Phase/hybrid-Let´s think a little

[jclee]

Yes, I've enjoyed the discussion, but we seem to have found some middle ground. I'm content with where it has led so far.

My only complaint would be that no one has yet took up a very strong position of "They're just animals we can do anything we want...." I'd just be curious to see how they would argue their case.

I'm sure that opinion's prevalent, but unlikely to be among the members of this site. (If there are a few members who think this way, they probably wouldn't say anything, knowing they'd be outnumbered.)

 

[pete]

My experience with such things is that there is no argument, there´s just statements....¬¬ It´s terribly frustrating.

Indeed, but statements can always be questioned.

I'm sure that opinion's prevalent, but unlikely to be among the members of this site. (If there are a few members who think this way, they probably wouldn't say anything, knowing they'd be outnumbered.)

I agree it would be a hard point to argue on this site, but it would still be interesting.

-----
On a different note: In searching for some other opinions on the subject. I came across this this little gem from vmsherp.com. For what it's worth they have a short discussion on inbreeding.
The Learning Center - Inbreeding Discussion

However, I think the real treasure is their genetics lessons in the upper left hand corner of the page.
(e.g.) The Learning Center - Genetics 101

They take you through many of the things you would learn in a basic genetics course, but keep it all herp focused. (Mendel is great, but pea color and shape don't interest us all.)

I just wanted to put that out there for anyone wanting to look more into the genetics behind this discussion.

 

[Mac Myers]

Russians again?

They are a busy bunch. I tried to take them on once before and now I get 6500 emails a day on that (basically abandoned) email account. All addressed somewhat inelegantly to someone named uh... well.... sort of like "rectum". I tried to be the law and the non law won.

 

[Ken Worthington]

I have a peculiar point of view about animals and money, too. I love that some of the caudate enthusiasts i know from this forum share my view that it´s not at all about the money, it´s about enjoying the animals. This is the reason why i´ve never sold any of my captive bred animals, they have all been given away, and almost half of my "collection" has been given to me as a present. I can only dream of a hobby that worked like this, where money and elitism have NO importance at all.

Great point! I had a 66 foot polytunnel with unusual varieties of veg, herbs, and carniverous plants and the situation was much the same.

As for specialist breeding in animals, I feel that introducing a trait that lowers the health/wellbeing/longevity of the particular creature, is where things should stop.
I'd apply this to the pet-industry and the farming industries; the scientific-research side of this is difficult, and I've never been sure on my feelings on this.

As for the problem of in-breeding, I do like the idea of a data-base for caudates.

My final point is rather abstract but was mentioned before.
You'll often find aquariums (usually goldfish,etc) in Doctors' and Dentists' waiting rooms. It's been proven that they can reduce stress in humans (by watching them, not eating them ). The same would apply to the average axololt owner, I would imagine.
I can't help that feel that there is a mutual symbiotic relationship (in it's loosest sense) going on, in that the animals welfare and contentment is provided for by humans, and the human is rewarded on so many levels (including health benefits).
Ironically, the native habitat of axies has been all but destoyed by man, the same creature that now looks after and breeds axies in captivity.
I've never read Darwin, but I wonder if he talked about animals that have survived in captivity purely because of their 'endearing' qualities.

Sorry, I realise that I'm going off on a tangent, and maybe should get some sleep

This is a great thread for so many reasons, many thanks :happy:

 

[pete]

Great point! I had a 66 foot polytunnel with unusual varieties of veg, herbs, and carniverous plants and the situation was much the same.

Perhaps we can explore the point of whether money is at the root of the phase/morph craze next.

This is one area of the discussion that I'm not convinced. However, at this point, it's largely a gut reaction more than a solidified concept, so I'll have to gather my thoughts and think about why that is.

I'm not a for-profit-breeder, (or much of a breeder at all), so it's not my area of expertise. However, it seems to me that we can ask for more variety in our pets and ask that breeders breed these animals responsibly. Responsible breeding is going to require a lot of out-crosses and the production of a number of dead end animals that we don't want to get out and make it back into the gene pool. You may not know which animals are the dead ends until they are mature enough to reproduce so you'd have to invest resources to raise all these animals. Once you do know the breeders probably shouldn't sell (and profit) these "bad" gene carriers.

This is all good and we want them to do this, but we then ask them to not profit from it. I'm going to have to think about this one.... At least the way that I've written this thus far I'm starting to think the animals should be more expensive. I'm not sure people would be willing to pay the price, though.

 

[Azhael]

I think the phase craze probably started as a mere apreciation of a natural variant, but very rapidly developed into a full blown commercial interest. My personal view is that money is indeed at the root of the problem....perhaps not for the average hobbyist that is just looking for a cool looking critter, but definitely for the market.
The way the craze has developed is very obviously linked to the necessity of producing new animals fast. This is the root problem with all the endogamy, hybrids, locality integrity loss. If you don´t produce fast, you don´t earn as much money, so there is a real race between commercial breeders, that as a consequence has sacrified many aspects of the animal´s well-being, from minimal husbandry, to not having any regard towards the animal´s health.

I do understand that doing things properly requires A LOT more effort and time, but can we seriously justify all the stuff we are doing in the hobby just because the other option requires more effort?? I think not....

I have mixed feelings about wether making the animals more expensive would help. I see way too much danger in elitism, plus you can´t keep a price high once a given animal or phase becomes roduced in mass.
I would like to see money completely taken away from the equation, but that´s not going to happen....ever...

 

[shmifty5]

I keep seeing the same type of arguement that the market is at fault or money is the problem, and I have to disagree completely. Markets are created and sustained by the people, we control what is produced and what it costs, if no one buys that albino newt then they won't breed them, it's literally that simple, don't buy it they won't make it.

Having that said however I would like to see more creative and colorful specimens, I happen to greatly enjoy betta fish simply for the variety, I have several different females all with different colors and tail morphs, I have had several males again with different colors and tails, my newest male is a double tail butterfly dragon, he looks gorgeous, if the same could be done for lizards or salamanders/newts why should we not want this to happen?

With careful breeding we could easily avoid the "shakes" or "kinks" that others have instead perpetuated, take all of that and add in the fact that amphibians simply aren't as popular as dogs or fish or lizards and we shouldn't have any reason to fear morphs, mass breeding isn't a big problem and hybridization can occur naturally with the hybrid out-competing the "pure" specimens, hybridization is wonderful because it can lead to entirely new creatures with adaptations not seen by science before, perhaps we could breed creatures that will outlive us, perhaps inhabit a much more twisted and nuclear earth, creatures which will ensure life can always exist on earth, why not dream big when genetics is our next great journey?

 

[Azhael]

Oh, so we should genetically ingeneer new super-species that will survive the conditions that we have forced onto the world, and forget about those weak animals that can´t adapt, right???
That concept offends me deeply....

It´s OUR fault that the world is messed up, it´s OUR fault that lots of perfectly well adapted species are disappearing because their worlds have been destroyed or altered dramatically.

Natural hybridation is one thing, please don´t put it in the same sack as all hybridations. Hybridating a woma python with a ball python is not natural in any concievable way, it´s entirely artifitial.
Yes, hybridation can be an evolutionary tool, but it can also be extremely damaging. I disagree it can produce new adaptations never before seen by science...it can only combine adaptations from the parentals and at most, cause hybrid vigor (which is hardly a new and mindblowing adaptation).

Life WILL always exist on earth, we can bomb it as much as we want and alter every habitat we find, but life will always continue to exist, the problem is the dramatic loss of biodiversity.
Hybridation is a huge threat to biodiversity, because yes, you can win one new species, but you risk loosing two (not exactly a profit, is it?).

I too believe that genetics is our next great journey, but if it means destroying biodiversity to obtain new, cool super-species, then it will be our next mega-mistake.


As for the market and the money, i would agree that it is the consumers that dictate the prices, but in the case of this hobby i think it no longer works like that. We are eager to pay any price that some random guy puts on a new phase. Yes, once a phase is stablished we expect "reduced" prices (which are still completely mental the way i see it), but with new "creations", any price goes. You only have to see the HUUUUUUGE amounts of money that have been payed in the past for new phases...absolutely ridiculous....
The initial prices are being set for us, and we pay them like brainless sheep....

Edit: You said "I would like to see more creative and colorful specimens"...and i can´t help but wonder, have you looked at the existing natural species??? Ô_o

 

[jclee]

It's funny that you bring that up, because bettas are definitely one of the species where I, personally, find the wild type more attractive than the captive-bred morphs. (I think I get a little wigged by "accessories" that inhibit an animal's movement; I find balloon mollies disturbing for the same reason.)

I don't really have much to add to the larger conversation at this time; I just wanted to jump in with that little tidbit for now.

 

[shmifty5]

"Oh, so we should genetically ingeneer new super-species that will survive the conditions that we have forced onto the world, and forget about those weak animals that can´t adapt, right???
That concept offends me deeply...."

No, natural specimens should be preserved, but if we can create super-species that are capable of surviving on a 'glassed' planet, why not? life is actually rather fragile and we could easily wipe it off the face of this planet, all too often I hear the same "life will survive after us" arguement and it is void if we kill ourselves off by destroying the planet (an all too likely outcome), we have the capabilities to turn this planet into a toxic wonderland, where lakes of sulphuric acid replace our water lakes, where clouds are made of nuclear fall-out rather than dust, where the air is acidic and corrosive, we can do all of these things, so why not create something that can thrive in those conditions?

Actually, it's natures fault, nature created us via evolution, and all we do is what nature intended us to do, we dominated and adapted the natural world to our needs.

Why not? nothing we do in this hobby is 'natural' so why should the hybrids we create be any different? and that is a load of hooey, some hybrids can be better suited to certain environments than the parents ever will, and certainly if a hybrid wipes out the parent species why should we be sad? that's just evolution, the strongest, best adapted species will survive, facts of life.

I'd like to see such a mega-mistake with any of the other domesticated species or bioengineered organisms.

And again, that means the consumer creates the market, why would anyone charge a ridiculous price for a specimen no one wants? that would be like deliberately breeding super-expensive Fire Red Newts when no one buys a Fire Red Newt, what kind of logic is that?

and yes, the antural species can be quite vibrant and colorful, they can also be very difficult to properly care for and quite expensive, breeding more colors and morphs into an already easy to keep species is what I was going for.

 

[shmifty5]

It's funny that you bring that up, because bettas are definitely one of the species where I, personally, find the wild type more attractive than the captive-bred morphs. (I think I get a little wigged by "accessories" that inhibit an animal's movement; I find balloon mollies disturbing for the same reason.)

I don't really have much to add to the larger conversation at this time; I just wanted to jump in with that little tidbit for now.

I actually enjoy the 'wild' bettas just as much as I enjoy the others, it's just harder to acquire the natural ones when the shops only stock the vibrant man-made ones, and I never ever buy a betta that has reduced mobility or something like that, when you breed something into a species that harms them or limits them it isn't something I support.

 

[jclee]

I never ever buy a betta that has reduced mobility or something like that, when you breed something into a species that harms them or limits them it isn't something I support.

I don't mean "sickly" movements -- the very large fins on our domestic bettas slow them down. When you watch them move, there's a heck of a lot of side-to-side wiggling and energy expense for very little forward movement, because of the size of their fins. Since wild type bettas have smaller fins, they move a lot more like most other fish do. They also rest in a position that's parallel to the ground, rather than with their head upward and rear downward, which captive bettas tend to do from the weight of their fins. I didn't mean to imply that fancy bettas are all ill, but they are noticably different from their wild-type counterparts.

Sorry. I'm taking us off topic. I just wanted to clarify what I had meant earlier.

 

[Azhael]

I think you have read way too much science fiction...
In the event of the earth being reduced to what you describe, the only thing that could survive would be bacteria. No complex organism would, and no amount of genetic engineering could produce one. So, the idea of creating superspecies that could thrive in such conditions is just fantasy.

I seriously think instead of thinking about perpetuating life once we blow the earth away, we should be thinking about keeping it as intact as possible.

Once again i disagree wholeheartedly with you, specially with this statement: "Actually, it's natures fault, nature created us via evolution, and all we do is what nature intended us to do, we dominated and adapted the natural world to our needs."

Nature did not intend us to be destructive idiots with no regard to the ecosystem they live in. Evolution produced humans, yes, but then we developed culture, and we detached ourselves from evolution and largely, from nature, therefore most of what we do these days is anything BUT natural...
Destroying and modifying nature to our whim is certainly not natural, it´s completely artifitial. And we didn´t dominate squat...we may be able to kill any animal, but nature can still kick us in the butt.

We are abusing nature, not adapting it to our needs, we crossed that line millenia ago.

I´ll repeat, one thing is natural hybridation, and another entirely is artifitial hybridation. If two species hybridate in the wild and the result is a better adapted bloodline that wipes out the parentals, then, yes, that´s survival of the fittest. If you create an artifitial hybrid and artifitially cross it back to the parentals until there is no pure parental blood, that´s not survival of the fittest, that´s tampering with nature.

There are quite a lot of examples of big mistakes done to domesticated animals. Chicken that grow extremely fast but are deformed and can barely move at all. Fish that have severe deformations that make it impossible for them to survive for long. Mice that develop tumors early in their lives and die young because they are completely ridden.
If those are not mistakes, i´m missing something....

I agree, some natural species are hard to keep, but that´s what makes them fascinating for some of us. Expensive?? As expensive as a given species could be due to stupid elitism, it´s nothin compared to the prices that fancy phases reach. If you want expensive animals, go for an artifitially modified one.

Once again, i´ll repeat, i can accept that phases and (please gods, forgive me) hybrids are not a bad thing. The key element here is: IF bred responsibly.
The huuuuuuge problem we have in the hobby is that responsibility is nowhere to be found when it comes to breeding. And it´s ruining it for all of us.
If you want new colors of a given species, ok, please yourself, but do it responsibly!!! Respect the animal, respect biology and for crying out loud, respect the rest of the hobbyists.
Why should the animals and a portion of the hobbyists pay the consequences for the whims of those who only see colors that move and poop????

 

[shmifty5]

Well no, actually, if we had enough control over genetics we could fully engineer larger more comlex life with a different base than carbon (perhaps silicon), theres no reason why we couldn't as long as we had the tech/knowledge.

not true, as much as we may like to believe we are still very much a creation of nature, we aren't capable of doing what was not designed, ie we can't fly nor can we swim in the abyss, but what we can do (and many animals do to a lesser extent) is change the world around us, nesting birds utilize the nearby fauna to build their nests, gorillas will often create beds, and plants have vastly altered the way our world looks and what it is capable of sustaining, we just take it further than any of those other species (ie cutting down trees to create homes and recreational/business centres, pulling metals from the rock and using it to create even stronger homes and faster travel, melting silica to create glass so we may observe the outside while remaining safe in our steel boxes, etc), we are bound to do what nature intended us to do, how we utilize our gifts is entirely different.

There really isn't much of a difference between 2 boas getting it on in the jungle and 2 boas getting it on in some guys house, the basic is 2 boas are doing it, location and probability of encounter are the only differences, now deliberate/extreme inbreeding is not natural nor is it desireable, and again I'm at odds, such inbreeding can't produce healthy young and if it hurts the animals potential I'm against it.

I hardly see how 'rarer' or harder to obtain animals being expensive is elitism, perhaps I'm missing something.

There should be no consequences for the rest of the hobby is responsible breeding is being done, again the amphibian/caudate hobby isn't very big and such incompetence in the breeders is unlikely, it seems to me that some of the critters that are in the hobby shouldn't be as the hobbyists are incapable of sticking to their guns, mixed breed axies are a prime example, they took fancy colors over genetic integrity and if the current trends continue I doubt anyone will be able to buy an actual axie in 50 years (max), given that axies are very hard to find in nature and they are quickly becoming extinct in the wild there really should've been more care when breeding them, certainly we can learn from the mistakes of the past and try to keep some of the animals pure. Again I must stress that my position isn't "yay, breed anything and everything! PRETTY COLORS!!!" it is "responsible breeding is possible and with a smaller hobby there is less risk of mass-breeding and mass-screw-ups, so why not take some of them and expirement with gentics, play around with nature a little bit?".

I like to think of selective-breeding and hybridization as cheats to a game, some cheats make the game more fun and some screw you over and ruin the game, it all depends on the player and which game he is playing.

 

[Azhael]

We are still subject to nature, we will always be, but that doesn´t mean that our actions respond to some kind of natural imposition.
When an animal with the hability of modifying its habitat gets out of hand, nature puts it in its place. If there are too many beavers in a given area, the ecosystem and the population crasses. Nature always tend towards an equilibrium.
We are different...we can exploit an habitat and destroy it entirely, then move on to the next and repeat the same mistake. We temporarily scape from nature by not depending directly of any specific habitat. In the end, we do pay the consequences, though.
To justify every human action by saying , hey, it´s natural, it´s what we are, is ridiculous.

There is a big difference between two boas reproducing in the wild and two boas reproducing in captivity. In captivity it´s the owner that decides which two boas reproduce. There is no selection over the offspring, no natural pressure. The result is very different from that of a natural breeding.

Rarer or harder species being is expensive is elitism because acquiring them automatically confers status. You might not even know what the hell you are buying but if it´s rare and expensive, you are cool. That´s a very....very sad fact.

I agree, there should not be consequences for the rest of the hobby, nor the natural species. The fact of the matter is that there are.
If things were being done responsibly, it would be radically different. They are not. There is no control over what gets bred, and what´s even worse, people actually lie deliberately to make a sell.
It´s not a matter of 50 years tops....pure axolotls, Ambystoma mexicanum, are already, today, very hard to find. The vast majority of bloodlines offer no guarantee whatsoever of purity. Any bloodline that at some point has contained a golden albino is automatically not pure A.mexicanum anymore. Do you know of any bloodline that you can guarantee that is a 100% pure?? Some people will think, hey i´ve got a wild type, so i´ve got a pure axolotl....wrong! You have no way of knowing if your wild type is indeed pure unless you make a genetic study. Chances are it will have some degree of genetic introgression and it will be heterocygotic for some mutation or other (not just colors...).
We continue to pretend they are axolotls, though...and the majority of owners don´t even know that what they have is not an axolotl...the seller said it was so it must be, right? Plus, everybody calls them axolotls...they HAVE to be axolotls...
Well, i´m sorry but they are not.

Try to find a completely pure, locality corn snake, or california kingsnake outside of the states....almost impossible!!!
Yeah, the caudate section is still quite untouched save a few examples, but that doesn´t mean we are doing everything right. There has been a lot of inbreeding just because "caudates tolerate it", there has been a great deal of loss of locality integrity, and there are examples of hybrids or intergrades.
We are not exempt of our mistakes, although, admitedly, we are faaaaaaaar from the situation elsewhere in the hobby.
I so wish things were being done responsibly...

I see we agree on some basics about how the hobby should work....the problem is that it´s not working as it should.

 

[shmifty5]

Again, it is nature, we can not some how surpass our natural (genetic) limitations, the way we function as a species is how we are meant to function, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today, we are truly marvels of evolution and no amount of 'self-hate' will change that, sure we do terrible things but we do it because it's what we do, we build homes to shelter us and our young, we cultivate food, we learn, we destroy, we create, and ultimately I feel we will someday overcome our limitations.

The end result may be different, but lets say we took 2 boas and dropped them off in the middle fo some isolated forest and they mated, would that be more natural? perhaps if the owner was to simulate a tropical forect in his house and let the boas roam and mate freely, woudl that be more natural? or maybe if he kills off the off-spring that were sick or weakly, then it must be natural right? the setting/scenario isn't important, the ultimate act is, and that boils down to 2 different boas getting it on and having babies.

Hardly, I have never met someone with a "ULTRA RARE" pet and thought they were cooler or better than me, only and idiot is so impressed by such things, our actions and contributions to the species as a whole are what is important, not posessions.

I agree, except for one tiny thing, if they aren't axies what are they then? surely they have another name than Axolotl? or maybe it simply boils down to public support, ie the majority of owners feel that they have an Axolotl so it's an Axolotl, it looks like an axie and it acts like an axie so it's an axie.

I can find 3 nests of wild cornsnakes right now, they live in the grain sillos up here and eat the rats and stuff, they get killed a lot by the pesticides and stuff but there are groups that make it.

The hobby must take responsibility for it's actions, maybe it's just me but the other hobbies don't badly abuse their extinct pets, if an Axolotl was a very rare/almost extinct reptile I sincerely doubt the enthusiasts would so badly mishandle them, rarer reptiles are treated as precious gems with selective breeding being a must, this is why only the more "surplus" of the reptiles are common pets, sure terrible things have been done in the name of "pretty colors" but these animals aren't rare and they are definately not going extinct anytime soon, the same can't be said for most of our hobby, this is why we must take better care of our creatures, how could we let the precious and quirky gems of our world die off simply because the one without pigment is cuter? we should play around with the "surpluss" critters but it should be safe-play, we should never breed for color and selection with the losing species (this should really be obvious to everyone).

Well why not protest for change, certain laws could made to better regulate the hobby, breeding permits and that type of thing to ensure that only 'proper' breeding is taking place, perhaps international policing agencies to monitor things, keep everything "for the better good", sure the hobby would suffer a little but the critters would be better cared for and better regulated so we don't lose them in 50 years.

Be in the hobby for the animals, not yourself.

 

[Azhael]

So, pedophiles are just doing what their nature tells them, the bastards that enslave children to use as soldiers in Africa are just doing what they were genetically programmed to do.....right??
Come on....
There are certain biological imperatives, of course there are, but they most definitely don´t involve massive habitat destruction or sheer, bloody minded evilness.
Our nature tells us that we must eat, and protect our descendance, and cry when we are hurt...it doesn´t tell us to deforestate the amazon forest for money or kill for interest....
Anyway this has absolutely no relevance to the topic.

Of course that scenario would be more natural, i can´t imagine why you would think it wouldn´t be! Now, starting a population with only two boas would be ridiculous, but allowing selective pressure to eliminate weak offspring IS most definitely natural.
It´s what we do that is completely unnatural..we allow all the offspring to survive when possible. We even cut open the eggs of our snakes so that the weak animals don´t die trying!!! Why? because that´s 200 or 1500 quid you would be loosing...who cares if that animal was not meant to survive....

I don´t care what people think, they are not axolotls. If i, and 1000 more people say a triangle is a square it doesn´t make us right. They are ambystomatid hybrids, the result of the mixture of the genomes of two species.
We will of course continue to lie to ourselves and lie to newcomers, pretending they are axolotls...that won´t change.
And so, all the still pure axolotls that may still survive in captivity in given bloodlines will be crossed with other "axolotls" and the bloodline will be lost. Brilliant....

I said outside the states, man...i know you can find corn snakes in your country....
But here, finding a pure corn snake, one that you can know for sure is a specific locality, is almost impossible (and in Spain, it is impossible...). Not because the species is rare...it´s in fact extremely cheap these days, but because all the bloodlines have been selectively bred for mutants, and no one keeps pure animals. So anyone who wants a given mutant has it extremely easy...they can buy their albino, motley, bla bla bla for 30 euros or even a "wild type" for 15 euros.....but if i want a corn snake, i´m *expletive*.

Although i partially agree with your penultimate paragraph, i have to say that there are examples of very irresponsible breeding with endangered and rare species. We are not doing things right even with such animals. Axolotls are great example, they are going extinct in the wild and yet the efforts to maintain pure bloodlines in captivity are absolutely minimal. There is a much bigger effort worldwide in trying to create new colors than in trying to preserve the species. VERY sad...

Yes, it´s the common species, corn snakes, king snakes, ball python, leopard geckos....that get the worse part, but irresponsible breeding is affecting all species in the hobby.

I like the idea of certain laws to regulate what gets bred and sold, perhaps on the line of CITES but including animal quality, but i don´t see it happening.

 

[jclee]

Again, it is nature, we can not some how surpass our natural (genetic) limitations, the way we function as a species is how we are meant to function, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today, we are truly marvels of evolution and no amount of 'self-hate' will change that, sure we do terrible things but we do it because it's what we do, we build homes to shelter us and our young, we cultivate food, we learn, we destroy, we create, and ultimately I feel we will someday overcome our limitations.

Actually, I've thought about this a bit, regarding the evolution of humans. I won't debate exactly what "natural" means, but we've long since stopped evolving by what is "healthiest" or "fittest" for our environment, because medicine enables those whose genes might have caused their death before reproductive age, or whose genes make them infertile to live and reproduce. Our species is taking different evolutionary turns because of this. Of course, "survival of the fittest" doesn't actually mean "strongest" or "best" or "healthiest" -- just whatever characteristic best suits the environment. (I am not against medicine. I will confess that I am an epileptic who lives a "normal" life because of prescriptions. I am also aware that even one generation ago, I would have been institutionalized and an undesirable mate for lack of medication options.)

I guess my point is that it is really difficult to discuss what is "natural" for our species, and by extension its effect on the planet, since our species has the ability both to create environment-altering paraphernalia, and more importantly, to reason over the consequences of that paraphenelia. This makes it a little problematic to argue that anything we create is the "natural" course, simply because we are creatures of nature.

I agree, except for one tiny thing, if they aren't axies what are they then?

Axolotl is a common name; the point was that, genetically, it's not the same creature. Huskies and Malmuts look the same, and if it became accepted to call them both "HuskMuts," that wouldn't mean that the name made the two the same on a genetic level. They'd still be different species.

I can find 3 nests of wild cornsnakes right now, they live in the grain sillos up here and eat the rats and stuff, they get killed a lot by the pesticides and stuff but there are groups that make it.

Some species -- especially amphibian species -- have a much harder time adapting to environmental pollutants. Look into all of the species of frogs that are dead/dying/disappearing within this generation, alone. Again, the point is biodiversity is important -- not that something will live even if we muck up the planet, but that diverse species continue.

The hobby must take responsibility for it's actions,

I think here, we're all in agreement with that point.

Well why not protest for change, certain laws could made to better regulate the hobby, breeding permits and that type of thing to ensure that only 'proper' breeding is taking place, perhaps international policing agencies to monitor things, keep everything "for the better good", sure the hobby would suffer a little but the critters would be better cared for and better regulated so we don't lose them in 50 years.

Be in the hobby for the animals, not yourself.

I'm with you there. I think one of the biggest problem with policy regarding herps is the amount of indifference/misinformation. As soon as any problem becomes a public issue, the most common response is "let's just ban it." This has happened in Florida regarding larger snake species; it comes up every few years, and not only in Florida. Our nation just loves sensational stories about people with large snakes who bite/hurt them or kids or pet cats and dogs.

California made axolotls illegal, because it enacted a blanket policy meant to protect amphibians from being harvested, and to protect the state from the release of harmful captive pets (i.e. ACFs) into the wild. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that an axolotl would even survive being "released" into the wild in the U.S. The policy didn't differentiate between different species' needs simply because the people in charge don't understand the species in question.

We do need to start acting to initiate policy... and that will be an uphill battle (as most causes are) because the politicians in charge will lean toward quick, blanket solutions (i.e. ban all reptiles) that are easier for them to understand and enforce than more intricate legislature (i.e. police breeding -- teach said employees difference between species/morphs so that they can make informed choices about whom to "bust" for cruelty/irresponsible breeding.)

 

[shmifty5]

to: Azhael
Pedophelia and Child Soldiers are 'bad' things because of our current moral stances, back in greece (during the days of olympus) pedophilia was quite common with the spartans practicing it as law (they also trained their children from a young age with many of the youths being qualified to kill before they were of age), the view that any given act is evil is slightly biased as we are all raised with this image of murder and rape as evil, I won't say I support 'evil' acts but in nature there is no such thing as evil, fun fact Dolphins kill for fun and often do so in cruel or torurous ways (this is natural) and do so in the hundreds.

It wouldn't be natural because those 2 species would never have met in the wild, this was your first arguement againt breeding hybrids in some guys shed, that it isn't natural because they never would've met in a natural way.

I agree with the rest of what you said for the exception of this:
"i have to say that there are examples of very irresponsible breeding with endangered and rare species"
care to provide any examples? I have not yet seen any example os such mismanagement from the reptile/snake hobbies nor have I personally witnessed anything like that with inverts and fish, they tend to manage the rare animals the same way a museum manages it's archives.

to: jclee
I agree for the most part with everything you said, it is difficult to judge what is a natural act when discussing humans, but we were only able to build those machines because of our brain (which was crafted by evolution) and our hands (again, evolution), a beetle can't build a simple machine and your average ape can't build a complex machine, this is because of their natural limitations, if they could build a machine that destroyed us and adapted the earth to their needs then they would, nature isn't a cry-baby about things, if it betters their species then they will do it.

 

[jclee]

to: jclee
I agree for the most part with everything you said, it is difficult to judge what is a natural act when discussing humans, but we were only able to build those machines because of our brain (which was crafted by evolution) and our hands (again, evolution), a beetle can't build a simple machine and your average ape can't build a complex machine, this is because of their natural limitations, if they could build a machine that destroyed us and adapted the earth to their needs then they would, nature isn't a cry-baby about things, if it betters their species then they will do it.

That's why I threw in mention of our cognitive capacities. Not only can we make such things, but we are capable of rationally debating whether we should make machines/alter the environment. To use one extreme example, we can nuke the planet dozens of times over with the technology that our crinkly little brains have developed. That alone does not necessarily mean that we should or that it would be "natural" for us to do so because "nature gave us" the crinkly brains. I'm not terribly fond of presuming an intent for a personified "nature" -- I think it's all far more random than that. I don't think that "nature" has "intentions," to speak of.

By way of the Greek pedophilia example -- I'm a pretty big cultural relativist, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss our culturally situated sense of right and wrong. All because "right" and "wrong" may not be trans-historic absolutes -- they are culturally contextual -- doesn't mean that we don't/won't/shouldn't have a sense of what "we" (either as individuals, as herp-lovers, or as a nation) consider to be an ethical course of action, even if it is bounded by contemporary values, cultural mores, etc. It may not be the same sense of "ethics" as in other times or places, but if we reach a point where 90% of Americans are worried about, lets say, biodiversity, then it is time to act upon that concern. Yes, there are nations today that have a very different opinion of humans' obligations (or lack there of) to the "health" of the planet (and I personally don't feel like I am in a place to judge/condemn/rule other culture's actions). That doesn't mean that we -- (having a shared, culturally situated sense of ethical behavior toward the planet's well-being) -- should not act on behalf of the environment, any more than the past acceptance of pedophilia in a certain time and place means that we should accept it here and now.