Breeding vs Morals and Ethics - Page 3

Caylan · 04-03-12, 04:31 PM

Did the females not realise those horns gotta come outta them sometime.....

Personally I don't feel hybridising snakes has anything to do with morals or ethics, its all personal choice, just like everything else you do. No need for fancy words or descriptions, its what you do afterwards that requires the morals and ehtics. Responsibility is key.

red ink · 04-03-12, 04:46 PM

Ok... I have too much to say but I'll condense it as it will lead to too many other discussions

1 Sub-species - most sub-species are sub-species beacause a PhD student said so, granted if they hold intrinsic differences then they probably should be given a sub-species status... but what does that really do for the taxa? It only confuses it as all sub-species can interbreed.

2 Sub-species breeding what does that do for the hobby?..... What's my carpet anyone?

3 Hybrids.... vehemently not for me. I keep snake for their natural beauty, not to play "pokemon" and see what I can create, but that's my preference. Each to their own on this one, it does not mean I can't appreciate a snake for it's beauty what ever is in the mix.

4 What do you do with the rejects from playing "pokemon"... euth, give away for free, misrepresent them to the buyer, feed to my varanid or BHP?

Hybrids and intergrades are not a question of ethics or morality.... their a question of intent.

By the way I'm one of those "purist" I trace all my animals down to their locality, I will never produce hybrids or intergrades.

KORBIN5895 · 04-03-12, 04:48 PM

Quote:

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!

FangsAnarchy · 04-03-12, 04:56 PM

Not a joke, was intended to illustrate the point that even natural selection is not always best. It is actually a real species and when breeders play match maker they try to always breed the best which isn't always for the good of the species. Think of all the morphs that would never occur or survive in nature. As long as you are not selecting something to be unhealthy then there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.

jaleely · 04-03-12, 08:22 PM

found it

The Case of the Irish Elk

Evolution is natural selection. Humans interfering is just selection.

I just disagree with creating purposely unhealthy, or weak genetic animals strictly because you like their color or pattern.
I didn't vote.

KORBIN5895 · 04-03-12, 08:27 PM

So while reading that article I noticed this.

Unable to adapt to the subartic conditions of the last glaciation or the marked transition that occured after the final retreat of the ice sheet, the largest deer that ever lived became extinct, the last one in Ireland dying around 11,000 years ago. Megaloceros may have possibly survived in continental Europe into historic times.

FangsAnarchy · 04-03-12, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaleely

found it

The Case of the Irish Elk

Evolution is natural selection. Humans interfering is just selection.

I just disagree with creating purposely unhealthy, or weak genetic animals strictly because you like their color or pattern.
I didn't vote.

Thank you, I thought horns which was why I thought sheep maybe. That was the article though.

**millertime89** · 04-03-12, 11:27 PM

Quote:

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.

**millertime89** · 04-03-12, 11:39 PM

I would like to respond to posts 20, 24, 31, 32; this post is serving as a reminder for when I am on a computer tomorrw.

Regarding the Irish Elk. The natural history museum at my University has the skeleton of one. I should see if I can take pictures of the place to share with you guys. Its rather an impressice college museum.

KORBIN5895 · 04-04-12, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

So while reading that article I noticed this.

Unable to adapt to the subartic conditions of the last glaciation or the marked transition that occured after the final retreat of the ice sheet, the largest deer that ever lived became extinct, the last one in Ireland dying around 11,000 years ago. Megaloceros may have possibly survived in continental Europe into historic times.

Again this article claims that their inability to adapt is why they died not that their antlers were too big from selective breeding.

If there mating was anything like whitetail deer then that whole theory about their antlers being too big is seriously flawed and quite funny.

No matter how large a bucks antlers are he can't breed all the females. Also I a bucks antlers grew so large he couldn't carry them he probably wouldn't be able to breed. If the were so large he couldn't spar he wouldn't be able to breed either. Also if you were to do a search you would find videos of two large bucks fighting over a female and some scrawny little dude come slinking in and mount the female. Also I am unaware of any antlered animal that is born with antlers so that wouldn't be an issue. Most antlered animals shed their antlers every year so the stress of carrying them all year wouldn't be much of an issue either. Finally antlers do not continuously grow unlike horns which grow for the life of the animal.

So unless there was something really fifteenth another this elk (other than the size of its rack) there is no plausible way for anyone to claim that they went extinct because they selectively breed their antlers too big.

CDN_Blood · 04-04-12, 05:18 AM

Enough with the deer nonsense. Get your own thread and stop derailing serious debate. I don't take kindly to my posts being derailed with unrelated crap - stick to the topic or don't post in my threads.

KORBIN5895 · 04-04-12, 05:27 AM

What are you going to do about it Todd? Take my cookies?

Seriously though. They tried to use an absolute rediculous point to support their position about it being okay to dilute the subspecies or even breed it out existence. I was just showing how that example is totally erroneous and didn't even line up with the article they claimed supported their position.

Don't make me block you Todd! I am crazy and you know I will!

CDN_Blood · 04-04-12, 05:34 AM

This thread had gotten too off-track and I'm considering it CLOSED - I got the stats to satisfy my curiosity. My thanks to those who participated in the serious debate and/or voted. If you want to thank those who derailed it so badly, send them a private message and let them know how much you appreciate it.

Gregg M · 04-04-12, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDN_Blood

This thread had gotten too off-track and I'm considering it CLOSED - I got the stats to satisfy my curiosity. My thanks to those who participated in the serious debate and/or voted. If you want to thank those who derailed it so badly, send them a private message and let them know how much you appreciate it.

Want some cheese with that whine? Everything talked about in this thread It is relevant to the topic. If you want to consider the thread closed, do so. In reality, it is still open. This is a public forum you started a topic on. If people want to reply with what they feel is relevant information, they can. If you want to have a private coversation with yourself, that is what a padded room was made for. The problem with your poll is you only offered 2 options and forced people to pick one or the other. The truth is, there are several answers to your question.

Anyway, poducing hybrid reptiles in a captive setting is not a moral or ethical issue. What are ethics and morals anyway? They are codes made by people for people to do business by and to live by. If you break it down they are just opinions as well. Opinions of the majority. Seems like this topic is split down the middle with an entire group of people who can care less either way.

Is it unethical to produce hybrids? No, but I can see why it would be unethical to sell them and to not disclose their genetic make up to a buyer.

Is it immoral? Ask the snakes if they live by our moral codes.

Where is the harm? What are the dangers?

Creating hybrids is no different than breeding morphs. You are taking the normal and making it not normal. People want to make even normals look better. They take two normal animals that look a bit nicer and breed them together to make nicer offspring. There is no natural selection in captivity. Even if you take 2 animals from the exact same locality, what is to say that those two particular animals would have ever bred?

You can not be a purist and keep wild animals in your home. If you truely want to be purist, leave the animals in their natural habitat, not in one created by you. Pretty simple.

This is captivity girls and boys. We play god because in this instance, we are god/nature. We pick what food items to feed, we provide their water, we are in control of their heat, we pick who breeds with who, and we incubate their eggs and care for the offspring. Nothing natural about any of that.

**Aaron_S** · 04-04-12, 07:04 AM

Quote:

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.