Breeding vs Morals and Ethics

[CDN_Blood]

Oops...poll didn't kick-in...please stay tuned...

Ethics and morals play a role in breeding reptiles, particularly in snakes. While a lot of people will readily create intergrade* or even hybrid** snakes, it's not really done with other herps such as lizards or frogs. This begs the question of why are people so liberal about it.

The boiled down root of that question leads us to a matter of ethics and morals. Make no mistake, these two things are not the same, so let's break it down so we're all reading from the same page...

Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behaviour expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics they practice can be other-dependent.

Since hybridizing animals is universally considered unethical by the zoological and scientific communities, I cannot present that aspect in a poll. That leaves us with a question of morals, and since I’m a curious kinda guy who enjoys reading statistics, I thought I’d poll those willing to respond to gather some stats on this debate. Oh sure, we’ve debated it endlessly in other threads, but this one will give us some numbers to consider (I hope). So…

My question is this:
Do you consider creating intergrades and/or hybrids a moral or ethical issue?

Give yourself time to consider the factors before you vote, and consider the definitions of intergrade and hybrid outlined below when voting. Remember that you don't have to add any blurb about why you voted as you did if you wish to remain anonymous.

----------------------------
*intergrade: the process of merging into each other in a series of stages, forms, or types (e.g. Morelia intergrades are different subspecies of Morelia family bred together to create a new form of the original over time, such as Jaguar Pythons)

**hybrid: an animal (in this case) resulting from a cross between genetically unlike individuals (e.g. ‘Bateaters’ are a hybrid resulting from breeding a Burmese Python to a Reticulated Python)

[Lankyrob]

Nive way to get us all thinking!!!

My PERSONAL thoughts are intergrades are much more likely to happen in nature than hybrids and therefor for people to breed them in captivity is fine.

Hybrids MAY happen in nature but it would be a very rare occurance and PERSONALLY i cant see a hybrid necessarily breeding to produce a new generation. So whilst i like the look of some of the hybrids that i have seen, i dont consider it morally right to do.


Both my views are based on MY moral stance, i cant comment on the ethics of it as i dont have enough contact with breeders to know what that "society" thinks.

[CDN_Blood]

Originally Posted by Lankyrob

...Hybrids MAY happen in nature but it would be a very rare occurance and PERSONALLY i cant see a hybrid necessarily breeding to produce a new generation...

I believe that most hybrids are sterile, so I don't think that's a problem. It also explains why they don't survive as a continued species in nature if it does happen

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by CDN_Blood

I believe that most hybrids are sterile...

This isn't true in the reptile world as it's been proven again and again. In particular the borneo bateater (retic x burm) have constantly bred with one another or back to one of it's parents lines. Hybrids in general are sterile outside the reptile world.

[CDN_Blood]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

This isn't true in the reptile world as it's been proven again and again. In particular the borneo bateater (retic x burm) have constantly bred with one another or back to one of it's parents lines. Hybrids in general are sterile outside the reptile world.

Does that make it OK in your opinion?

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by CDN_Blood

Does that make it OK in your opinion?

I'm not wading into this debate. I clicked my vote and I'll leave it at that.

[infernalis]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

This isn't true in the reptile world as it's been proven again and again. In particular the borneo bateater (retic x burm) have constantly bred with one another or back to one of it's parents lines. Hybrids in general are sterile outside the reptile world.

This has been true with corn/king/milk/rat crosses AND Garter snake crosses.

It has been widely debated that Infernalis and Tetrataenia have crossed in California forever in the wild, since their ranges cross and their DNA is nearly identical.

[CDN_Blood]

Originally Posted by infernalis

This has been true with corn/king/milk/rat crosses AND Garter snake crosses.

It has been widely debated that Infernalis and Tetrataenia have crossed in California forever in the wild, since their ranges cross and their DNA is nearly identical.

A most excellent point. If it is so readily interchangeable and territories overlap, it'll happen. If it's not so easily swappable with such compatibility, it simply won't survive. Thanks for presenting such a good example

[millertime89]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

This isn't true in the reptile world as it's been proven again and again. In particular the borneo bateater (retic x burm) have constantly bred with one another or back to one of it's parents lines. Hybrids in general are sterile outside the reptile world.

True to an extent, while most hybrids are sterile to other hybrids, many are capable of being bred back to either parent species. I'm unaware of this being tested in snakes as hybrids are generally difficult enough to prodice let alone get to reproduce themselves.

Personally I see no problem with hybrids and integrades so for me it would have to be an ethical question. In a perfect world the beautiful creatures that come from the pairings would become nothing more than pets, but alas that is not the case especially when morphs begin to come into the picture.

I'm going to read the rest of the thread before posting further as I, like you Todd, am fascinated by this subject even if we don't agree.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by millertime89

... In a perfect world the beautiful creatures that come from the pairings would become nothing more than pets, but alas that is not the case especially when morphs begin to come into the picture...

Nothing to do with morphs. You're screwing with the original genetics of the parents at this point. North America hasn't had any important carpet pythons from Australia in forever, we no longer have a gene pool for them, it's a gene puddle. I really would have a hard time believing any carpet is "pure" at this point.

[hellosugaree]

Originally Posted by Lankyrob

Nive way to get us all thinking!!!

My PERSONAL thoughts are intergrades are much more likely to happen in nature than hybrids and therefor for people to breed them in captivity is fine.

None of what breeders do is natural anyway so I don't think this really matters either way. In nature, offspring are selected based on their ability to survive and reproduce. Their survival depends on their fitness for their particular environment, and stochastic events (doesn't matter how wonderful a baby is if a tree happens to fall on it before it can produce offspring). Passing on one's own genetics also depends on an individual's ability to find mates. If you live 9000 years but can't find a mate, you aren't going to figure into the gene pool.

In a breeding situation, we are choosing who to breed with whom. Even if you breed all wild-caught original lines or whatever, the breeder is going to have an influence anyway. Even if you randomly select pairs, you are still influencing the genetics. If you take a wild population and capture half the individuals and randomly breed them for 100 years, and then let the other half do it naturally, you'll undoubtedly have differences, even if the individuals in the two groups are exactly matched. As a breeder you have no way of determining which animal would have a better chance to mate in the wild, or which mother will be more likely to protect her eggs well in the wild, even if she does it fine in your plastic box.

My main point is that you can't be a purist or whatever you want to call it and preserve a natural gene pool anyway, so why pretend like you are? Since you are introducing artificial selection, or at the very least removing normal selective pressures, then why not have some fun?

No matter how hard you try, you're never going to be nature. So why bother trying?

[FangsAnarchy]

Originally Posted by hellosugaree

None of what breeders do is natural anyway so I don't think this really matters either way. In nature, offspring are selected based on their ability to survive and reproduce. Their survival depends on their fitness for their particular environment, and stochastic events (doesn't matter how wonderful a baby is if a tree happens to fall on it before it can produce offspring). Passing on one's own genetics also depends on an individual's ability to find mates. If you live 9000 years but can't find a mate, you aren't going to figure into the gene pool.

In a breeding situation, we are choosing who to breed with whom. Even if you breed all wild-caught original lines or whatever, the breeder is going to have an influence anyway. Even if you randomly select pairs, you are still influencing the genetics. If you take a wild population and capture half the individuals and randomly breed them for 100 years, and then let the other half do it naturally, you'll undoubtedly have differences, even if the individuals in the two groups are exactly matched. As a breeder you have no way of determining which animal would have a better chance to mate in the wild, or which mother will be more likely to protect her eggs well in the wild, even if she does it fine in your plastic box.

My main point is that you can't be a purist or whatever you want to call it and preserve a natural gene pool anyway, so why pretend like you are? Since you are introducing artificial selection, or at the very least removing normal selective pressures, then why not have some fun?

No matter how hard you try, you're never going to be nature. So why bother trying?

I agree!

Also just as a little fun fact there was a species of deer or moose (something with horns not antlers and yes I know deer and moose have antlers) that evolved its self out of existance. Females kept selecting males with the largest horns. So offspring kept being born with larger and larger horns. Eventually the horns became too large and too heavy and the males would snap their necks under the weight of the massive horns before reaching sexual maturity. So natural selection killed the species.

But yes I think hybrids are fine so long as no animal is harmed and they are marketed as such.

[CDN_Blood]

Originally Posted by FangsAnarchy

I agree!

Also just as a little fun fact there was a species of deer or moose (something with horns not antlers and yes I know deer and moose have antlers) that evolved its self out of existance. Females kept selecting males with the largest horns. So offspring kept being born with larger and larger horns. Eventually the horns became too large and too heavy and the males would snap their necks under the weight of the massive horns before reaching sexual maturity. So natural selection killed the species.

<insert absolutely dumbfounded look here> Like...what?! This is a serious thread. Keep the jokes for the Joke thread, okay? Okay!

[KORBIN5895]

Originally Posted by CDN_Blood

<insert absolutely dumbfounded look here> Like...what?! This is a serious thread. Keep the jokes for the Joke thread, okay? Okay!

That's a plus two in my book!

[youngster]

Rob basically took the words out of my mouth.

PS Todd very well written