Chameleon School Website

[ERKleRose]

I keep seeing people posting links for them, but if you scroll through their website, they're not giving correct info and different articles have contradicting info from other ones. I don't mind people posting the plant list, as long as it is safe, but I don't like to see it linked for general care. Thoughts?

 

[Beman]

Personally I do not like that site. Inaccurate info as you pointed out. The only plant list I post is the chameleon academy one because they mark which ones are Veiled tested. The others I have seen do not and I believe for a newbie with a veiled this can lead them into gets plants that could cause issues.

 

[ERKleRose]

Yes! The Chameleon School's plant list says it's been tested by the author and from research, but he/she doesn't say what species or how many chams it was tested on and doesn't link any research. I have no idea if some of the plants are safe or not because I haven't seen them on Bill's or Petr's lists.

 

[JacksJill]

I know why it exists.
"This site is owned and operated by Chameleonschool.com. Chameleonschool.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com."
It's an advertising scheme. Sales are going to be more important than accuracy. Looks like they are piggy backing off of the Chameleon Academy name.

 

[ERKleRose]

So sad

 

[JacksJill]

Some of his pictures look a lot like ones from the calendar and those posted by members.

 

[ERKleRose]

I noticed that!

 

[JacksJill]

There are plants on that list I would not use.

 

[ERKleRose]

Which ones?

 

[Sonny13]

I keep seeing people posting links for them, but if you scroll through their website, they're not giving correct info and different articles have contradicting info from other ones. I don't mind people posting the plant list, as long as it is safe, but I don't like to see it linked for general care. Thoughts?

Isn’t this 90% of all the information on the internet?! In the end they all end up here. It’s a shame too many people bet on one horse, doing your research on multiple sites and get your figures right should be the key. Problem is too many just wanna read, what they wanna read, just in their own benefit and not in the benefit for the animal.

 

[CasqueAbove]

These site are what cause problems. They are money grabs with copy and paste info. When I did my site, I went to the experts. I had Bill and Petr give it a once over to see if I was putting out any misinformation. We have an Amazon Affiliate but money is secondary. I am actually in the process of revamping parts. Anything that can be bought for cheap at the local store should be mentioned as such. I am mostly working on tracking the hard to find items like caging and lights that seem to jump around as to who has them now. The goal should be to help keepers find what they need at the best price. None of the cages we list are from affiliates but that is fine because my goal was to show all the options so people can make an informed choice and see all the options. I get no money and I don't care. It is about the chameleons first.

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

Personally I do not like that site. Inaccurate info as you pointed out. The only plant list I post is the chameleon academy one because they mark which ones are Veiled tested. The others I have seen do not and I believe for a newbie with a veiled this can lead them into gets plants that could cause issues.

https://www.madcham.de/en/pflanzen-fuers-terrarium/
explains very clearly:

https://www.chameleons.info/l/safe-and-unsafe-plants/
also provides context for their lists.

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

It’s a shame too many people bet on one horse, doing your research on multiple sites and get your figures right should be the key.

+1.

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

Yes! The Chameleon School's plant list says it's been tested by the author and from research, but he/she doesn't say what species or how many chams it was tested on and doesn't link any research.

Neither do Bill or Petr from what's stated on their lists. I suspect many lists have been derived from empirical data (as Bill Strand's has)—no chameleons have been known to die after consuming them.

Yes! The Chameleon School's plant list says it's been tested by the author and from research, but he/she doesn't say what species or how many chams it was tested on and doesn't link any research. I have no idea if some of the plants are safe or not because I haven't seen them on Bill's or Petr's lists.

That's not exactly what it says. It actually says:

Many of the plants on this list I have tried myself, many more are from my own research but most importantly all of them are safe for your chameleon because not all plants are equal.

Having tried the plants is not the same as testing or using that as a basis for saying it's safe.

I have verified that each of the plants on Chameleon School's list has been listed as safe on several other lists/sites, including this forum. Many are on both Bill's and Petr's lists and on many many more.

IMO, the most important statements on Bill's page are often ignored, forgotten, or overlooked.
(emphasis mine)

Special Mention of "Poisonous" Plants​

We in the chameleon world are in a difficult position that we have no idea which plants are poisonous to chameleons. The poison lists we have are for mammals and birds which are just not transferable to chameleons. Although many species are reported to take a nibble here and there, it is the veiled chameleon that is our plant muncher. So we will use the Veiled Chameleon as our point chameleon in our exploration as to what plants are and are not poisonous to chameleons. Veiled Chameleons have been known to ignore the poison lists no matter how much we tell them they will die. Pothos, Ficus benjamina, and Schefflera are all considered toxic, but are regularly reduced to stems by Veiled Chameleons. But they also continue to eat plants that are considered more dangerous such as philodendron and croton. So what can we determine from this? Only that our present lists are not terribly useful. On the bright side, you can follow the present “safe plant” lists for chameleons and you will be fine. But we must not overstate the significance of those lists. We must realize that our confidence in telling people what plants are dangerous might be exaggerated. Please enjoy a mini-gallery of the remnants of poisonous plants that did not affect a Veiled Chameleon.

Would I recommend using plants that are known to be poisonous to dogs/cats/birds/etc…? Not necessarily. This section is not to encourage use or non use. It is meant to keep us humble and with a realistic understanding of what we do and do not know.

When searching google whether a plant is chameleon safe or not, posts from this site—literally hundreds of posts over many years —come up using FLChams list, and considered that list to be THE authoritative source. Whether that list is still considered such or not isn't the issue; the issue is that that impression is still out there; it's referred by hundreds of posts on this site as being authoritative, and anyone searching google for answers is likely to find that.

 

[CasqueAbove]

Neither do Bill or Petr from what's stated on their lists. I suspect many lists have been derived from empirical data (as Bill Strand's has)—no chameleons have been known to die after consuming them.


That's not exactly what it says. It actually says:

Having tried the plants is not the same as testing or using that as a basis for saying it's safe.

I have verified that each of the plants on Chameleon School's list has been listed as safe on several other lists/sites, including this forum. Many are on both Bill's and Petr's lists and on many many more.

IMO, the most important statements on Bill's page are often ignored, forgotten, or overlooked.
(emphasis mine)


When searching google whether a plant is chameleon safe or not, posts from this site—literally hundreds of posts over many years —come up using FLChams list, and considered that list to be THE authoritative source. Whether that list is still considered such or not isn't the issue; the issue is that that impression is still out there; it's referred by hundreds of posts on this site as being authoritative, and anyone searching google for answers is likely to find that.

Yes having tried doesn’t mean much. I use some plants I would not necessarily say I have proved out, but mine don’t eat them. But someone else’s Cham may. True safe is what we know they can eat.

 

[ERKleRose]

Isn’t this 90% of all the information on the internet?! In the end they all end up here. It’s a shame too many people bet on one horse, doing your research on multiple sites and get your figures right should be the key. Problem is too many just wanna read, what they wanna read, just in their own benefit and not in the benefit for the animal.

I don't have a problem with that, just that a lot of sites have incorrect info that could endanger chams

https://www.madcham.de/en/pflanzen-fuers-terrarium/
explains very clearly:
View attachment 303901

https://www.chameleons.info/l/safe-and-unsafe-plants/
also provides context for their lists.

She was talking about Bill's list, which has veiled-tested plants on it, unlike other lists.

Neither do Bill or Petr from what's stated on their lists. I suspect many lists have been derived from empirical data (as Bill Strand's has)—no chameleons have been known to die after consuming them.


That's not exactly what it says. It actually says:

Having tried the plants is not the same as testing or using that as a basis for saying it's safe.

I have verified that each of the plants on Chameleon School's list has been listed as safe on several other lists/sites, including this forum. Many are on both Bill's and Petr's lists and on many many more.

IMO, the most important statements on Bill's page are often ignored, forgotten, or overlooked.
(emphasis mine)


When searching google whether a plant is chameleon safe or not, posts from this site—literally hundreds of posts over many years —come up using FLChams list, and considered that list to be THE authoritative source. Whether that list is still considered such or not isn't the issue; the issue is that that impression is still out there; it's referred by hundreds of posts on this site as being authoritative, and anyone searching google for answers is likely to find that.

I'm worried about the wrong info Chameleon School is giving out, not arguing about plants

 

[Sonny13]

just that a lot of sites have incorrect info that could endanger chams

I agree with that, and if they would check more then one website, they’ll come to the same conclusion. I’ve noticed the same in the beginning, that’s why kept searching then, the info wasn’t consisted and I wanted figures straight. However this will be different for every person, depending on how eager you‘re, like I said most pick their information as it suits them best.

I think we all agree on the fact that we hate the misleading info and websites, because we all care about these little critters and we just want the best for them, whatever it costs. Shamefully something with school in its name is giving wrong info.

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

She was talking about Bill's list, which has veiled-tested plants on it, unlike other lists.

The lists I mentioned have that information if one only reads what they say beyond plant names.

"Veiled tested" is not a definitive term without risk, and Bill wisely includes disclaimers.

As many of you know, I label the plants that have been recorded as being eaten by a Veiled (or panther sometimes) chameleon with no side effects or poisoning symptoms. Although we have yet to see plant poisoning in chameleons, it is prudent to allow that it can exist.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q="veiled+tested"+chameleon+academy

Chocolate is well-known to be poisonous to dogs, yet many dogs have eaten it without side effects or poisoning symptoms. Others have become seriously ill and/or (albeit rarely) have died. There are factors of amounts, concentrations, body weight ratios, sex, individual sensitivities, and others.

Because Bill isn't aware of a veiled chameleon suffering ill effect from eating a particular plant doesn't mean that it hasn't happened or couldn't happen. It only means he hasn't heard of it.

Another unknown is long-term effects. Necropsies are not routinely done on pet chameleons, so nobody knows if some of the plants they eat are having long-term deleterious effects on their organs, and if they died months later, there's no way to make a positive connection.

I'm not saying any of this to cast shade on Bill's "veiled tested" notation. My intent is to point out that it's a "best guess" based on known (to him) data, and subject to change without notice should he become aware of incidents.

Unfortunately, barring some expensive and lengthy veterinarian toxicological and/or pathological studies on poisoning in chameleons (none of which I am aware of) it's the best we have to go on.

I'm worried about the wrong info Chameleon School is giving out, not arguing about plants

Yes, but that drifted with the very first response, and you continued along that line with post #3 adding criticisms that apply to any/all lists out there (AFAIK) including Bill's and Petr's.

I'm not aware of Chameleon School's giving out wrong information (vs. difference of opinion), but I've found no wrong information about their plant list.

It's obvious from starting this thread that you have some beef with them, but you haven't given any concrete examples—only insinuations. Some might construe that as trolling; the few responses you've given aside from the plant list ("So sad", "I noticed that!", "Which ones?") seem to have done no more than spurring on attacks/criticisms.

I don't think that was your intent in singling out this site, but other than the plant list—which you've said isn't the issue—you haven't elucidated. What—specifically—have they said that's gotten under your skin?

The guy says he's passing along what he's learned in order to share it with other keepers. Isn't that what people do here? Aren't there contradictions and differences of opinion? He's also got a comments area at the bottom of each article—as many/most magazine-style sites do—for anyone to disagree or open a dialog with him.

 

[JacksJill]

I never got the idea that the plant list was the problem. There are plants on there I wouldn't personally use. I used to give out the FLChams list but I don't anymore. I try to stick to the more commonly used plants on out list and a couple others rather than go off the map. Mine aren't plant eaters except for the occasional bug related ingestion but why risk it.

He's perfectly within his rights to put his opinions on cham keeping out there or in here for that matter. He states that his experience comes from one chameleon he had for 10 years. Take that for what it is worth. My knee jerk reaction was that he was less than subtly copying the academy name but for all I know he/she/they were there first.

What kind of compensation does a site like that bring in? Asking for a friend.

 

[Beman]

Neither do Bill or Petr from what's stated on their lists. I suspect many lists have been derived from empirical data (as Bill Strand's has)—no chameleons have been known to die after consuming them.


That's not exactly what it says. It actually says:

Having tried the plants is not the same as testing or using that as a basis for saying it's safe.

I have verified that each of the plants on Chameleon School's list has been listed as safe on several other lists/sites, including this forum. Many are on both Bill's and Petr's lists and on many many more.

IMO, the most important statements on Bill's page are often ignored, forgotten, or overlooked.
(emphasis mine)


When searching google whether a plant is chameleon safe or not, posts from this site—literally hundreds of posts over many years —come up using FLChams list, and considered that list to be THE authoritative source. Whether that list is still considered such or not isn't the issue; the issue is that that impression is still out there; it's referred by hundreds of posts on this site as being authoritative, and anyone searching google for answers is likely to find that.

I

The lists I mentioned have that information if one only reads what they say beyond plant names.

"Veiled tested" is not a definitive term without risk, and Bill wisely includes disclaimers.


Chocolate is well-known to be poisonous to dogs, yet many dogs have eaten it without side effects or poisoning symptoms. Others have become seriously ill and/or (albeit rarely) have died. There are factors of amounts, concentrations, body weight ratios, sex, individual sensitivities, and others.

Because Bill isn't aware of a veiled chameleon suffering ill effect from eating a particular plant doesn't mean that it hasn't happened or couldn't happen. It only means he hasn't heard of it.

Another unknown is long-term effects. Necropsies are not routinely done on pet chameleons, so nobody knows if some of the plants they eat are having long-term deleterious effects on their organs, and if they died months later, there's no way to make a positive connection.

I'm not saying any of this to cast shade on Bill's "veiled tested" notation. My intent is to point out that it's a "best guess" based on known (to him) data, and subject to change without notice should he become aware of incidents.

Unfortunately, barring some expensive and lengthy veterinarian toxicological and/or pathological studies on poisoning in chameleons (none of which I am aware of) it's the best we have to go on.


Yes, but that drifted with the very first response, and you continued along that line with post #3 adding criticisms that apply to any/all lists out there (AFAIK) including Bill's and Petr's.

I'm not aware of Chameleon School's giving out wrong information (vs. difference of opinion), but I've found no wrong information about their plant list.

It's obvious from starting this thread that you have some beef with them, but you haven't given any concrete examples—only insinuations. Some might construe that as trolling; the few responses you've given aside from the plant list ("So sad", "I noticed that!", "Which ones?") seem to have done no more than spurring on attacks/criticisms.

I don't think that was your intent in singling out this site, but other than the plant list—which you've said isn't the issue—you haven't elucidated. What—specifically—have they said that's gotten under your skin?

The guy says he's passing along what he's learned in order to share it with other keepers. Isn't that what people do here? Aren't there contradictions and differences of opinion? He's also got a comments area at the bottom of each article—as many/most magazine-style sites do—for anyone to disagree or open a dialog with him.

I love how you think all people are gonna read through everything though... Have you not seen the threads with dying chams even threads where we have provided direct feedback prior but they do not make the changes we say???? I mean lets be honest about 25% are going to read everything, 25% are going to read half of the info, 25% are going to skim through, and then you have the 25% that will look at the pictures...

IMO when you can simply post a correct link with image that clearly states veiled tested is in the end going to serve more people.

You are a reader/researcher. You look into everything. MOST DO NOT. That is honestly my issue with this other content being used here within the forum.

You also have a Panther that will never eat its plants. You do not know what it is to deal with consistent plant eating. I still worry even with the "veiled tested" plants that I do use. While it does not immediately kill him, I have no idea what possible long term issues he could have or potential damage to organ function. Because this has not been studied.


Now then as far as chameleonschool.com having incorrect info....

https://www.chameleonschool.com/chameleon-diet/

WRONG INFO ON SUPPLEMENTS> they say calcium without D3 instead of Calcium with d3 every other week. Link above and image where I highlighted below.


They also suggest Butter worms... And do not say a thing about the potential for allergic reaction. They only thing he says is they are "high in fat so treats only"

Their recommended feeding is 15 feeders twice a day until 6 months then reducing to 10 medium feeders every day. Then 6 full sized insects every 2-3 days for 12 months and older....

Ok so lets talk about how inaccurate this is. Veileds should only be fed 2-3 insects 3 days a week. So total for the week is 6-9. If I were to feed Beman his plan of 6 full sized dubia that would be 18 or 12 full sized a week. He would be so overweight on this persons advice. Also Beman would not be able to take down a full sized dubia without gagging for 5 minutes.

He makes no mention of females needing to be fed differently. ALSO NOT ALL SPECIES ARE THE SAME. Feeding requirements change from a veiled to a Parsons. And size of feeders as well.

So this is all off 1 page of his site... Just 1 And I found incorrect supplementing, feeding amounts, and feeder recommendation that can cause allergic reactions.



While this person attempts to provide correct info this is strictly an affiliate pay website. Everything he links are affiliate links where he gets paid for every person that clicks the links and orders. It is horribly laid out with sub par content.


Another thing I find extremely interesting is this site was created in 2021. So is this your site that you run and make money off of? Because I can not figure out why you would be posting it and recommending it over other sites that are totally accurate like Chameleon academy.