Ethics of breeding Genetic Mutations

As long as our selective breeding doesn't distort or diminish the snake's natural abilities then basically all we are doing, I figure, is changing the paint job on a ball python. I mean a pied and a normal are just the same snake with a different look but nothing about how they live their lives is altered so what does it hurt.

As far as breeding morphs as a business, for me as long as the passion for these snakes still remains it's all good. You have to be smart and pay attention to your bottom line or I wouldn't think any bigger breeder could stay in business. There are some though that the dollar signs get way more interesting than the snakes and that bothers me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Dude!

I would kill for a 9 foot BP with legs - and if you can give it wings as well my life would have seen its crown. :bow: :bow: :bow:

**fades off into a daydream mumbling about dragons**


dr del

---

I think I saw one flying above Edinburgh castle....

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Colors morphs have nothing to do with the physical build or shape of an animal; they're just specific genes coding for colors.

---

We can only assume that the limit of the effect of the genetic patterns we're specifically breeding for right now aren't altering anything beyond color because we simply don't have enough information to declare the same to be fact.

Ultimately, we're all pilgrims in uncharted territory, and it's entirely to early to be establishing such articles of faith, much less to become righteously indignant about them. Until we have evidence of the full effect of each genetic combination, and can make these decisions in a reasoned and informed manner, each and every one of us is equally guilty when it comes to "playing god", regardless of how one chooses to arbitrarily scribe the lines of morality.

That said, I could really care less in the long run, since the lines of animals we're selectively breeding will eventually have never seen, and will never see, anything approaching a native habitat. In the end, we're producing will truly become a new lines of designer animals, which will end up being something other than "royal pythons", and will have their own sets of evolutionary challenges to overcome. I don't see this as inherently bad, at least not any worse than I expect the average person finds bananas, corn, dogs, horses, cats, or any of the other hundreds of examples of results of thousands of years of human-directed selective breeding.

Here's my thoughts. First of all, genetic variability in populations is a good thing because it allows for adaptation if conditions change. Visible genetic color variations are naturally occurring in the population so I don't think that they are a bad thing to breed for, necessarily. I think problems arise when those genes are linked to detrimental traits or when generations are repeatedly line bred for multiple traits. Right now because people are breeding for specific genes, there is constant outbreeding to unrelated snakes.

Compare this to dogs. They have been line bred for many many generations to create a group of animals with a large number of similar genes. You can't outcross, then breed back and get the original breed. There are too many genes involved and there's no way of choosing which get passed. The more line breeding is done, the higher the probability of recessive traits showing up if those genes happened to be in the founding animals. Some of those traits may be detrimental, some not. It's not that inbreeding makes new genes appear.

Anyway, so generally I don't think it's unethical at all. We are selecting for something different than what is selected for in nature, but those individual genes or a few genes aren't going to affect the whole population of normal snakes. You breed a pastel to a normal and you get some pastels, some normals. The normals from that are indistinguishable from any other normals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo Serpent

Honestly, I want a spider ball python, but I don't want a wobbler... why? Well the animal possesses a strong weakness. And I don't want to breed that weakness back into the species.

---

I don't particularly like to partake in the great Spider spinning debate, but it does rub me wrong when I see this statement repeated everywhere. What exactly is the "strong weakness" you speak off. All of the wobblers/spinners that I have seen, eat great and most of them that I have tracked breed great too. As far as I know they doin't die at prematurely early ages (although for all practical purposes, Spiders haven't been bred in captivity long enough to see one die of old age). With all of that said, although they are different, I have never perceived a "weakness".

My wobbling spider has major issues striking correctly. She eats, and has a great appetite, but I would most definitely call her a 'genetic weakness'.
Just my opinion.

I would think most BP breeders wouldn't breed a morph that had a physical/genetic deformity. Like with dogs/cats, responsible breeders selectively choose healthy, robust animals to better the morph.

Spiders with wobbles don't always pass on the "trait" either, but avoiding line breeding is probably a good idea. It would only be a weakness if the quality of life was compromised. Needless to say, serious wobblers wouldn't thrive in the wild but no one is breeding to replenish wild populations.

Breeding for profit on a large scale isn't necessarily a bad thing. Trusting that they are well cared for and not abused or over bred. Large scale breeders also help keep pressure off wild populations by offering wholesale pricing for captive bred animals to big buyers.