Piebald Amazons ...anybody got any by chance? - Page 9

BWSmith · 01-21-04, 11:00 AM

I am actually against intentional inbreeding. I like haveing a diverse bloodline. It is mainly siblingxsibling and offspringxparent linebreeding that I have aproblem with.

I would still love someone to do a study on captive populations.

Invictus · 01-21-04, 12:46 PM

I personally think the study has been done, and the proof is in the pudding. I do know SEVERAL breeders, not just the ones who post in these threads, who do intentionally sibling breed, or parent x offspring breed, and no ill effects whatsoever have been found. I fail to see how captive vs. wild changes anything about the science of pairing up alleles though. Strong alleles make for strong offspring. I've long advocated the standpoint that the reason why weak alleles are introduced in the first place is because in captivity, the weak are afforded the ability to grow big and "strong", and reproduce, whereas in the wild, they wouldn't live to see their first meal. The problem is, even though they seem to have grown to be strong, their genetics are often still weak.

JuliusSqueezer · 01-21-04, 12:54 PM

Actually...I am fully aware that it happens from time to time with little or no ill effects. But to what degree are ill effects acceptable? How does it benefit the animal ittself? How do we know how many generations deep the inbreeding has already taken place? How do we know how many generations of inbreeding will continue after we sell our offspring? How do we really know that the ones that seem healthy really are? Snakes hide illness very well.

I'm not saying Jeff is an idiot. This is my first exchange with him as best as I can remember...but the whole outbreeding depression argument of his is totally irrelevant to this discussion as it does not apply in any way to the natural history of these animals nor any other animal that has not been translocated to an area where breeding behaviour and schedules differ from that from where they originated. Corallus Hortulanus is the most widely distributed and probably the most prolific despite their slow growth to sexual maturity and small litter size of all neotropical snakes. They are way up on the speedy & mobile side of the boid scale and there is absolutly no evidence of any methodical or frequent inbreeding and yet...they are an extremely hardy species and despite their demanding husbandry are really quite hard to kill. I took in a pair of rescues once that were hidden from a kid's parents in his closet forgotten about for seven months while the kid sat in jail. During this seven months, they had no light, no humidity, no water and no food. When the kid's g/f remembered they were there, she went and got them and I ended up with them after a round of "pass the buck" When I got them, they were like dried shoe leather and barely able to move. The male came back within a few weeks but the female was a different story. Every breath she took for 2 months, I was convinced was her last....but she held on and pulled through and within a year both were fully recovered and up for adoption. What does this have to do with anything? ...well...these snakes are doing fine with their olympic sized genepool and I just don't think it's right to go filling it with dirt. I doubt any genetically unfit animal would have ever pulled out of the mess those animals were in.

BWSmith · 01-21-04, 01:07 PM

Quote:

I personally think the study has been done, and the proof is in the pudding. I do know SEVERAL breeders, not just the ones who post in these threads, who do intentionally sibling breed, or parent x offspring breed, and no ill effects whatsoever have been found.

The problem that I see with taking the word of breeders regarding this is that it is thier livelyhood. That would be like asking a tobacco company 20 years ago if cigarettes are bad for you. Also, those are observations and not research. I will take many breeders word on husbandry issues, but when it a question that affects sales, the answer will always be in their favor.

MouseKilla · 01-21-04, 03:04 PM

Here we go with the "ethics" of breeding techniques again. What a bunch of BS.

Ethics only apply to wild populations because they are the only ones that really have an impact on the ecosystem. If I inbreed my snakes till they get they're legs back it doesn't do anyone any harm, they're captive animals and their problems can only harm captive populations. Now the part that everyone is missing it seems is that those captive populations have zero ecological relevance. The only damage that comes from any kind of bad breeding is damage to the breeder's pocket and it's a given that he doesn't want that. If we're gonna talk about what produces the biggest, healthiest, most prolific captive animals then that may be worth a debate but pretending this is a matter of genetic righteousness is ridiculous.

JuliusSqueezer · 01-21-04, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Invictus
I personally think the study has been done, and the proof is in the pudding. I do know SEVERAL breeders, not just the ones who post in these threads, who do intentionally sibling breed, or parent x offspring breed, and no ill effects whatsoever have been found.

umm ok...explain crap like this then:

Also, one female albino boa, BCI (one eyed). Perfectly healthy. Plus one =
male het for albino.
Both snakes are 1.5 years old. With this pair you could produce albinos =
and hets in about 2 to 3 years.=20
I want to sell these as a pair.=20
Price 1100 euros for the pair.

Ads like this are all too common and it disturbs me greatly that there are humans alive on this planet that are that ignorant and/or uncaring.

People all too often justify unethical practices by shrugging it off with..."I know others who do it and never had a problem" What about all the others that have been honest and reported their problems? Don't they count for something. Not having problems and not REPORTING or ADMITTING problems are two different things. And then again...maybe some haven't had any problems...YET.

JuliusSqueezer · 01-21-04, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MouseKilla
Here we go with the "ethics" of breeding techniques again. What a bunch of BS.

Ethics only apply to wild populations because they are the only ones that really have an impact on the ecosystem. If I inbreed my snakes till they get they're legs back it doesn't do anyone any harm, they're captive animals and their problems can only harm captive populations. Now the part that everyone is missing it seems is that those captive populations have zero ecological relevance. The only damage that comes from any kind of bad breeding is damage to the breeder's pocket and it's a given that he doesn't want that. If we're gonna talk about what produces the biggest, healthiest, most prolific captive animals then that may be worth a debate but pretending this is a matter of genetic righteousness is ridiculous.

WOW...I'm sorry that you feel that captive animals don't deserve to live a healthy life with all of their organs functioning properly, So you are saying that pain and suffering inflicted through genetics is ok if done in captivity? It doesn't matter that people cause their animals to be born deformed, poorly developed or if lucky in some cases dead all just in case they can pop out some that might survive even if in substandard condition? That's cruel to even think that way killah.

Invictus · 01-21-04, 03:31 PM

Julius, all of the breeders I deal with represent their animals 100% honestly. I have had offers for animals that were not exactly the "pick of the litter", and they were pitched to me with full knowledge of their problems. In the end, I decided not to take them, but if I had wanted a problematic animal for a super cheap price, I knew I could trust the person who was selling it to me.

Your little example of the one-eyed boa is becoming very tiresome. I realize that that is one example of inbreeding gone wrong, but the ORIGINAL albino boa was not very genetically strong to begin with, so your example is completely moot. These days, thanks to outcrossing and the production of hets, albino boas have a great chance of being strong, maybe even superior specimens. Just because a breeder decided to breed his one-eyed boa does not mean it was inbred, and does not mean that pairing up 2 genetically superior specimens will show any ill effects whatsoever. You're going to have to do better than that.

I've already posted a link to a very highly educated genetics source which shows that inbreeding is not harmful unless a weak allele is paired up with the same weak allele in another specimen, and that this same occurence can happen with unrelated animals. You have nothing but a BELIEF, without any scientific backup, that inbreeding is bad, wrong, and unethical. And the ad you pointed out does not occur anywhere near as often as you would like to think it does. The number of cases of pairing up superior siblings for breeding and producing superior offspring FAR outweigh any supposed evidence of inbreeding depression.

But, my stance remains the same - I will outcross most of the snakes I work with wherever humanly possible. Note that I said most.

Nett · 01-21-04, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JuliusSqueezer
umm ok...explain crap like this then:

Also, one female albino boa, BCI (one eyed). Perfectly healthy. Plus one =
male het for albino.
Both snakes are 1.5 years old. With this pair you could produce albinos =
and hets in about 2 to 3 years.=20
I want to sell these as a pair.=20
Price 1100 euros for the pair.

Ads like this are all too common and it disturbs me greatly that there are humans alive on this planet that are that ignorant and/or uncaring.

People all too often justify unethical practices by shrugging it off with..."I know others who do it and never had a problem" What about all the others that have been honest and reported their problems? Don't they count for something. Not having problems and not REPORTING or ADMITTING problems are two different things. And then again...maybe some haven't had any problems...YET.

I agree ......line breeding to this extent is just plain wrong ........I do admit that I do line breed but I have never sold a kinked or one eyed anthing implying that u can line breed them again or state that they are healthy ......

JuliusSqueezer · 01-21-04, 04:08 PM

That's great Invictus. I choose any breeder/dealer I purchase from carefully too. But I certainly have to weed through a lot of trash at times to find a good one. But then again...our standards differ a bit too so it's even harder for me I would guess. Before you jump me by twisting that into "my standards are higher" I didn't say higher...I said they differ. I just found the one eyed boa ad with a quick search. I could easily have flooded this thread into page 20 or so with posting ads of obviously inbred to the point of inferiority snake ads. I was reading a caresheet on African Housesnakes not long ago and the author was boasting about how when he got his first pair, they were breeding in the bag...soon he had a whole commune of House snakes all living together and inbreeding. He said that he finally had to pull the males out because the females were dropping clutches every 60 days and he just couldn't keep up anymore. Then his last clutch of eggs only produced 4 live snakes 3 of which were missing eyes. He guessed it was due to temp fluctuations...and maybe it was...but it sure does seem to only happen when inbreeding.

JuliusSqueezer · 01-21-04, 04:20 PM

Nett...How many generations do you "linebreed"? Do you know how many generations were "linebred" before you obtained your breeding stock? When you feel enough is enough do you take steps to ensure that the offspring that leaves your facility will not be inbred further? Too many people think that inbreeding only counts during the time they are in control of the situation. It simply isn't the case. What happened before and what happens after still counts.

djc3674 · 01-21-04, 04:35 PM

*****YYAAAAWWWWNN***** ENOUGH ALREADY GEEEEEZ!!!

I think this Julius guy is going for a page count record. My god the redundancy in this thread makes me nautious. It's obvious you all have different opinions and feelings on this issue...let it friggin go already.

MouseKilla · 01-21-04, 05:01 PM

Julius,

How aboot we try to be a little more honest about why it is we breed the animals in the first place. I don't think there is anyone that breeds snakes for the sake of the animals themselves. Whether you do it to make money or just for fun it's all one hundred percent for your own benefit not for the good of a bunch of snakes that otherwise WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST! Please tell me what good we are doing the animals by breeding them in captivity, I'd love to hear it. The truth is we do it for ourselves not the hypothetical offspring.

marisa · 01-21-04, 05:05 PM

Well there is a lot of good coming from captive breeding that has NOTHING to do with money, or human selfishness.

Lets take Blonde California Kingsnakes as an example. These snakes are a NATURAL locality and not related to the lavendar gene, or the albino gene. Adults have pure blue eyes and gorgeous colors. The locality the founding stock is from was since destroyed. No other locality in California has these kings and they are most likely extinct in the wild.

They are worth a mere 150 bucks even though their locality is now this rare. They are said to be the rarest locality of kings there is. Do you really think this guy has been breeding them for no other reason than a few 150 dollar babies each year that he probably spends more on food to produce? He is doing it for the benefit of this locality. So it won't go extinct.

Marisa

Beardonicus · 01-21-04, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MouseKilla
Here we go with the "ethics" of breeding techniques again. What a bunch of BS.

Ethics only apply to wild populations because they are the only ones that really have an impact on the ecosystem. If I inbreed my snakes till they get they're legs back it doesn't do anyone any harm, they're captive animals and their problems can only harm captive populations. Now the part that everyone is missing it seems is that those captive populations have zero ecological relevance. The only damage that comes from any kind of bad breeding is damage to the breeder's pocket and it's a given that he doesn't want that. If we're gonna talk about what produces the biggest, healthiest, most prolific captive animals then that may be worth a debate but pretending this is a matter of genetic righteousness is ridiculous.

This is the single most sickening post I've read in a looooong time. I am utterly shocked and saddened that someone would think this way.