Hypothetical Moral Dilemma

[snakehunter]

OK this is something I have always fantasized about, finding a wild albino ___________ (fill in the blank)

Lets say your out field herping, just in general, it was a nice day and you figured you would go and lift a few logs and snap a few pix, just for the liesure excercise and bliss of being in the field.

You come upon a promising log or piece of tin, and upon lifting it you find an albino, or other morph animal. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

In general albino animals do not fair as well as normal specimens of their species, and that it is safe to say an albino animal will probably not make the first winter. If you where in this situation would you keep the animal, if say it where a 'mander or species of snake (nonvenomous if you didnt have a license) That you knew the general husbandry for?

As a child it was always enforced upon my brother and I that an animal in the wild deserves its freedom, and that it is morally illegal to keep a wild animal.

Assuming that the species was not protected, and was a species you find commonly, do you think it would be selfish to heep the herp?


Here is my prospective:
There would be a few things that would have to take affect for me to collect the animal:

1) the animal MUST be a juvinile, if it where an adult I would assume it where healthy and thriving, and fairing well despite its color change.
2) It must be a common species for my area
3) It must be unprotected
4) and I MUST know how to care for it prior to collection.

Do you think this is immoral, or do you think that it is 'saving the animal'?

Any insight would be appreciated.
-Jacob

[Jayson]

I personally do not field collect, not because of morals, but because i just dont want to chance spreading disease to my own collection. and i live in ontario and everything here is protected anyway.
However if i found an animal that fit your criteria(which in ontario is Impossible) and knew someone that worked with that species and could bennefit from it i might make an exception.
I am in no way against field collecting, Because it does have its place in this hobby if done responsibly.

[M_surinamensis]

If the collection is legal, grab while the grabbing's good. If the collection would be an illegal act, then it doesn't matter what the chances for that animal's survival are, it's an inappropriate act.

[Double J]

Chances are that you would never find a wild ADULT albino snake of any sort.

[snakehunter]

I know, remember this is hypothetical.

[rwg]

If it's a native species, I'd treat it like any other specimen I came across in the woods. If it's an adult native species, and thriving, maybe there's something about it's micro-environment that makes albinism appropriate. I highly doubt it, but who am I to question nature? Let it run it's course.

If it's a non-native species, no question about it, you grab it. You're doing everyone (yourself, the albino, and local populations) a big favor.

Roy

[Brock]

I'd keep it. Albinos really don't do as well in the wild, although there are some, leucistic texas ratnsnake, that seem to do fine. The sensitivity to the sun, sometimes bad vision, and easy difficulty blending in with the environment. A salamander or frog or any small prey species, I wouldn't think twice about keeping because it's easy to pick off a white animal than a camoflauged animal by predators. Not to mind you if you can breed them the other hobbiests would love you.

-Brock

[Removed_2815]

If it's native, leave it! Who are we to judge whether a genetic mutation is advantageous or not?
Look at the Peppered Moth (Biston betularia); most classically trained biologists should be intimately familiar with this tale of natural selection at work (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html). Have a look at the classic story of the rise and fall of the melanisitc form of the moth with the corresponding British industrial revolution (it's an example of how a seemingly obscure and useless phenotypic mutation may have saved this species).
Humans should not feel it incumbent upon them to "do the species a service" by removing what a layman might believe to be deleterious phenotypes from the population, if anything you would be doing the population quite an injustice as you are removing any chance for natural selection (as you are, in actuality, artificially selecting against a natural mutation).
Hypothetically yours,
Ryan

Edit: Recently, while head-starting some Spiny Softshell Turtles for release back into the wild, a leucisitc baby hatched out. This little guy, along with all of his siblings, was released! We might think this guy wouldn't stand a chance (if that's the case then so be it); but we cannot consider ourselves superior to nature - She will take care of everything... Genetic variability is the key to any species' continued survival, hence we want to do everything in our capacity to keep populations as genetically variable as possible - surgically removing a particular phenotype is not how one would go about doing this.

[Cake]

Im with Ryan on this one. The animal should not be removed based on our decision that the mutation is not advantageous.

However, although I personally am against collecting animals from the feild, if the collection is done legally there is nothing I or anyone else can say, and this discussion becomes one of legality, and not morals.

The species in question and the demographics of the population from which it comes become the important factors that one must consider.

[M_surinamensis]

The ah... Peppered moths... the textbook situation was largely falsified- data blown way out of proportion, photographs staged, facts ignored.

If you run it through a few of the more popular debunking style websites you'll get a decent cursory explaination, most of them have a list of literature with better details and more reliable sources. I haven't looked into it in any depth in years so individual titles or links escape me at the moment, I may find a few later and respond again.

Essentially though, what was said to have happened (Overwhelming change in the natural coloration of a species within a small number of generations due to an altered environment and survival rates) didn't happen. The initial balance of color in the populations was reported inaccurately, the changed balance was reported inaccurately and the situation given as a basis (Soot covered trees) was reported inaccurately.

I believe that avaliable evidence supports the idea of a kind of refined darwinistic evolution as being largely accurate but I also know that trying to prove anything with a botched study isn't going to work.

[spidergecko]

Yet without supporting data, your claims are even less credible.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by M_surinamensis
The ah... Peppered moths... the textbook situation was largely falsified- data blown way out of proportion, photographs staged, facts ignored.

If you run it through a few of the more popular debunking style websites you'll get a decent cursory explaination, most of them have a list of literature with better details and more reliable sources. I haven't looked into it in any depth in years so individual titles or links escape me at the moment, I may find a few later and respond again.

Essentially though, what was said to have happened (Overwhelming change in the natural coloration of a species within a small number of generations due to an altered environment and survival rates) didn't happen. The initial balance of color in the populations was reported inaccurately, the changed balance was reported inaccurately and the situation given as a basis (Soot covered trees) was reported inaccurately.

I believe that avaliable evidence supports the idea of a kind of refined darwinistic evolution as being largely accurate but I also know that trying to prove anything with a botched study isn't going to work.

Did you look at the link I supplied? Granted, it is a website; however, literature is cited and I included it for the express purpose of your anticipated post. It deals with the exact controversy that you have tried to illustrate.

Quote:
However, in 1998, Michael E. N. Majerus of the Department of Genetics at the University of Cambridge carefully re-examined Kettlewell's studies, as well as many others that have since appeared. What he reported, first of all, was that Kettlewell's experiments, indicating that moth survival depends upon color-related camouflage, were generally correct:

" Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth."

(P. 116, Melanism - Evolution in Action, M. E. N. Majerus, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).

Anyway, I brought it up as an easy to understand example. I wish to have no part in the debate as to whether or not the science is correct, I have my opinions but they are no more correct than anyone else's here.

Best regards,
Ryan

[snakehunter]

I see, VERY good point Ryan, I never thought of that aspect (earlier post) though I have never collected, maybe now I will take a step back when I find that Luecistic spotted salmander! HAHA But seriously, that point has single handedly changed my veiw and perspective of collection. THANK YOU
-Jacob

[Kyle Barker]

personaly i cant keep anythign i find. if it has somthing to do with pollution bizaar mutation etc. ill make a note inform people if need be. i personally cant justify things to myself to keep the animals. i am having a hard time keeping the captive ones (morally), but i am not going into that.

the other thing i think may be is evolution. whether injured, sick, mutant, or normal i try not to interfere if i can help it. its enough for me to have the privelage to go hiking through all these awsome habitats and watch them live their lives. thats enough for me :)