Breeding Ethics

I only ask this question as a "retired" German Shepherd Dog breeder.

Aren't there any ethics involved in BP breeding? It seems as if everyone that owns one wants to breed it and come up with new morphs, etc..

Is this a common practice? Is it encouraged to breed and raise snakes for profit? I'm a new BP owner, and am CERTAINTLY not slamming anyone. I'm excited about the possibility of future breedings and the purchasing of morphs and hets for breeding purposes.

I guess the fact that bp's are such great starter snakes make them ok to breed the heck out of because they'll be easy to sell.

Once again, asking for opinions and general acceptable guidelines, not slamming or flaming. :)

Ken

I'm not really sure what your question is?

Are you expressing a concern about the numbers of ball pythons being produced by captive breeding?

When you compare the several thousand captive bred ball pythons produced each year by private breeders to the hundreds of thousands of wild ball pythons exported out of Africa each year, captive bred ball pythons don't even scratch the surface.

Ball pythons are a very popular pet snake and their popularity increases each year. The demand for them is huge right now (fueled in part by the morphs) and the numbers of private breeders are increasing to meet that demand. In the future if the demand lessens, I am sure the number of private breeders will decrease.

I don't see the ethical dilemma?

-adam

(Qoute): "I guess the fact that bp's are such great starter snakes make them ok to breed the heck out of because they'll be easy to sell".



Well, As Adam stated in the thread above it is based on supply and demand, otherwise their wouldn't be a market out there. Any reputable breeder does hold ethics as a high priority otherwise you would be getting under-fed, mite infested, dehydrated, dead on arrival BP's. Which is a bad business. As far as bredding the heck out of them I highly doubt that. It is my understading that BP are seasonal breeders (Adam is that correct info?) so you really can not breed the heck out of them. The Market for BP's is based on "The next big thing" so morph's will continue to drive the market on these truly amazing creatures, but the beauty of it is only a select portion of the breeders will be able to obtain theses new morphs. Which in return keeps the numbers down and the prices up. I hope this can answer your question.

Adam,

Again, was just wondering if there was one... not particularly stating THAT there was one. One of the questions I guess I had that I didn't state was: Is there any possible genetic problems with some of the morphs. i.e., could morphs (especially inbred ones) be more prone to disease. I realize a lot of these questions are un-answerable because a lot of the newer morphs are just that... too new.

Was just wanting some opinions. Almost knew in the back of my head that this would open up a can of snakes... errr. worms that is. :) (Although this wasn't my goal)

Ken

I don't think it's a "can of worms" .... You had a valid question which on a message board will inevitable stir a discussion. That's what we're here for, right?

Forrest - It's not so much that ball pythons are "seasonal" breeders ... they can be bred at any point during the year ... but, they will only breed once a year ... if that.

Ken - No, there have been no wide spread health associated problems when breeding ball python morphs. Real breeders that are breeding these snakes for passion and money use every opportunity to outcross their bloodlines as much as possible. But, snakes being lower ordered organisms, their genetics are not as complicated as higher ordered animals (like mammals) and not as susceptible to defect and health problems. If you look at corn snakes (which have been bred in captivity for what seems like forever), some strains have been inbred for as many as 13 generations with no ill side-effects .... ball python breeding is in it's mere infancy comparably with only a handful of captive bred generations.

-adam

I remember when I first started reading up on the morphs... there was a breeder who had gotten ahold of an unproven line of Axanthic. He bred it, and said, "I can't wait to breed his offspring back to him to see if this is genetic." I felt a little... what's the word... icky when I read that. I understand now that to prove a morph, it's easier and necessary to inbreed at first. And like Adam said, they're a primative species... there's not much to mess up. I know a lot of breeders who will keep on inbreeding, but for me I'm breeding all my HETS to normals to have a healthier stock to work with. If you want to get into morphs and are concerned about inbreeding, research the breeder. There are plenty out there now. If the demand is for outbred specimen, then that will in turn force inbreeders to start outbreeding if they want any business. It's one of my selling points.

As for the whole "breeding for profit" thing... c'mon on. There are such things as moral capitalists :-S I think we're doing a good thing here. We're keeping wild pythons where they belong, selectively breeding really pretty snakes (even normals), and providing for our families at the same time. Cumbaya.

Ken,

Learned a lot on your site about genetics. It all is very interesting, and as a new herper, I'm just starving for more information! :)

Thanks for providing even more. I'll plan on talking to you and Adam and a few other breeders to find out more about hets and how I can get involved.

There are potentially tricky ethical questions in ball python breeding already.

Possible hets for one. There is good evidence that some recessive mutations have co-dominant tendencies. In Burmese pythons some het granites have the puzzle pattern and some het green’s have the cinnamon pattern but other hets for these morphs look completely normal. In ball pythons the only morph I've heard about with good evidence of this is piebald where a disproportionately high number of het piebalds have the wide white belly (close to 3 scales wide) with strait dark marks on the edges. Not all het pieds have it or it would be considered a co-dominant morph. There are also some presumed normals with those markings but no where near the rate at which it's seen in het piebalds (70-80% from informed post's I've seen).

Where this gets ethically tricky is when selling possible hets. If there is anything to the marker then the possible hets with it have a better chance of being hets than the possible hets without the marker. Who decides who gets the markered possible hets? A breeder could keep all the markered possible het females back for themselves or their friends and only sell the unmarkered ones which would still be possible hets because not all hets have the marker but the odds would be less than expected. The marker greatly complicates marketing of possible het pieds so I don't think it necessarily says anything bad about the early pied breeders that they didn't post info about it publicly for years and years. I think some of them used strategies like promoting selling entire clutches of possible hets together to avoid having to pick for their customers who where uninformed of the marker. Still there was potential for abuse and I'm glad that the information about the marker eventually became public. Now each potential purchaser can read up about it and make up their own mind if they want to pay extra for a markered possible het or if they believe the marker is purely random save some money on an unmarkered possible het.

Another similar ethical gray area is in regards to dissemination of information about the nature of new morphs. Some spider balls apparently have a tendency to roll their heads back. Information is still sketch as to how common this is and if it is something they tend to outgrow or not. Apparently it hasn't hurt their breeding ability as a group. Again this information was not made public for years and years into the spider project. Should potential (and actual) buyers have been made aware of this issue? Even now there is a lot of mystery as to if a homozygous spider is possible and what it is like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

There are potentially tricky ethical questions in ball python breeding already.

Possible hets for one. There is good evidence that some recessive mutations have co-dominant tendencies. In Burmese pythons some het granites have the puzzle pattern and some het green’s have the cinnamon pattern but other hets for these morphs look completely normal. In ball pythons the only morph I've heard about with good evidence of this is piebald where a disproportionately high number of het piebalds have the wide white belly (close to 3 scales wide) with strait dark marks on the edges. Not all het pieds have it or it would be considered a co-dominant morph. There are also some presumed normals with those markings but no where near the rate at which it's seen in het piebalds (70-80% from informed post's I've seen).

Where this gets ethically tricky is when selling possible hets. If there is anything to the marker then the possible hets with it have a better chance of being hets than the possible hets without the marker. Who decides who gets the markered possible hets? A breeder could keep all the markered possible het females back for themselves or their friends and only sell the unmarkered ones which would still be possible hets because not all hets have the marker but the odds would be less than expected. The marker greatly complicates marketing of possible het pieds so I don't think it necessarily says anything bad about the early pied breeders that they didn't post info about it publicly for years and years. I think some of them used strategies like promoting selling entire clutches of possible hets together to avoid having to pick for their customers who where uninformed of the marker. Still there was potential for abuse and I'm glad that the information about the marker eventually became public. Now each potential purchaser can read up about it and make up their own mind if they want to pay extra for a markered possible het or if they believe the marker is purely random save some money on an unmarkered possible het.

Another similar ethical gray area is in regards to dissemination of information about the nature of new morphs. Some spider balls apparently have a tendency to roll their heads back. Information is still sketch as to how common this is and if it is something they tend to outgrow or not. Apparently it hasn't hurt their breeding ability as a group. Again this information was not made public for years and years into the spider project. Should potential (and actual) buyers have been made aware of this issue? Even now there is a lot of mystery as to if a homozygous spider is possible and what it is like.

---

Hey Randy ... How about posting those spread sheet? :D

-adam

I have a normal female that I bought a couple years ago that has the white belly and the black edging... and she has this off-white marble coloration for the rest of her belly... slightly dark, slightly yellow... might be on to something here...

I dpo think that anyone who wishes to breed any animal, needs to think about the demand for the offspring being produced. I have done this; I know enough people already, that would want a baby BP from my female, and I would be prepared to keep any unsold offspring for their entire lives.
Hets are dicey; there are some reputable breeders out there, but I would be hesitant to buy a het from someone without a good reputation. But I never plan on breeding morphs, just the normals I have.
Even the "normal" looking offspring from the morph breeders' couplings, are valuable; you won't find hets selling at the swap meet for $20!

I was doing some research regarding head wobbling and i found out that this anomoly is often seen with Spiders. Apprently, the wobbling can be inherited and most spiders have this problems. People are assuming that its a gentic flaw, so some are arguing whether its ethical to continue breeding these beautiful but 'defected?' creatures.

Just my 2c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraniumz

Apprently, the wobbling can be inherited and most spiders have this problems.

---

That statement is TOTALLY FALSE. Just another example of the bad information being passed around on the internet by people that have an agenda to discredit a project to people that don't have a clue.

Yes, some spiders exhibit a head wobble. Of the very large group of spiders and spider crosses at Daytona (probably close to 100) the general consensus is that 3 may have had some type of issue. That is far from "most spiders have this problem". The ones that do "wobble" live, eat, and breed as well as any spider.

There is no proof at all that the "wobble" is inherited/genetic. Spiders with the "wobble" can and do produce spiders that are 100% problem free. The problem could very well be developmental/environmental .... just like there is strong speculation that the amount of moisture in the incubation medium can have an effect on caramels kinking, a similar situation may be true for spiders. It could also have something to do with the fact that many people looking to make a quick buck breed their male spiders way too young (@ less than 400 grams). There is no one on the planet that has definitive proof one way or the other.

My spider does not wobble. My friends that own single or small groups of spiders all have perfectly healthy animals. I know a couple of breeders that have spiders that "wobble" (or "spin" as it's also called) but they have large breeding groups of spiders and also own many more spiders that don't.

Spiders are an amazing morph with tons of potential and probably one of the best investments you can make in ball pythons. Don't let the BS being spread around by people with personal agendas fill your head. Do your own research and please don't propagate someone elses lies as fact unless you really know what you're talking about. In my opinion that's just irresponsible.

-adam

Adam, i am not agreeing to the fact that Spiders are genetically flawed. I was merely just relaying the information i read from the internet. I never said its a fact, rather "people are assuming". But i am glad that i posted this because if i had not, then you wouldnt have answered it and corrected me. What can i say? You learn new stuff everyday.

I retract my statement saying that most spiders are defects. It was irresponsible of me but like i said i never intend to propagate and spread lies, but merely relaying infomation. Which happens to be incorrect. For that i appologise.

Quote:

---

There is no proof at all that the "wobble" is inherited/genetic. Spiders with the "wobble" can and do produce spiders that are 100% problem free. The problem could very well be developmental/environmental .... just like there is strong speculation that the amount of moisture in the incubation medium can have an effect on caramels kinking, a similar situation may be true for spiders.

---

But do you really believe that either the spider spin or the caramel kink isn't genetic? The sporadic nature with which both are seen could well indicate a developmental or environmental component but it sure sounds like both are way too common in their respective lines not to also have a genetic component. What percentage of non-caramels are kinked, maybe 1%? If 50% of the imported caramels have been kinked that comes as close to proving a genetic link as I think we are going to get. Same with the spiders. Even if the animals picked for display at Daytona where a representative sample and 3% of them spin that is way higher than spinning in non spiders (I think I've actually heard of one). Of course I think people avoided taking spinning spiders to Daytona like the plague and only a few of the most eye popping combos made it irresistible to leave them at home. So basically I'm calling BS on your post trying to give the impression that you really believe that either kinking in caramels or spinning in spiders might not be genetic.

Just a quick basic question to inject in this discussion.

Is the head wobbling in spiders or the kink in caramels seen at hatching/early in life or does it later manifest itself down the road?


~~Jo~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

But do you really believe that either the spider spin or the caramel kink isn't genetic?

---

I really believe that I can say with as much certainty that it COULD BE environmental or developmental as you can that it IS genetic.

What makes you so much better than me that your "theory" has to be fact and I am BS? What HARD DATA do you have over random postings on internet message boards and off the cuff comments by people that do ZERO breeding in large numbers (and some, zero breeding at all)? I'll tell you .... NONE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

The sporadic nature with which both are seen could well indicate a developmental or environmental component

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

but it sure sounds like both are way too common in their respective lines not to also have a genetic component.

---

What is "way too common"? How many spiders have been produced and what percentage spin? Do you know? Can you describe any pattern to the reproducibility of spiders that spin that might indicate that it is a genetic problem being passed from generation to generation? Do you have better than a guess gleamed from some post on a message board by a kid with a personal score to settle against a breeder that produces spiders? How about caramels? Do you even know how many different caramel lines there are Randy? Do you know if all or only some of the lines kink? What data do you have on the number of caramels produced to date vs. the number with kinks? Have you ever spoken to ANYONE that has had success producing large numbers of caramels without kinks by using a dryer than normal incubation medium? You sit in front of your computer and imagine theories and scenarios based on posts on message boards, but you have NO IDEA what is really going on out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

What percentage of non-caramels are kinked, maybe 1%?

---

This is the science you are using to come up with your theories? LOL ... You have no idea of all of the "unpublished" data out there. Do you think ANYONE really talks about their shortfalls, bad clutches, and defective offspring? Heck Randy, you've produced what 5 clutches of balls and everyone knows that you've seen kinked babies ... what do you think the guys that have produced 800 clutches over the last 10 years have seen? ... You really have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

If 50% of the imported caramels have been kinked that comes as close to proving a genetic link as I think we are going to get.

---

50%?????? LMAO. What is that, "kentucky windage" science? Where in the world did you pull that number from? Do you even have a clue how many caramels have actually been imported in the last 15 years? Have you ever talked to anyone that's directly imported anything? Oh, that's right, you only read posts on message boards so if you haven’t read it on a message board, you don’t have a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Even if the animals picked for display at Daytona where a representative sample and 3% of them spin that is way higher than spinning in non spiders (I think I've actually heard of one).

---

So because Randy Remmington that sits behind his computer in the middle of CO reading posts on internet message boards has only heard of one instance of a non spider spinning you are declaring yourself in the know enough to make the judgment that the percentage of spiders that spin is caused by a genetic flaw. Can you honestly call that a proper scientific method and keep a straight face?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

So basically I'm calling BS on your post trying to give the impression that you really believe that either kinking in caramels or spinning in spiders might not be genetic.

---

I could not care less what you are calling BS on. You're just some guy that reads the message boards and makes up wild theories about the ball python world based on ZERO real data. Heck most people can't even understand what you are trying to say when you post and just move on. I TALK to breeders and base my thoughts on the numbers that the large scale breeders give me in real conversations .... Could spiders spinning and caramels kinking be genetic? Sure, I have never said anything to the contrary. But there is just as much real evidence that they could also be environmental or developmental problems as genetic flaws. There is no PROOF either way, just speculation, and it sounds like your speculation is based on a partial picture.

Randy, you have no idea what I do and don't believe. Who do you think you are to tell me what I "really" believe. I guess just like you feel comfortable enough to pound your speculative theories all over the internet as fact, you now feel comfortable enough to everyone what I really believe. NICE. You have a view that is not the same as mine, and that's fine ... do what you want with that. But, please tell me that you don’t seriously think you know what I do and don’t believe now? That’s a stretch even for you!

Before this gets more personal than it already has, why don’t we save these good people the suffering of watching our petty little squabble yet again and take this offline. Please feel free to call me anytime on my cell at 301-922-4959 (collect if you’d like) and I’ll tell you what I really believe over the phone and then you can decide if it’s really BS or not.

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankykeno

Just a quick basic question to inject in this discussion.

Is the head wobbling in spiders or the kink in caramels seen at hatching/early in life or does it later manifest itself down the road?


~~Jo~~

---

Jo,

Kinking in caramels is seen at birth ... The spinning in spiders sometimes starts right out of the egg and other times you won't see it until the animal comes close to sexual maturity.

-adam

Kinking I get. But what is spinning?


Forrest

Great post Adam ... Bravo ... http://www.snakebytesforum.com/images/bigtup.gif

Quote:

---

What makes you so much better than me that your "theory" has to be fact and I am BS?

---

Nothing, that's what bothers me so much about you. I suspect you know better numbers than I what is going on yet you make posts that imply the opposite. For example, I suspect you knew that my guess that albinos are regularly imported was true but you implied that it wasn't. In this case I believe the evidence is very strong that there is a genetic component to kinking in caramels and spinning in spiders, I believe you are very capable of understanding that evidence, yet you feel at liberty to make posts implying that you don't think it's genetic even if you will not come out and say as much. Sure you can hide behind the confusion of why it sometimes skips generation and that there quite possibly is an environmental component also but there is certainly also a genetic component that I believe you understand and still will not admit.

Quote:

---

Do you even know how many different caramel lines there are Randy? Do you know if all or only some of the lines kink? What data do you have on the number of caramels produced to date vs. the number with kinks? Have you ever spoken to ANYONE that has had success producing large numbers of caramels without kinks by using a dryer than normal incubation medium?

---

The 50% of imported caramels being kinked was something I saw Ralph Davis post when I first learned of the caramel kinking problem on his forum after years of the morph being around but still curiously underrepresented. Why don't you fill in the answers to your other questions as I don't know them, I suspect you do, and everyone should? Has the Maslin line shown kinking? I know there was speculation it might not but when it was never mentioned again after the eggs hatched I thought it probably did. Has the dryer incubation been able to help? Your question seems to me to imply that it does and I suspect you know the answer but are you going to share the facts or just imply something that you might even know not to be true? Are there any lines that haven’t produced kinks or is that data you would rather not share while leaving us with the impression that there are? The sample size of people I know who have produced caramels is very very small but over half kinked. What % of kinks are you aware of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington
Even if the animals picked for display at Daytona where a representative sample and 3% of them spin that is way higher than spinning in non spiders (I think I've actually heard of one).

---

Quote:

---

So because Randy Remmington that sits behind his computer in the middle of CO reading posts on internet message boards has only heard of one instance of a non spider spinning you are declaring yourself in the know enough to make the judgment that the percentage of spiders that spin is caused by a genetic flaw. Can you honestly call that a proper scientific method and keep a straight face?

---

I've only heard of one non spider demonstrating spinning similar to the spiders. I may not have seen many spiders but I’ve seen enough non spiders to know that spinning isn’t common. I'm pointing out that even if only 3% of spiders spin it's many many times more common in spiders than in non spiders and hence I believe almost certainly has a genetic component. Unless spider and caramel breeders somehow treat there eggs and hatchlings differently than other ball pythons then the variable is almost certainly genetics.

Yes, I've only hatched about 100 ball pythons but none of the surviving ones have been kinked. I believe the kinking I've seen in babies that didn't survive was due to incubation environmental factors. I've never even seen a living kinked normal ball python in hundreds of ch or other breeder's cb. Maybe they throw them away in Africa but I still don't believe the occur anywhere nearly as often as in caramel lines.

You have first hand experience with spiders and talk to even bigger spider breeders. Let us know what percentage of spiders you believe will start spinning at some point in their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Nothing, that's what bothers me so much about you. I suspect you know better numbers than I what is going on yet you make posts that imply the opposite.

---

So because I know better numbers and I post the opposite of what you do, I am "BS" as you called it in your other post? That makes a ton of sense Randy. Why am I not entitled to an opinion that is different than yours? You're saying that because my views aren't the same as yours, I'm lying and you're righteous? Give me a break.

As far as the numbers of imported albinos go … LOL … I know what you’re talking about, and it goes directly to my point … Why do you give so much credibility to half cocked jobbers that will post ANYTHING to inflate their egos and impress the yougins. Do you really believe that some redneck (no offense to my good friends from the south :D ) that’s flipping 100 CH imports a year out of a closet in a spare bedroom knows anything about anything? Why are you so quick to take any post that agrees with any one of your points as fact and any post to the contrary of your views as BS?

Have you ever considered the fact that the "numbers" that you've read about in posts on the internet were exaggerated figures posted by breeders to cast a negative light on projects that they are not working with and attracting potential customers to projects that they are? What if that were true and now you're running around promoting those numbers as fact all over the internet ... it really makes you look like a pawn. And let me tell you, those breeders chuckle every time they see your posts, all the way to the bank.

I know you like to see breeders disclose information over the internet for all to see, but what I don't think you've considered is that many times the information that is "disclosed" isn't really true. It's skewed to promote an agenda. You have no idea how political the market really is.

More CB and CH normals spin, are kinked, and have a ton of other problems and get thrown in the freezer than most people can imagine. Of course high dollar morphs are not going to be frozen off if people spent 2 or 3 or 4 years working on a project. Basing theories on "100's" of baby ball pythons is nothing until you've seen thousands and tens of thousands and what is simply "tossed" because it has problems.

Let me make this clear for you Randy ... beyond the rumor, innuendo, and political agendas, with all of the collections that I am lucky enough to visit containing thousands of ball pythons with hundreds of morphs and all of the breeders that I talk to each week producing these animals in numbers, I have yet to see any hard evidence that there is a genetic problem with either spiders or caramels. I am open minded enough to understand that it is surely possible, but until I see better evidence one way or the other, my beliefs are my beliefs no matter what you want to think.

If you want to uncover the great ball python conspiracies out there, you are really barking up the wrong tree ... LOL. This is just the stuff that they want you to know .... the "secrets" in the business would blow your mind.

-adam

Thanks Adam. I was just wondering about that bit. Very interesting thread to read btw.


~~Jo~~

Hmmm I just thought I'd stick my two cents in here allowing for my total newbieness.


Just seems common sense tho if you breed any creature from the most evolved down to the most basic, at some point given enough pairings and their offspring you are going to get some offspring that aren't "perfect". It happens. Does this automatically mean that the parents or their resultant offspring are genetically defective? It could, but it could just as easily be many other factors at work, nothing can be assumed.

Without the benefit of intensive genetic study by an independent source, as far as I'm concerned it's just not something anyone can definitively say one way or the other.


~~Jo~~

Quote:

---

Why are you so quick to take any post that agrees with any one of your points as fact and any post to the contrary of your views as BS?

---

Based on the track record of the person posting it and the amount of corroborating evidence. I didn't have any reason not to believe the poster about there being at least 5 albinos imported to the US this year. It agreed with information I had seen in the past and the only voice against it was yours, which I have come to suspect as skewed to promote an agenda.

Of course I know I've been wrong in the past and don't automatically feel that any opinion other than mine is BS. For example, my theory that pastel and cinnamon might have been alleles. I thought the evidence supported there being a fair chance they would be but I knew there was also a considerable chance I was wrong and you where right. I didn’t call BS on your belief that they would be separate genes and time showed you to be right on that one.

I just believe that in this case there is strong evidence that spinning in spiders and kinking in caramels isn't random. I believe your posts are crafted to give the impression that these problems show up just as often in normals (looks like that's what frankykeno got out of it). If you are willing to come out and say that there is no evidence of genetics in the spider line causing them to tend to spin or in the caramel line causing them to tend to kink in spite of your direct contact with large projects for both mutations then I guess time will tell who is being disingenuous to promote an agenda.

Adam is very upfront about the kinking and spinning being a possiblility. I have gone to his shop to look at caramels (as they are my favorites) and he explained the possiblity of kinking in caramels and several possible reasons for it. (Since there is no absolute proof of any one factor being the cause) I very much appreciated his candidness, and am still going to pursue my love of caramels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

It agreed with information I had seen in the past and the only voice against it was yours, which I have come to suspect as skewed to promote an agenda.

---

I'm promoting an agenda now?

Randy, you are the one starting posts on every internet forum that will have you (except NERDS interestingly enough) that there are genetic problems with ball pythons but you give ZERO direct evidence to back your claims. The best you can do is reference posts from people that you've never even spoken to and that are in many instances obviously promoting an agenda of their own. You repeat your speculative theories as if they are factual over and over with such voracity that you've really become a little anti-morph propaganda machine.

All I am doing is challenging the basis of your views. I think that you have been manipulated by some very angry people that have agendas against some of the bigger breeders. I believe that there is as much evidence to suggest that some of these problems could be environmental or developmental as there is to suggest that they may be genetic. I've never once stated that any of these problems were not genetic, only that I can point to just as much evidence to show that they may not be that I have reasonable doubt. You seem so hell bent on these things being genetic problems that I really have to question your intentions.

You are right, time will tell ... I think you have a lot of nerve to call me disingenuous sir. You don't know me and have no idea what I am about. I LOVE ball pythons, they are my life 24 hours a day. As someone that loves these animals I promote and evangelize the joy of keeping them, raising them, and breeding them. I don't think you can muster the imagination necessary to understand how passionate I am about royals and this hobby in general. When I see something stated about this hobby that I don't agree with or that I feel is incorrect, I'm going to challenge it, simple as that.

I think that people are entitled to and should hear both sides of any discussion. That’s as close as I get to any “agenda” Randy.

-adam

Quote:

---

I'm promoting an agenda now?

---

Yes. As best I can tell your agenda is that us peons shouldn't ask any public questions and should be happy with whatever information the big breeders decide we need to know. Just shut up and buy!

Quote:

---

Randy, you are the one starting posts on every internet forum that will have you (except NERDS interestingly enough) that there are genetic problems with ball pythons but you give ZERO direct evidence to back your claims.

---

I can't remember the last time I started a thread, I'm just willing to participate in discussions you would much rather not have in public. This thread was started to ask about ethical issues in breeding. I believe that the possibility of a sporadic morph marker and it's implication for selling possible hets and also the possibility of genetic problems associated with morphs are the biggest ethical issues in breeding ball pythons.

Should I go find the NERD forum and ask for a password? I'll keep asking the same questions and participating in the same discussions. Personally I don't think they are anti NERD issues but they are certainly touchy subjects and based on your reaction I suspect they _might_ be offensive to NERD. Out of courtesy I don't think I should participate on a site they are paying for.

Quote:

---

All I am doing is challenging the basis of your views.

---

No, you are succeeding in convincing people that kinking in caramel and spinning in spiders has a good chance of not being genetic.

Sure you have a right to not like that I haven't spent the money years ago to have worked with these morphs long enough to have my own data. You also suggest that I should call up the big breeders and ask them personally for the data that they have refused to post so far. My opinion is if they wanted to tell us what percentage of their caramels are kinked or what percentage of spiders eventually spin they would have posted it already.

I have talked to the one Colorado breeder that I'm aware of producing caramels and his small first year production was at least half kinked. I'll see him again in a couple weeks and ask for an update. I don't see the need to waste Ralph Davis' or Camlon’s time calling them to confirm the posts they have already made of similar results. I feel confident that there is reliable public evidence of a significant tendency for caramels to kink. How can this not be genetic? Even if dry incubation can compensate for it why do caramels need drier incubation than other lines?

Quote:

---

When I see something stated about this hobby that I don't agree with or that I feel is incorrect, I'm going to challenge it, simple as that.

---

Me too. That's why I called you out on this one. The disingenuous part is that I still don’t believe that you believe that either problem isn’t genetic. I just think your agenda is to cast doubt and get the public to believe it isn’t genetic.

Quote:

---

I think that people are entitled to and should hear both sides of any discussion. That’s as close as I get to any “agenda” Randy.

---

Great, so you won’t be suggesting I stop posting my side anymore?
I'm not at all anti morph. I'm not even anti caramel or spider. I just think this discussion should have happened years ago and by now there should be little question left regarding the nature of kinking in caramels or spinning in spiders. I still intend to work with both but I want to go forward knowing as much as I can about the issues and I think all the forum readers deserve that. I still don’t know if spinning spiders tend to outgrow it or not as I’ve heard conflicting info on that subject. Maybe in a decade or two I’ll have the data that the big breeders are already sitting on regarding percentages with the problem and if there is a homozygous spider and what it’s like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Yes. As best I can tell your agenda is that us peons shouldn't ask any public questions and should be happy with whatever information the big breeders decide we need to know. Just shut up and buy!

---

Not once was I ever pressured into stop asking questions and just buy a snake or get out. Adam took time (on a weekend no less) to allow me to come into his shop and ask him anything I wanted. He even brought up topics that I was unaware about and gave me a lot of information to consider. He truely cares about his animals and wants to help in anyway he can.

Sorry, that came across wrong. From all reports I've read Adam has excellent snakes and is great to do business with and I'm not at all surprised that he told you about the kinking and if he even told you about other issues that aren't yet public that would also not surprise me.

I was referring to Internet discussions. Adam and I have a long ongoing debate as to if sensitive issues like this should be discussed in public. It looks to me like he prefers leaving the dissemination of such information to one on one private discussions between breeders and potential customers. My problem with this is that I've seen evidence that this information doesn't always get passed on. Maybe the first breeder waited until they where darn sure about the problem to start discussing it (I think the evidence should have been discussed along the way). I've seen posts that indicate that some breeders don't fully understand the problems even if they wanted to inform their customers. Public debate allows us as a hobby to arrive at the best answers as quickly as possible. Even once one on one information starts to flow there is no guarantee the secondary breeders will pass it on. Jeremy Stone's initial post on the subject leads me to believe he didn't know about the spinning in spiders until he saw it in his first production (also documenting the generation skip that is possible). Even now that these problems are occasionally discussed publicly there was a recent post by someone who hadn't heard of it until their new spider arrived spinning. If people keep starting threads asking about this sort of thing and we still don't agree on the answers I don't think it's a resolved or over exposed subject where I should stop contributing.

It's not that I don't think Adam loves ball pythons or is enthusiastic about their care. If anything he takes it too seriously and seems to me to be willing to compromise what I believe is a clear right to the public discussion of any potentially negative information to try to protect they hobby. If the hobby where more open to start with it wouldn't have secrets that need protecting. Perhaps a few morphs would have started out a little lower had we known then what we are starting to know now but it would have been a more fair market between then and their current prices now that the basic news is finally out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Perhaps a few morphs would have started out a little lower had we known then what we are starting to know now but it would have been a more fair market between then and their current prices now that the basic news is finally out.

---

Figures.

-adam

I do not claim to know about python breeding or genetics more than anyone here.
The fact that environmental factors can cause what looks like a genetic defect confuses this issue. A puppy born with a non-closed suture in the skull is assumed to be genetic. But a snake can have defects from not being incubated correctly.
If half the clutch is incubated correctly and the other half is not, and the inproperly incubated clutch hatched with defects and the properly done one didn't, then you would know environmental.
The problem is that a person would need to breed and hatch loads to get an accurate figure. I have a spider that head shakes. I have not heard it called spinning.
If I could get a male that spins, then I would most likely breed to see if a percentage of the offspring have the defect. If it is proven to be handed down from spinning parents, and clutches from normal spider parents are hatched at the same time, in the same incubaters and come out normal.. it woul dbe the start of accurate information.
*I* assumed that it was genetic, not thinking at all about conditions during hatching. I bred dogs, and bettas, and seahorses, and none of those have that ability so I didn't even consider it.
I was told it was genetic, by a breeder. However, I was mainly assuming that it was not infectious, and the only other variable would have been genetic.
Adam, do you know people who have spinning spiders currantly? And have they breed them and the offspring normal or spinners?
I really want to delve into this, as the vets immediately thought she was infected with something having never heard of it before. They were all for immediate death and necropsy. I happen to really like the little girl.
Thanks, and please know everything i am saying is merely discussion, not attacks. If I ask a question it is because I genuinely want to know the answer and am not implieing anything.
Wolfy-hound

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Adam, do you know people who have spinning spiders currantly? And have they breed them and the offspring normal or spinners?

---

Yes, I know people that have produced all perfectly normal healthy spiders from spinners. I also know people that have produced spinners from perfectly normal healthy spiders as well as spinners and those spinners later in life stopped spinning all together.

To the best of my knowledge there is no predictable or reproducible "pattern" for spinners. They seem to "just happen" sometimes, and sometimes, when it does happen it just "goes away".

Could it be genetic? I've always stated that it most definitely could be. But, in my honest opinion I don't feel that there is enough data to support a conclusion that it is a genetic problem yet. I really feel that a lot more breeding needs to be done to get to the bottom of it.

-adam

A good test would be to compare the rates of spinning in spiders vs. their non spider siblings (and similarly the rates of kinking in caramels vs. their het and possible het siblings in breedings without homozygous caramels on both sides). A clutch of eggs is generally incubated together and they probably can’t identify the morph eggs from the non morph eggs early on so there should be no incubation bias between the eggs containing spiders and caramels and their normal looking siblings. Also, the genetics of the clutches should be the same except for the chromosome containing the respective morph.

If there is a statistically significant higher rate of spinning in the spiders than their non spider siblings or kinking in the caramels than their non caramel siblings then it almost has to be something genetic and if not the actual mutant gene its self at least a gene linked by being on the same chromosome. There have been loads of clutches producing spiders and non spider siblings produced and a fair number for caramels the public just doesn’t have the results.

The question then is why aren’t all spiders spinners or all caramels kinked. This is where there may be environmental or even genetic factors that mitigate the apparent genetic tendency toward these problems.

A lot of people trying to breed ball pythons for the first time (myself included) are not trying to get hordes of cash, (as you can get normals for real cheap) but just for the experience of having successfully bred their snakes, which , in itself is no small feat...not to mention (most impotant part) experience the joy of watching those little guys hatch from their eggs, with every clutch just as exciting as the previous one. I actually did not sell a single one from my first successful clutch ever, rather I kept two babies and gave the rest away to first time BP owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

and seahorses

---

sorry for the interuption....

But that is So Cool!!

okay...continue

damn, i did it again