wobble

I haven't read the 8+ page rant thread that people are referring to, and I'm not trying to turn this into another one, but I have a few points to make ...

First, though many people may not like it, Genetics Breeder raises an excellent point -- to most of those "outside" the ball python industry that I've talked to, the continued propagation of spider balls is somewhat ... Questionable, at best. I'm not talking about average Joes who don't care about animals; I'm talking about reptile or animal people (eg, veterinarians) that aren't directly involved in the "ball python" craze. I have already said it in another thread -- to those who are directly involved in an industry and encounter something every day, it becomes routine and acceptable, even if it maybe shouldn't be. (English Bulldogs and their myriad health problems are actually a great example, IMO.) The responses of the uninitiated can sometimes make us think twice about the things we take for granted, and I don't think that's a bad thing, regardless of the eventual conclusion we come to.

Second: Foschi, though I respect your opinion completely, I think it's a bit disturbing to automatically label anyone who has animal welfare concerns as PETA-esque. PETA and HSUS are opposed to all animal breeding, for any reason, period. Some of the arguments they make include the assertion that breeders don't care about animal welfare, because they continue to propagate animals with "defects" (particularly dogs). While I am not saying here that I think that we all need to stop all our spider projects cold turkey, I do think it's important to at least field the concerns of others within our community, because shunning them and labeling them as "Peta people" just feeds and reinforces the stereotypes that those organizations like to foist on us.

I mean, there are a lot of debatable things in animal husbandry ... To turn the tables around, think about how you all respond when someone comes on and starts talking about their two ball pythons that have lived happily together (in the same cage) for fifteen years ..! :O Everyone would jump him as providing poor husbandry and encourage him to separate the animals, even if they had been living together in perfect health for that long. (Note that I am NOT suggesting that people should routinely keep two pythons together -- just raising a point that a lot of things aren't so black and white, even if the community as a whole has apparently reached its consensus ...)

I made a poll awhile back to try and get a sense of what this particular community (BP.net) thinks about spiders and other morphs with "issues" (I feel as though I have seen more outcry against spiders here than anywhere else). It looks like about 25% of people will not work with them; the remaining 75% will. That's a pretty big majority that are okay with them.

One thing I was hoping to get at with that poll, which never really came up, was whether those who have a spider (and are okay with breeding them) got one before or after they knew about the wobble. One thing I have wondered is if more people would stay away if they knew about the issue before seeing a spider. I can think of two scenarios in which someone may get a spider (before knowing much about the wobble) and decide to breed it even after finding out about it: one is if they get one and the animal has no wobble at all, or a barely detectable one, and they decide based on that that the morph is really quite healthy and cannot see a reason not to propagate it. (This is, of course, the positive spider argument -- that they seem to thrive in captivity, and it's one I wouldn't argue with for a moment.)

The other, more disturbing scenario is that someone may get a spider with a moderate to severe wobble, but because the animal seems to thrive and because of the encouragement of the community, they convince themselves that it isn't really all that bad (even if the wobble does bother them on some level). I don't honestly know how many people who propagate spiders fall into category one or two (or, of course, three; that is, those who have always known about the wobble and made an informed decision to work with them anyway). I still have a few spiders of my own -- one who I will now never breed as her "wobble" has become disturbing to me; the other two who are still in rotation -- and I really vacillate about which category I currently fall in. I can honestly see both sides of the debate, and I think it is something worth keeping on the table (in a polite fashion, of course :) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I haven't read the 8+ page rant thread that people are referring to, and I'm not trying to turn this into another one, but I have a few points to make ...

First, though many people may not like it, Genetics Breeder raises an excellent point -- to most of those "outside" the ball python industry that I've talked to, the continued propagation of spider balls is somewhat ... Questionable, at best. I'm not talking about average Joes who don't care about animals; I'm talking about reptile or animal people (eg, veterinarians) that aren't directly involved in the "ball python" craze. I have already said it in another thread -- to those who are directly involved in an industry and encounter something every day, it becomes routine and acceptable, even if it maybe shouldn't be. (English Bulldogs and their myriad health problems are actually a great example, IMO.) The responses of the uninitiated can sometimes make us think twice about the things we take for granted, and I don't think that's a bad thing, regardless of the eventual conclusion we come to.

Second: Foschi, though I respect your opinion completely, I think it's a bit disturbing to automatically label anyone who has animal welfare concerns as PETA-esque. PETA and HSUS are opposed to all animal breeding, for any reason, period. Some of the arguments they make include the assertion that breeders don't care about animal welfare, because they continue to propagate animals with "defects" (particularly dogs). While I am not saying here that I think that we all need to stop all our spider projects cold turkey, I do think it's important to at least field the concerns of others within our community, because shunning them and labeling them as "Peta people" just feeds and reinforces the stereotypes that those organizations like to foist on us.

I mean, there are a lot of debatable things in animal husbandry ... To turn the tables around, think about how you all respond when someone comes on and starts talking about their two ball pythons that have lived happily together (in the same cage) for fifteen years ..! :O Everyone would jump him as providing poor husbandry and encourage him to separate the animals, even if they had been living together in perfect health for that long. (Note that I am NOT suggesting that people should routinely keep two pythons together -- just raising a point that a lot of things aren't so black and white, even if the community as a whole has apparently reached its consensus ...)

I made a poll awhile back to try and get a sense of what this particular community (BP.net) thinks about spiders and other morphs with "issues" (I feel as though I have seen more outcry against spiders here than anywhere else). It looks like about 25% of people will not work with them; the remaining 75% will. That's a pretty big majority that are okay with them.

One thing I was hoping to get at with that poll, which never really came up, was whether those who have a spider (and are okay with breeding them) got one before or after they knew about the wobble. One thing I have wondered is if more people would stay away if they knew about the issue before seeing a spider. I can think of two scenarios in which someone may get a spider (before knowing much about the wobble) and decide to breed it even after finding out about it: one is if they get one and the animal has no wobble at all, or a barely detectable one, and they decide based on that that the morph is really quite healthy and cannot see a reason not to propagate it. (This is, of course, the positive spider argument -- that they seem to thrive in captivity, and it's one I wouldn't argue with for a moment.)

The other, more disturbing scenario is that someone may get a spider with a moderate to severe wobble, but because the animal seems to thrive and because of the encouragement of the community, they convince themselves that it isn't really all that bad (even if the wobble does bother them on some level). I don't honestly know how many people who propagate spiders fall into category one or two (or, of course, three; that is, those who have always known about the wobble and made an informed decision to work with them anyway). I still have a few spiders of my own -- one who I will now never breed as her "wobble" has become disturbing to me; the other two who are still in rotation -- and I really vacillate about which category I currently fall in. I can honestly see both sides of the debate, and I think it is something worth keeping on the table (in a polite fashion, of course :) ).

---

Im going to assume you know that spiders who have severe wobbles can give us very un-noticeable wobblers. Also if they can breed, why shouldn't they. Take the drummer of def leopard. With one arm you really shouldn't drum because you have a quality that would seem unfit to the rest of the world. Did that stop him, HECK NO! He is an amazing drummer and to someone who doesn't know he has one arm, you wouldn't be able to tell by listening to the music. Most wobbley spiders breed all the same even though they have an undesirable quality, and produce amazing babies. I hate these threads because I love my spiders and they get a bad rep for no good reason.

People don't know if it 'hurts' them or not. They just say that 'if they eat and breed they aren't stressed so they must be fine'.
If an animal has problems their whole life, they obviously would be used to it after a while.

People make some pretty weird/almost interesting excuses or reasons to breed them, instead of just admitting that they wish they didn't have problems or shouldn't be breeding them.
Like I said with the enigma leopard geckos, people say a variety of different excuses.

trying to come up with an excuse that makes sense-
"It gives them personality"

just completely lying about the ones they have or that exhist-
"People ARE breeding them out of it. My uncle's dad's neighbor's friend's friend's kids dog's owner, in their hut in a swamp, made a lineage of spiders without ANY defects!"

"They eat, breed, and grow the same" (showing what the person cares about)

the kind of person that admits they're wrong/doesn't care about the animals-"I'll keep spiders. I know it's wrong, and I don't care what you do."

or something irrelevant and completely oppinionated-"the spiders have ALL the best combination morphs."

or like the original reason I said, lack of self control/impulse buying-"look at what the spider gene has done! How could we live without it?" (obviously not remembering the time before ANY morphs were bred.)

or, like someone above said, just trying to cover up for it after they bought it not knowing-
"Mine doesn't have extreme problems. You have no proof of the problems ever being in a severe form.

one of the weirdest/most exaggerative-
"They got the first spider out of the wild and it's a dominant trait. If they hadn't removed it, there would be a whole colony in the wild!"

With all the other non-problematic morphs, nobody has a good reason. Try thinking of before the albino ball python. People wouldn't have imagined a spider, or any other morph, even after you described it to them.
That's why it should be so easy not to buy animals with problems. Just pretend it's not there. People obviously have a very hard time doing that, and it's bad. It really shows when people buy a baby of a huge snake or fish, planning to sell it after it gets too big, then after not being able to sell it, release it into the wild.
I know it's not the same exact situation, but they are both examples of impulse buying.

That video is a perfect example