Phase/hybrid-Let´s think a little

[Azhael]

Hi,
I´ve recently been taking part of an argument (that started as a civilized discussion and soon became fouled by personal interests) about hybrids, and to a lesser extent phases, in another forum.
Now, i know this is something that doesn´t affect our section of the hobby like it does other sections such as the boas, pythons and geckos.
However, it is a part of our hobby, and i think it is about time we open a discussion about this matter to try to debate, in a civilized fashion (pleaaaaaaaaaaaaase), different aspects of this matter. After all, if we don´t think, if we don´t contrast information and form our own opinions, we are doomed.

I would personally like to separate phases from hybrids, since after all they are different processes that have different impacts on our animals. However, they are related, and in some points the link between them is obvious.

Nowadays, in other sections of the hobby we are experiencing a fascinating phenomenon. There is a HUGE movement that promotes selective breeding and that has reached a point where nominals are worthless and phases can be VERY expensive and exclusive. My personal view of this is perhaps a bit radical, but i´ll try to bite my tongue and say that as long as the animals are healthy, selective breeding of phases is not necessarily a bad thing. The big, BIG problem is that in our craze to create more and more phases, and to create them fast and earn money, we are loosing the respect to the species.
Spider ball pythons that are, to put it mildly "dumb", enigma Eublepharis that have severe neurological problems, piebald and albino mammals with hearing and vision impediments....these are just examples of what has become completely acceptable for the hobby. And i ask myself...how on earth did we reach the point in which that is acceptable???? The answer to that is simple...MONEY.

In our neck of the woods, this problems are not inexistent. We have axolotls that have been selected and inbred so much that some animals appear without eyes...others are dwarfs, etc. To a less destructive extent, we have mutations such as polydactily or mild kinks.
In Triturus carnifex, we have the example of the leucistics. Animals that can´t be reproduced among themselves because the offspring is not viable (due to lethal genes).

Hybrids are another whole thing, with a much more destructive effect for the species. We have the example of axolotls again, here. They were hybridized with A.tigrinum/mavortium to create new phases (golden albinos). The result of that hybridation is an animal that is neither an axolotl nor a tiger salamander. Now, if these hybrids had been treated as such from the very beginning and people had known what they had in their hands, the problem would be absolutely minimal. Sadly, though, the hybrids have been crossed back and forth with the rest of the captive stock, contaminating blood lines and rendering them invalid as A.mexicanum. We are lying to ourselves when we treat these animals as such, as A.mexicanum. They are not. WE sell them as axolotls, we treat them as axolotls, we call them axolotls...but they are not axolotls. A large percentage of them are hybrid ambystomatids, which is not the same.
I ignore the extent of the damage, but i would think it´s safe to say that these days, there´s no absolute gurantee that most bloodlines are pure. This is for me, a very sad fact.
I dread the day when other species will suffer the same fate.
I consider myself a purist....i like things just as they are in nature because they are mindblowingly fascinating and beautiful just as they are. I won´t go as far as to say that we shouldn´t breed anything that doesn´t come from the same location, because at this point it´s impossible. I just would like for people to think, and consider the consequences of our actions, because they DO have consequences, both for the individidual animal (in those cases where the health of the animal is jeopardized) and for the species (loss of genetic integrity) .


I think, it´s time to take a look at the mistakes that other sectors have made, and the ones we are still making and at the very least, give it a good thought and see what our morals tells us.
We are accepting some stuff that shouldn´t be acceptable, we are losing the respect for what a species is. We are giving more importance to the looks of an animal than to it´s health or well-being.
It´s not the phases per se that are a problem, generally speaking, it´s the "phase culture" that grows around them that to me, is running very fast towards inmorality.

A very disturbing fact that is becoming apparent in other sectors is that the damage to the genetic integrity of some species has been so vast in the last few years that we are going BACK to the nominals. That means, though, that we are going back to poaching and mass collection, because there´s simply not enough "wild types" left in the hobby, but there is once again a market for them. This is AWFUL..this is outrageous and goes against the very basics of captive breeding.

Our sector, the caudates, is still quite virgin in these matters, we have a chance to do things differently or at the very least make less mistakes. I think it´s vital that we are informed, that we know what´s happening and the consequences of what the market has done to the hobby.

Anyway, i just want anyone who reads this to think for themselves, to not just keep following the herd blindly and accepting whatever comes our way. We have a responsability to our animals, to their future generations and to the wild populations. To negate these responsabilities is to loose our north entirely.
We are animals lovers, we are supossed to be fascinated by them, by their uniqueness and their behaviour, not solely by their colors.

 

[caudatadude28]

Well done Azhael. The "pet trade" sickens me. It's all about the money and we need to change that.

 

[JWERNER]

Color phase has nothing wrong with it at all. Its just selectively breeding what has happened by natural occurrence.

I think most people that selectively breed something like say, high yellow leopard geckos would agree that something along the lines of selectively breeding for colorr phase is totally different than breeding say an animal with a discoloration do to a genetic disorder or morphality. Those tailless Flower Horns come to mind.


I think the big problem with these issues comes from those that have a problem with people playing " God " and creating something such as a Hybrid.

Thats the complaint I see the most. People dont like that they are hybridizing or selectively breeding what " God " created for a reason. Moral and God are different things IMO.

Im 50/50 on hybrids but totally ok with responsible selective breeding for color phases.

I also dont believe that the argument should be directed to phases so much as morphs.

The argument that I do see valid is the fact that some morons think that they can hit the reset button by going back to wild caught specimens. That point does erck me.

 

[Azhael]

What´s the difference between phase and morph? I´m genuinely asking, i thought it was the same.

I personally don´t include God in any of this (or any other aspect of my life for that matter, but that´s my choice). Hybrids are wrong for other reasons that have nothing to do with religion. An hybrid per se, is not a problem. We have a wide variety of natural hybrids and intergrades, which are perfectly ok and natural. The problem comes when those hybrids are bred back with the parentals creating high % hybrids that in many cases can pass for pure. That creates havoc in the genetic integrity of captive populations, because they are actually sold as pure!!! And people believe it...and keep crossing them, spreading the genetic contamination.
I insist, we have axolotls as an example. All of them are called, sold and bred as axolotls, but a high percentage of them ARE NOT. They are hybrids with varying degress of genetic introgression. This happens waaaaaay too much in the hobby in a broad sense, and causes real damage.

You said it: "responsible selective breeding". I´m against even that for personal reasons (i´m entitled to, right ?), but i accept that as long as the animals don´t pay the consequences, selective breeding of phases is not necessarily a problem. The problem is that we don´t do it responsibly...we don´t place a moral line. We breed everything with anything, and accumulate mutations to create new things. Along the lines of what you commented, i personally think it´s quite different to breed simple, naturally ocurring mutants, than creating artificial complex mutants by accumulation of traits.

One VERY important point that i think most people miss entirely is that color is not the only trait or mutation that gets selected. There are lots of other mutations that are not "visible" and get transmited anyway.
We can´t forget that pigments and skin tissues are very closely associated with nervous tissues. They are intimately and embriologically related. Therefore, mutations in color, carry consequences in other areas. To ignore such things is to kid oneself.
There is much more that gets transmited other than color....really..MUCH more. And it´s important too, even though sometimes we don´t see it at all.

Your last point is very good. We think that any "wild type" is a perfectly ordinary natural animal. That´s a big fat lie. You can have a wild type that looks superficially normal, but that carries a series of mutations or even genetic introgressions that are anything but natural.
Once you select a bloodline, you can´t go back...you can´t reset the process as you very well have phrased.

Thanx for contributing and expressing your opinion. We don´t all have to agree in every single point to be able to have an informative and interesting discussion. I really hope this goes on for a long time and this thread doesn´t get spoilt.

 

[JWERNER]

The way I was tought was that color phases are considered by some as morphalities but they do not disfigure or hinder the animals ability to live such as morphalities like Blue Pit Bulls and Tailless Flower Horns etc.. etc. do. I know lots of people see color phases as morphs but myself as well as some others do not.

I know not everyone includes god into the argument but Im just saying that most of my experience with people complaining do.

Im 50/50 on hybrids cause not all hybridization is damaging to the animal and not hybrids can procreate so as long as a responsible hobbyist is in charge I have no objection to it 100%

You said it: "responsible selective breeding". I´m against even that for personal reasons (i´m entitled to, right ?), but i accept that as long as the animals don´t pay the consequences, selective breeding of phases is not necessarily a problem. The problem is that we don´t do it responsibly...we don´t place a moral line. We breed everything with anything, and accumulate mutations to create new things.

Some of us are into the hobby as a naturalist and some of us are into the hobby cause we like what we see and like to see more come out of nature. Im into both. I see beauty in some color phases that have been selectivly bred. Doing so responsibly would be doing so to not include any morphalities that could be damaging to the animal. Again breeding for a color that happens naturaly is different than breeding for a physical genetic disorder that is damaging.

One VERY important point that i think most people miss entirely is that color is not the only trait or mutation that gets selected. There are lots of other mutations that are not "visible" and get transmited anyway.
We can´t forget that pigments and skin tissues are very closely associated with nervous tissues. They intimately and embriologically related. Therefore, mutations in color, carry consequences in other areas. To ignore such things is to kid oneself.
There is much more that gets transmited other than color....really..MUCH more. And it´s important too, even though sometimes we don´t see it at all.

On the contrary, not all color phases are damaging by any means. Albanism is a Grey area but not all albanistic creatures have loss of hearing or vision but may be sensitive to light,.. yes. If it wasnt for the void of any pigmentation Albinos could survive in prime health in the wild, they are just easy targets. Patternless Leo Geckos lack pattern just as humans lack freckles and vary in skin color just as you have orange or yellow Bearded Dragons. These instances can be found in the wild but are in no way as often as animals do not selectively breed for color themselves.

 

[Azhael]

Im 50/50 on hybrids cause not all hybridization is damaging to the animal and not hybrids can procreate so as long as a responsible hobbyist is in charge I have no objection to it 100%

Agreed. The problem lies in what we do with those hybrids and the fact that there is no control of the future crossbreedings of those hybrids.

I think i see the difference that you mean between phase and morph. Kind of like the difference between locality and mutant.

Obviously not all color mutations are detrimental, but some are and are still bred in mass regardless of the effects. Others, do have detrimental effects that are not apparent in captive conditions and are completely overlooked. I think there is very little comprehension of the effects of certain color mutations and the associated genes that are transmited with them, if only because there is virtually no study of those effects. We just breed them and sell them, nobody takes a deep look into what´s changing in the animal.

 

[jclee]

I have read a bit about the cases of Eublepharids with neurological disorders, and that did make me concerned for the future of selective breeding for morphs. The rejects from such breeding projects can wind up as cheap "common" varieties in the pet trade, and then the (neurological or other ill-formed) traits they carry wind up in people homes and/or bred by novices, which is even more frightening.

The possibility that we do not know the full extent of their non-visible negative traits does worry me, especially since many herp owners do not pursue veterinary care, so (especially for asymptomatic traits) the full extent of disorders may be unknown.

I suppose that is where I draw the line. I don't really have a problem with the concept of breeding for morps in the pet trade, even when they begin to dominate the trade; (let's face it, even the "plain" leopard geckos don't look like the wild-caught species I remember seeing in pet stores in the 90s). I do, however, disagree once breeders are so caught up with the "look" of an animal that they place that before its own survival and health. For me, a healthy pet will always come before a pretty one.

I must confess that I've not given nearly as much thought to hybridization. I suppose that, if the species is not making its way back out into the wild, I am not really concerned. If a pet owner wants a hybrid, I have no problem with that. If a pet owner doesn't want a hybrid, but doesn't even realize s/he has one, well, I suppose I'm ok with that as well. I can see how it poses some genetic concern, though. I'll have to think about it a little more.

 

[JWERNER]

I think there is very little comprehension of the effects of certain color mutations and the associated genes that are transmited with them, if only because there is virtually no study of those effects. We just breed them and sell them, nobody takes a deep look into what´s changing in the animal.

This could be true but the lack of such study does not mean that their must be such complications. How ever I cant think of any off the top of my head but I do think that some hobbyists have taken such action as to study any effects as color phases that differ from natural variations. One reason for such study would be to verify or falsify the fact that some might be do to geographical local and determine if such coloration may be do to breeding of subspecies or do to something environmental such as the changes in the color and features of its surroundings.

One other point I forgot to mention about such occurrences as color phase in the wild ( or lack thereof ) is the fact that it also, just as Albinism, makes the animal more susceptible to predation as well. Which, could very well be natures way of selection and culling out what she feels is bad but we as hobbyist do have a sense of control over that value.

All in all I think its up to the hobbyist ( in those cases that I feel are morally correct ) to simply be responsible with what he has created.

 

[Azhael]

Jclee, the problem with hybrids poluting the captive gene pool is that it ruins it for those of us who do not want a "suspicious" animal. This is not due to elitism, it´s due to an apreciation of the natural state of a species with it´s unique characteristics that are lost when the genetics are not pure.

When people create high % hybrids and they enter the market, they inevitably (this has happened over and over and over) end up being sold as pure. After a certain amount of generations, specially with a species that is no longer collected from the wild (which means there is a limited gene pool in captivity) what you get is an uncertainty. You simply can´t be sure without a genetic study if a given animal is pure or not. It´s not fair for the purists.

I understand that for the purposes of having a pet, genetics are barely important, but not all of us think about our animals as pets (i certainly don´t).
Breeding pure species, and even localities doesn´t limit at all the market of phases/hybrids, but they do limit the purists. It´s just not fair that not everybody gets to enjoy the hobby on his own conditions.

Another issue is that most people think this is not a problem because the captive animals never make it back to the wild, so who cares if the captive stock is a mess. This is 99,9% true, but it has happened before, and knowing how bloody stupid we can be sometimes, i know it will happen again. The consequences of such things whn the animal introduced is just a phase, are not huge. After all, the color trait will be eliminated after a few generations with no further impact, and hopefully the associated mutations will go the same way (hopefully). When the animal introduced is an hybrid of no matter what degree, the situation is very different. You can´t clean a genetic introgression from a wild population even with hot water and bleach.

Jwerner, you are right, it doesn´t mean there´s necessarily a problem associated with the color trait (that´s heavily influenced by the specific bloodline), but there is a VERY reasonable doubt that there might be, and we can´t simply ignore it, which is what most commercial breeders are doing.

As for mutants in the wild, it depends greatly of the particular mutation. Albinos usually don´t last long, but for example, for certain high altitude populations of snakes, melanism is adaptative. The problem once again with these stuff is that we can´t compare a wild situation with a captive one, and we can´t think that every mutation and every cross is inocuous, because proof tells otherwise in many cases.


Oh man...how do i love to discuss stuff xDDD

 

[Mac Myers]

I know not everyone includes god into the argument but Im just saying that most of my experience with people complaining do.

I tend to leave God out of scientific debate.... as well as the idea that morality stems from religion.

Im 50/50 on hybrids cause not all hybridization is damaging to the animal and not hybrids can procreate so as long as a responsible hobbyist is in charge I have no objection to it 100%

Admittedly my genetic understanding is inadequate at best. I also don't have much experience with Caudates. In my experience as a reptile hobbyist however I've seen very little good come from hybridization, and certainly not enough to offset the deleterious effects I've seen. Maybe I'm a bit of a purist myself. Or a hypocrite

I see beauty in some color phases that have been selectivly bred. Doing so responsibly would be doing so to not include any morphalities that could be damaging to the animal. Again breeding for a color that happens naturaly is different than breeding for a physical genetic disorder that is damaging.

My problem lies once again with my (and maybe it's only my... but I don't believe so) impression that responsible breeders are outnumbered about 5 to 1. At least in my experience.
I do agree that breeding for phases that occur in the wild is probably harmless as long as it's done responsibly. Maybe I just don't think much of the pet trade... but I don't see a lot of responsibility in most cases. Especially when it comes to reptiles. The amount of inbreeding and the lack of concern for genetic diversity is astounding.

 

[Azhael]

Just to add to the information, and the discussion and to show those who are not familiar with any of the stuff we are talking about, i thought i´d add a few videos showing some of the neurological problems that certain phases or morphs carry (to various degrees depending on bloodlines and individuals, with some apparently not being affected).
They say an image is worth a thousand words, so:

Morelia mcdowelli (jaguar phase).
See minute 2:34
YouTube - Jun 26 2007 VID00016

Eublepharis macularius (enigma).
YouTube - Enigma Leopard Gecko - Issues Pt 2

Python regius (spider and spinner)
YouTube - Female Spider Ball Python With Wobbles
YouTube - Spinner Ball Python Wobbling

All these neurological problems have been accepted as mere curiosities or particularities to some degree. Some are very common these days like the jaguar pythons or the spider ball pythons which used to be rare but have become common. It astonishes me (in fact it disgusts me to the core...) that people can tolerate such abnormalities just because the animal is pretty or expensive.

 

[JWERNER]

Just to add to the information, and the discussion and to show those who are not familiar with any of the stuff we are talking about, i thought i´d add a few videos showing some of the neurological problems that certain phases or morphs carry (to various degrees depending on bloodlines and individuals, with some apparently not being affected).
They say an image is worth a thousand words, so:

Morelia mcdowelli (jaguar phase).
See minute 2:34
YouTube - Jun 26 2007 VID00016

Eublepharis macularius (enigma).
YouTube - Enigma Leopard Gecko - Issues Pt 2

Python regius (spider and spinner)
YouTube - Female Spider Ball Python With Wobbles
YouTube - Spinner Ball Python Wobbling

All these neurological problems have been accepted as mere curiosities or particularities to some degree. Some are very common these days like the jaguar pythons or the spider ball pythons which used to be rare but have become common. It astonishes me (in fact it disgusts me to the core...) that people can tolerate such abnormalities just because the animal is pretty or expensive.

I have seen plenty of these morphs not show sings of any neurological problems. This is actually news to me since you posted this topic.

I am not going to point one finger but I would like to think that some of this may be do more so to inbreeding and the perfection breeders that deep into things attempt to obtain more so than anything.

Face it, if your gunna breed on such a scale you are going to come across a animal with the gene to produce such offspring. I disagree with this practice but its very common for breeders to immediately breed back to the parents and so on when it may be a 1 out of 100 chance of it happening again. With something so rare that makes it more probable when you consider the fact that if its now so common,.... did they really come from different origins? They could probably be traced one way or another ( or I would like to think so ) back to one place.

I remember years ago a friend of mine bred normal BP's without having a clue to what he was doing. Some of the offspring showed signs of damage in some neurological like way. And those were normals. I think some people also like to forget about the normals when they see something thats not so average.

I tend to leave God out of scientific debate.... as well as the idea that morality stems from religion.

Like I said, thats my experience and moral has nothing to do with religion. I do not practice religion nor believe in god ( unless we find that one single cell, non complex organism that created us all ) but I am filled with moral. I know plenty of people that feel the same way.:happy: You dont need to follow a religion to believe in a god and you dont need either to know whats right and whats wrong. Or at least an opinion on either of those two.

 

[pete]

Well, we can take this question to another example, which is older and more integrated in society.

When you see a dog that was selected to be small or big, hunt or cuddle, herd or swim, have a short nose or long nose...when you see a dog, do you see it as an abomination of nature? It is well established that many different dog breeds have corresponding genetic issues as a result of selection. If you don't have a problem with it, why not? Herps are just at the beginning of this process, and after more years of the selection process, I'm sure a similar situation will arise.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to be a purist as nature by its nature is always changing. Actually, I find a "purist" philosophy is potentially dangerous, because it rigidifies what is a fluid process. It's all how you look at it.

The axolotl is near extinct, and possibly is. It could/can no longer compete its current environment. It has instead adapted to co-exist with humans. It's range used to be limited to Mexico and now it spans several continents. Someday it's new form may make its way into a new environmental niche and thrive in its new form. It's success could be given to random chance, but the available options for the species are enhanced because it was able to co-opt humans to transport it around the world.

 

[Azhael]

I do think of dogs as abominations, believe you me xDD

You make a good point, and i do agree, extremes are always bad. I said i consider myself a purist because i like each animal for what it is, not for how pretty it is or how much it costs. I do however enjoy every single natural variation, from spontaneous natural mutations to variety among localities, and certainly don´t expect species to be stathic and unchangeable.

I think, the very moment we put an animal in captivity a domestication process starts. However this process can be hugely reduced by careful and serious management of the captive populations, as the serious breeding programms demonstrate. Just because maintaining absolute purity is almost impossible it doesn´t mean we can do whatever we want to every species we introduce to the hobby. They are live beings, there must be some morals.

As for the example you place with the axolotls finding a new way to survive, i have to admit i understand what you mean, but find it terribly sad....

 

[JWERNER]

Well, we can take this question to another example, which is older and more integrated in society.

When you see a dog that was selected to be small or big, hunt or cuddle, herd or swim, have a short nose or long nose...when you see a dog, do you see it as an abomination of nature? It is well established that many different dog breeds have corresponding genetic issues as a result of selection. If you don't have a problem with it, why not? Herps are just at the beginning of this process, and after more years of the selection process, I'm sure a similar situation will arise.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to be a purist as nature by its nature is always changing. Actually, I find a "purist" philosophy is potentially dangerous, because it rigidifies what is a fluid process. It's all how you look at it.

The axolotl is near extinct, and possibly is. It could/can no longer compete its current environment. It has instead adapted to co-exist with humans. It's range used to be limited to Mexico and now it spans several continents. Someday it's new form may make its way into a new environmental niche and thrive in its new form. It's success could be given to random chance, but the available options for the species are enhanced because it was able to co-opt humans to transport it around the world.

Yes but in just about any of these cases ( Bull Dogs, Bassets, Bull Terriers ) the problems are clear in some sort of way. The basset and the English Bulldog have wrinkles that cause fungal problems and so forth. The Bull Terrier has the Roman Nose that causes nasal problems that lead to respiratory problems. Both are breeds that have begun without the now common characteristics.

Dogs that are selectively bred for color unless again inbreeding is at fault or in some cases a genetic disorder ( again think Blue Pit Bulls ) do not show signs of neurological disorders or many illnesses at all. In fact-the fact-that dogs are so successful as pets and vary in a wide array of colors since originally domesticated kinda cancels that out if you ask me.

I think, the very moment we put an animal in captivity a domestication process starts. However this process can be hugely reduced by careful and serious management of the captive populations, as the serious breeding programms demonstrate. Just because maintaining absolute purity is almost impossible it doesn´t mean we can do whatever we want to every species we introduce to the hobby. They are live beings, there must be some morals.

Now this is true and a recent study on some Foxes in Russia have proved this. The second we domesticate we alter lots of things in some animals. These Foxes started to morph in physical charecteristics like the length of the muzzle and coat as well as change in color phases.

Now, we might also alter the health of such animals in positive ways. They might be more suceptible to disease found in native habbitat ( yeah, like we wanna let them go in some exotic land anyway ) but the reason why so many like the normal Leo Gecko look different than its natural occuring counterparts is cause we are doing a better job at keeping them fed on a regular bassis and away from parasites, in general we care about their health.

 

[pete]

I think, the very moment we put an animal in captivity a domestication process starts.

I think this is a wise and loaded statement and highlights the real challenge. The only way to preserve the species is to maintain habitat. I would agree this is a fundamental problem with trying to preserve a species in captivity. Humans must define a "wild-type", which inherently leads to a human bias. Regardless whether you choose a color morph or you choose the wild-type you still choose.

At the very moment we put an animal in captivity the environment changes and I'd argue new selective pressures occur. In captivity the animal that is most successful is the one that makes us happy, be it, by color morph, ease of breeding, pleasant disposition, or "wild-type".

However, I understand that in some cases it may become necessary to create a captive breeding program with a goal of habitat restoration and reintroduction, but how do you ensure your "wild-type" animals are wild enough?

 

[pete]

Yes but in just about any of these cases ( Bull Dogs, Bassets, Bull Terriers ) the problems are clear in some sort of way.

The problems are clear because the area of dog lines are older and well-established. With recent breedings of course back-crossing and out-crossing, should be done to create stable lines and this will happen directly or indirectly over time through the selection process.

 

[Azhael]

Ah, that is an extremely complex concept, Pete.
I personally think you can just aim to preserve as many "wild" characteristics as possible. By eliminating weak or aberrant animals and not giving mass production importance, introducing wild blood when necessary, etc, you can keep a captive stock, more or less constant and in syncronicity with the wild populations. The process won´t be perfect, at least i don´t think it can trully be.
That´s why i don´t consider re-introduction programms the best solution at all. Habitat conservation should be the primary goal, re-introduction is just the last resort (that sadly is the only option left in some cases).

As i said, i disagree with the concept that a captive animal should be changed to please our whimsical desires, but once again, i will respect it as long as it doesn´t jeopardize in any way the animal´s well-being. The problem with the current situation of the hobby, broadly speaking, is that we are not taking the well-being of the animals in consideration, sometimes acting directly against it, such as when we introduce a faulty complex of genes (as certain bloodlines of spider ball pythons have) to new crosses. If you know this particular trait, in this particular bloodline causes neurological disorders, why on earth would you continue to spread the problem??? Answer: money, money, moneyyyyyyy......

Everything would be different if we did things responsibly and most of all with respect to the animals that we supossedly love, but we haven´t in the past and i don´t see the general trend changing anytime soon...
That is in fact the purpose of this thread, to raise a little bit of conscience about the fact that things can be done differently, they can be done better. If we just keep making the same mistakes over and over, what does that say about us, the all mighty human species?

 

[pete]

As i said, i disagree with the concept that a captive animal should be changed to please our whimsical desires, but once again, i will respect it as long as it doesn´t jeopardize in any way the animal´s well-being. The problem with the current situation of the hobby, broadly speaking, is that we are not taking the well-being of the animals in consideration, sometimes acting directly against it, such as when we introduce a faulty complex of genes (as certain bloodlines of spider ball pythons have) to new crosses. If you know this particular trait, in this particular bloodline causes neurological disorders, why on earth would you continue to spread the problem??? Answer: money, money, moneyyyyyyy......

I will agree that people should not sell animals with neurological conditions. For me this is a also a business ethics question. I have seen a similar thing occur in the flower industry where people sell and spread plants/hybrids with exquisite flowers, but the plants are dang near impossible to grow.

My problem though wouldn't be that it hurts the species because ideally pets should not be seen as an avenue for reintroduction. A captive breeding program is also a large scientific endeavor and too much to expect from the private breeder. Ideally the color morphs would need to be out-crossed to select for the desired "pet" snake breed. Personally, I think that if you're willing to do the work then I'd say you should be rewarded for your efforts financially. We may disagree on this point. However, I do agree that if you're selling defective animals to the uninformed or paying ridiculous prices for a diseased personal pet that it is not the brightest nor the most ethical situation. But, at the moment I'm not sure how you would control this aspect in the hobby. My tendency is to think that over time these animals would be selected against and not to worry about it.

If I think of the flower situation. I consciously avoid hybridizers that do not select for good growth. But also if you look at the history of which hybrids have persisted. It is often the good growers which are passed on between people, simply because the average Joe can't take care of the more difficult ones.

 

[Azhael]

I completely agree that captive "pet" populations should not be seen as candidates for reintroduction. That´s something i thought a long time ago, when i knew a lot less.
They simply are not suitable, at all.

I think it´s a bit ridiculous that we think a phase breeder should be rewarded for his efforts (very specially if they are not doing their best to provide the market with the best quality animals)...they are not harder to breed than nominals, in fact, in some cases they are substantially easier!!! People are going to breed in mass anyway, i see no other reason to pay extra for a mutant than pure and sheer elitism. And to pay 1200 dollars as used to be common to pay for a spider ball python, with neurological problems (and the gods know what else), is just ridiculous and plainly based on the market possibilities for a hobby that cares primarily about looks and rarity. No ethics...no care for the well-being of the animals...nothing. Those same breeders are the ones that keep absolutely everything in racks (from small colubrids for which it is acceptable, to huge snakes or varanids!! In racks!!!!!!) with no consideration to each particular species requirements (For example: african, asiatic and american colubrids all in one room with one constant temp.)

It´s ALL about money and elitism....i find it surreal and disgusting. It´s living complex organisms we are dealing with...not cars.

If a breeder is dealing with a particularly rare and difficult species, such as for example, Morelia boeleni, and succeeds, then yes, i understand that an adequate reward to the efforts is acceptable. When a breeder is just propagating mutations of a VERY easily bred species with no control or ethics and placing a price purely based on the market, i think we should be outraged (instead of praising the hell out of them as if they were heroes). THAT, is bad service, simple as, and when your mechanic gives you a bad service you don´t thank him and pay him extra.

PS: Sorry...i get heated up.