Breeding vs Morals and Ethics

[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.

[Lankyrob]

Originally Posted by CDN_Blood

Would you have liked to see another option? If so, what would it be?

As i see hybrids and intergrades in totally different lights one option in a vote wouldnt work for both situations. I think i said it all in my post tho

[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

[CDN_Blood]

Originally Posted by Lankyrob

As i see hybrids and intergrades in totally different lights one option in a vote wouldnt work for both situations. I think i said it all in my post tho

Trust me, I deliberated long and hard about what argument and options to present. In the end I actually opted to include both morals and ethics even though it's not up for debate amongst the guiding bodies. It wasn't an easy choice, which is the whole purpose of the exercise...it makes a body think

[JustBitten]

This is a tough one and my answer is different depending on the circumstances. If you are dealing with an animal that is rare both in the wild and captivity, they should never be messed with other than to do what we can to bring their (as pure as possible without too much in-breeding) numbers up. I think we have an obligation to protect the original animal.

I don't know how this would function, but I think we also need to protect localities when and where we can. I understand they are not truly different animals, but they do seem to carry a collection of unique attributes and those are worth preserving. How and to what degree is a personal question. I do like it when a breeder shows dedication to an original form, but I'm no zealot.

Where the animal is very common, there is more latitude IMO. Intergrades of certain species make more sense to me, as some are very similar to begin with, or would likely happen in the wild anyway. Generally, if they are common in captivity and as long as they are identified as intergrades, I don't see a problem.

Hybrids can be beautiful, but what is the end game plan for making them, assuming they are sterile? Just 'cause? Again comes back to their rarity and the genetic cost associated to "wasting" that opportunity to make more of something at risk.

My biggest objection is the perpetuation of health problems. This is a personal opinion and I am absolutely not taking a shot at others who feel differently, but for example, I don't think spider Royals should be bred until we know more about their neuro issues. I have a long history breeding rabbits for show (as a kid), being around the dog breeding world, and breeding horses as a teen. A neurological issue like that would end a line in most cases. That is not to say that there are no problems in those worlds, cough cough German Shepherds, cough. Whoever decided to breed dogs with tendons so short they can't stand properly should be shot at sunrise.

However, I don't understand why the snake world has determinedly continued to breed an animal with a known problem. I do understand that we have not been able to identify that they are in pain and they do function to varying degrees, but when I see a bad example of the wobble, it makes me nauseous and I have to ask myself why we're doing this to them. Just because we love their combos? I would personally need a better reason than that to breed a spider even though I love how they look.

Acting responsibly, ethically, and morally can be an awkward, uncomfortable and difficult thing, no doubt.

[lady_bug87]

I think this is a really good question and may give a lot of people food for thought. I have voted as well. I am very interested in the results

Very well written Todd

[MoreliAddict]

Most people keep snakes for amusement imo, a snake living in an enclosure is not natural in the first place. Given the reason we keep them in the first place I think there's nothing wrong with hybrids as long as whatever snakes that are being produced are healthy and cared for.

It's an ethical issue, however, because many keepers don't want others to "muddy up" the gene pool.

[KORBIN5895]

Hehe. I know what everyone voted!

[FangsAnarchy]

crossing a milk snake and a rat snake or something in the same family in my opinion is not a immoral or unethical thing to do. I consider myself a member of the scientific community and I have never heard amongst my peers or superiors that hybrids are wrong. In fact a few doctors in the field of zoology are fascinated by hybrids and have tried to create a few to see where things genetically match up. Speciation means that the crosses may or may not occur in nature due to size, location, breeding habits, and mating times. Animals are not harmed and the offspring are viable and fertile with this type of cross. Seeing as no harm is done the only people to really get upset are people in the pet trade. They get upset because blood line might become muddied up. Something might be passed off as a corn snake when it is actually a rat/corn hybrid. So that deals with ethics and what is socially acceptable. To this day I still don’t understand why the snake community has such an issue with these types of crosses. Almost every other animal hobby out there contains crosses. Dog breeding, cat breeding, horse breeding, fish breeding, goats, cows, ducks, chickens… Not to mention some of these crosses happen naturally or are for the greater good of the animal. For example a dog that has a great dane sire and a collie mother is less likely to have the heath problems that a pure great dane would have. Hence lengthening the animals life and providing a better quality of life since there is no way the animal is inbred and the gene pool stays fresh.
Lets start with 100 unrelated corn snakes 50 male 50 female
If we take 1 male or female from each litter than after generation 2 we have 50 clean unrelated corns
Next generation 25
Next 12
6
3
Now we have a problem. Everything although distantly is related. We could inbreed which could cause health problems since genes work in pairs and the animal is more likely to inherit the defected gene. There are no more corn snakes. You had the last 100. Should you inbreed and risk passing on sickness and deformity or should you bring in some fresh genes from a closely related species? Personally I am strongly against inbreeding and would rather see the hybrid. Just my thoughts, sorry to offend.

Also as a side note hybrids are sterile crosses are not.
Horse x Donkey = not the same thing so steril
Wolf x Labradore = same thing and fertile (as a cladist i feel dometicus and lupus are incorrect but...)

[KORBIN5895]

Originally Posted by FangsAnarchy

crossing a milk snake and a rat snake or something in the same family in my opinion is not a immoral or unethical thing to do. I consider myself a member of the scientific community and I have never heard amongst my peers or superiors that hybrids are wrong. In fact a few doctors in the field of zoology are fascinated by hybrids and have tried to create a few to see where things genetically match up. Speciation means that the crosses may or may not occur in nature due to size, location, breeding habits, and mating times. Animals are not harmed and the offspring are viable and fertile with this type of cross. Seeing as no harm is done the only people to really get upset are people in the pet trade. They get upset because blood line might become muddied up. Something might be passed off as a corn snake when it is actually a rat/corn hybrid. So that deals with ethics and what is socially acceptable. To this day I still don’t understand why the snake community has such an issue with these types of crosses. Almost every other animal hobby out there contains crosses. Dog breeding, cat breeding, horse breeding, fish breeding, goats, cows, ducks, chickens… Not to mention some of these crosses happen naturally or are for the greater good of the animal. For example a dog that has a great dane sire and a collie mother is less likely to have the heath problems that a pure great dane would have. Hence lengthening the animals life and providing a better quality of life since there is no way the animal is inbred and the gene pool stays fresh.
Lets start with 100 unrelated corn snakes 50 male 50 female
If we take 1 male or female from each litter than after generation 2 we have 50 clean unrelated corns
Next generation 25
Next 12
6
3
Now we have a problem. Everything although distantly is related. We could inbreed which could cause health problems since genes work in pairs and the animal is more likely to inherit the defected gene. There are no more corn snakes. You had the last 100. Should you inbreed and risk passing on sickness and deformity or should you bring in some fresh genes from a closely related species? Personally I am strongly against inbreeding and would rather see the hybrid. Just my thoughts, sorry to offend.

Also as a side note hybrids are sterile crosses are not.
Horse x Donkey = not the same thing so steril
Wolf x Labradore = same thing and fertile (as a cladist i feel dometicus and lupus are incorrect but...)

So what your saying is eradicating the sub species is better than inbreeding?

[FangsAnarchy]

Yes, if it would happen in nature then yes 100% preserving a subspecies for no other reason than for the pet trade is just selfish. We lose sub species daily to speciation. Again, I know my thoughts are not shared by most.

[exwizard]

Originally Posted by shaunyboy

being honest i have no issues with either,as long as its NOT producing snakes with health issues

intergrades i would not have included as they can and do happen in the wild

re morphs
again as long as their are not a lot of health issues,then i have no problem with it

cheers shaun

Ive done some thinking about this for a while. I am in agreement with Shaun on this one. I have no problems with hybrids as long as there are no resulting health issues and the breeder is forthright and upfront in explaining to the prospective buyer that it is a hybrid.

[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!