that, because of changes in society, pythons are no longer afforded the traditional protection they once enjoyed, largely because younger people lack exposure to and appreciation of traditional stories and beliefs. This did not appear to be the case, and in fact, the opposite seemed to be true. The younger people seem to be more educated and thus less fearful of pythons. This is a phenomenon that might be reflected throughout the world as traditions and customs hold less and less sway over societies [30] and should be borne in mind with similar studies and in situations where “traditions and cultures” are used as means of protecting environments or species – a popular concept in underdeveloped countries [31, 32].
This finding, however, contradicted the results of the binary regression model, which showed that older people were much more likely to react positively to the southern African pythons. There are several possible explanations for this. Firstly, it is likely that the more traditional, older respondents would be more likely to retain some culturally positive feelings towards pythons, as the majority of respondents who expressed their cultural feelings towards pythons reported positive views. There is also the concept that older people are more knowledgeable and have more experience, which would lead to a more informed attitude towards pythons, suggesting a more positive outlook. Younger people would also be more exposed to media and universal concepts, such as this innate fear of snakes [2]; however, they should also be more educated about harmless snakes and the ecosystem services that snakes provide. Unemployed people are likely to be less educated; however, they are also more likely to be in a negative mental state due to unemployment, and therefore, are more likely to be more negative towards anything [33]. Unemployed people would also feel the loss of livestock more as they have less financial buffering to purchase new stock.
The attitudes of people outside of KwaZulu-Natal being more favourable about southern African pythons than those inside is hard to explain; it could be cultural, where the people groups within the KwaZulu-Natal borders are less favourable towards pythons than the groups outside, or it could be that those who are within KwaZulu-Natal have more exposure to pythons than those outside, as most of KwaZulu-Natal falls within their range distribution. This, however, contradicts the final predictor, which was that those who had encountered pythons were more likely to have a positive attitude. This finding was reflected by a similar study in Brazil [34]. This is further evidence that public exposure to environments and species is essential to conservation and that people are more likely to engage with, like and even protect what they are familiar with or have encountered [11] – valuable insights for conservation initiatives.
From the data, it was apparent that rural people were more negative towards southern African pythons than urban people. This could be explained by urban-dwelling people not being exposed to the negative impacts of pythons, such as their livestock being taken by pythons. We also found that a higher percentage of people with isiZulu as their home language were negative towards pythons than those who had English as their home language. However, it was encouraging to note that a fair percentage (23%) of isiZulu home language speaking people had a positive attitude towards these snakes.
We found that the respondents’ level of education and gender, regardless of whether they lived in rural or urban settings, did not affect their attitudes toward southern African pythons. This can be attributed to the large-scale migration of people from rural areas to urban areas, resulting in a less distinct divide between rural and urban populations. Technology and exposure to social media may also contribute to this lack of differences. These results were interesting as there is a general idea that women are more fearful of snakes than men [12, 34]; however, this was not the case. This is possibly because of boys and girls being exposed to the same cultural beliefs and narratives surrounding these snakes. It was also assumed that those with a tertiary level of education would be less fearful than less educated people [34], however, this was also not the case, possibly due to fear being an intrinsic part of the human psyche, not influenced by education, proving that generalisations and pre-conceived ideas are dangerous.
Observations and experiences of pythons
The answers to the observation and experience questions were insightful; the level of detail and interest that some respondents provided demonstrated a genuine fascination and interest in the species, as evidenced by the positive responses. While it is recognised that citizen science in the form of questionnaires has its limitations concerning the validation of specific observations and accounts [35], trends did appear. For example, the use of aardvark holes, the use of burrows for nesting and digesting, multiple males involved in mating behaviours (with one account of six males and one female and several accounts of three males), as well as feeding behaviours, including taking birds from branches and animals from water sources, including troughs. In relation to the species that respondents had observed being preyed upon, the answers were challenging, with many vague references to rodents, antelope and birds. Of the species that were specifically identified, all except one (reed cormorant, Microcarbo africanus) were species already known to form part of the pythons’ diet (Table 5) [29]. These comments provide useful supporting information for observations made elsewhere.
Concerning the ecosystem services that southern African pythons provide and the perceived positive and negative impacts that pythons have on the cohabitant human populations, significantly more participants were not aware of negative impacts than those who were unaware of positive impacts, implying that the general population is more aware of the ecosystem services that pythons specifically provide than the negative impacts that they have, which is a positive finding for conservation measures. The ecosystem services that pythons provide are an aspect that should be stressed in environmental education initiatives, as there are important direct (e.g., pest control [36]) and indirect (e.g., tourism [37]) benefits that local human populations could receive from these, presently persecuted, predators.
While this study by no means defines people’s attitudes and perceptions towards southern African pythons, it does shed light and lend a scale to many of the myths and theories surrounding these evocative reptiles. It is encouraging that the overall attitude towards them was significantly positive; it was also encouraging that, theoretically, people would be less inclined to kill them than to remove them. It is positive that most people recognised the benefits that pythons provide. However, these data also revealed a concerning amount of misinformation about pythons as well as exploitation and persecution of the species for various uses, including meat, muthi and protecting assets. There was an overriding trend of interest in this species, which could be leveraged by education and information sharing, towards the conservation of this important snake species and its habitat.
Limitations
Regarding the limitations of questionnaires, it is worth considering precisely what questions you want to ask and why. The language barrier is a serious obstacle, even when the questionnaire is translated accurately; the exact meaning of your question can be missed in the translation. For example, some of the questions about muthi use, cultural beliefs and superstitions were inconclusive. Where we had assumed that all the muthi uses would have been listed in answer to that question, it was only in interpreting the answers to all three questions that the most thorough understanding could be achieved. As such, it is extremely important to consider this when designing questionnaires and even when interpreting the results. Another example related to which age group was more scared of snakes. This question was included because there was an assumption that older generations were more likely to be fearful and respectful of them from a cultural perspective, while younger generations would not be as bound by these norms. However, it became obvious from the answers that this was not how the question was understood. Rather, they were answering from the point of view that children are naïve and perhaps the older generations are less educated and not as knowledgeable about pythons.
Conclusions
A surprisingly positive attitude towards the southern African pythons was revealed, despite awareness of the negative impacts of pythons, such as livestock raiding. There was an array of positive opinions towards these predators, ranging from beautiful and meaningful for tourism to important for their pest control and the place they hold in the food chain, as well as for their uses in muthi. The positive attitude towards pythons was most heavily influenced by age and previous exposure to pythons. Most thought that they were harmless to humans, but 10% thought they were deadly, suggesting that most of the population does not fear for their lives from these snakes. Pythons still hold an important place culturally and traditionally for a percentage (22%) of the population, and it is unclear if this prevalence is less than in the past. We did not discover any valuable breeding or behavioural information; however, we found evidence of multiple males being involved in breeding events, substantial burrow usage, primarily using aardvark burrows, and that only just over half of the respondents had actually encountered pythons in the wild.
From the literature and the results of this research, it becomes even clearer how important education, as well as experiences and encounters with these animals, are for conservation and species preservation. With a large species like the southern African python, their breeding and behavioural ecology seem stacked against them in the modern world. They have a slow and extremely energy-intensive reproductive mode, they only reach sexual maturity at a large size, and are particularly vulnerable once big [38]. They are also renowned for their negative impact on human settlements and, paired with this, are easy to track, locate and kill, leaving pythons susceptible to human exploitation and even extermination [14, 15].
In response to the insights gained from this study, a poster has been created to address several myths and incorrect beliefs surrounding southern African pythons. This poster has been translated, featuring English and isiZulu facts side by side on the same document, creating a language aid as well as a biological science tool, thereby rendering it more valuable to educational institutions. It will be distributed as widely as possible, especially to schools, within the southern African python’s distribution range, to address some of the misinformation about this species.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ntando Makhathini and Sboniso Magoso for their assistance with translation, and Lindiswa Buthelezi and Diane Kyle for their help in completing the in-person questionnaires with individuals.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.