Ethics of breeding Genetic Mutations

I'm trying to write a paper about the ethics of profiting from genetic mutations in the reptile industry.

Does anyone have any websites that could help me out with this ?

BP.net :gj:

But i hear those mods and admins are bit quirky. :D

haha. I just need any kind of feedback, both positive and negative. There are plenty of people profiting from breeding morphs (which is fine in my opinion) and then there are some who beleive that this is completely wrong and were creating artificial animals. They say that any breeder (of any animal) should be trying to better the species and by breeding mutations we are ruining them.


so any opinions would be great and any websites discussing this issue that you know of would be even better !

Well I think this is a great outlet because you have a lot of professionals right at your fingertips that visit daily and post frequently.

Whether you quote their words here (Ball-Pythons.net IS a valid source) or if you see XYZ Reptiles posting and decide to send them an e-mail or a phone call - it's all valid resources :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon.O

They say that any breeder (of any animal) should be trying to better the species and by breeding mutations we are ruining them.

---

Better the species? This is a very subjective matter. We are bettering the species in our own way.

In terms of bettering it via improving the fitness of the animal to survive in the wild...that is nature's job, not ours.

JonV

1. Where the HELL have you been?

2. Any website of a "big time" breeder will be a perfect example of how they profit from them. Look at the price tags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Long

1. Where the HELL have you been?

---

Lols, Pat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Long

1. Where the HELL have you been?

2. Any website of a "big time" breeder will be a perfect example of how they profit from them. Look at the price tags.

---

haha Pat, do you mean why have I not been around the site too much lately, or in reference to the reptile industry, breeding, mutations subject?


And I agree with you nevohraalnavnoj...what we do with the animals in captivity has (or should have) no effect on the wild species which makes me think there shouldnt be ANY sort of debate at all over morphs ???

I love all of mine ! :)

How do you think half of all the dog species came to be? Selective breeding for different traits. Whether it be easy grooming, hunting, or hypo-allergenic... Dogs were selectively bred to combine traits for our own personal gains, whether it be monetary or serviceability.

Well, to go off-topic a little bit, IMO morphs are not a problem because you're not creating new (sub)species at all.

However, the very moment the physical shape or morphology of morphs changes, I will not buy BPs from that person. The changing of a species must be prevented in captivity.

So if we try to breed smaller ball pythons.. that's not okay? How is that different from breeding albinos? As long as the end product is healthy, I'm not sure I see a real difference.
I think the different breeds of cats are a better example. Dogs originally were bred for specific reasons, for use. Herding, hunting, retrieving, guarding..
Cats were bred as companions, and for pleasing colors and combinations of colors. So a persian is like a albino, there's no reason for a flat faced, full coated cat, other than we find it pleasing. Likewise, the only reason we breed pastels rather than normals is that we find the color combination pleasing.

As long as the snake is healthy(no one-eyed turtles please), I'm all for morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Well, to go off-topic a little bit, IMO morphs are not a problem because you're not creating new (sub)species at all.

However, the very moment the physical shape or morphology of morphs changes, I will not buy BPs from that person. The changing of a species must be prevented in captivity.

---

My only thought about people arguing against morphs is there are so few as is in the wild, because it creates weaknesses. Ball Pythons have a designated coloring and pattern to them for defensive purposes and some of the morphs extremely change these traits (ie Albino, spider, etc) so it can be seen as weakening the species.

Another reason few Albinos are seen in the wild is due to the lack of defensive camouflage so they are more prone to predatory attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

So if we try to breed smaller ball pythons.. that's not okay? How is that different from breeding albinos? As long as the end product is healthy, I'm not sure I see a real difference.
I think the different breeds of cats are a better example. Dogs originally were bred for specific reasons, for use. Herding, hunting, retrieving, guarding..
Cats were bred as companions, and for pleasing colors and combinations of colors. So a persian is like a albino, there's no reason for a flat faced, full coated cat, other than we find it pleasing. Likewise, the only reason we breed pastels rather than normals is that we find the color combination pleasing.

As long as the snake is healthy(no one-eyed turtles please), I'm all for morphs.

---

Some cats are also being bred with physical leg deformities. They are being done this way for the purpose of the 'cuteness' they possess with this trait. The animals are still healthy.... but just not right.

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.

In a way one could argue that the breeders are doing a good thing. In that if morphs are more popular then less people would want normals. And since you rarely get a morph from the wild, they are taking pressure off of the wild population. Just a thought.

The breeding of animals for specific traits for profit is the oldest form of animal husbandry. From the domesticated dog to the beef we eat. Animals have always been selectively bred to produce a desired out come.

With reptile people this is expressed in the way of an animal that looks a specific way. With Beef farmers its the animals ability to build muscle mass. Even tree farmers and fruit farms will cross breed different traits to produce an out come they can profit from.

The term genetic mutation conjures images reminiscent of the Island of Dr. Moroe. When in truth is is more accurately describe as Predictable Genetic Trait. Granted on some lever they are a genetic mutation but no different than blue eyes or red hair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

So if we try to breed smaller ball pythons.. that's not okay? How is that different from breeding albinos? As long as the end product is healthy, I'm not sure I see a real difference.
I think the different breeds of cats are a better example. Dogs originally were bred for specific reasons, for use. Herding, hunting, retrieving, guarding..
Cats were bred as companions, and for pleasing colors and combinations of colors. So a persian is like a albino, there's no reason for a flat faced, full coated cat, other than we find it pleasing. Likewise, the only reason we breed pastels rather than normals is that we find the color combination pleasing.

As long as the snake is healthy(no one-eyed turtles please), I'm all for morphs.

---

With the today's domesticated animals it's too late, but IMO us humans have no right to domesticate animals! It's absurd to me. There's a major difference between keeping snakes and domesticating them, I hope I don't have to explain that.

Colors morphs have nothing to do with the physical build or shape of an animal; they're just specific genes coding for colors. I heard that some combination of homozygous forms of black pastels or cinnamons create different looking BPs, morphologically? Is this true? That draws the line for me.

Some of the super cinnys might have a slight duckbill appearance to the head, but it's not pronounced, and most non-ball python people would not notice it.
How would humans not have domesticated animals? Would we all be out hunting for meat still? No dogs, no cats, no meat animals, or draft animals?

Yeah I already see where this is going. If the super cinny already has some weird head shape thing, imagine what it'll be like in 50 years. We're gonna have 9ft Ball Pythons with legs... :rolleyes:

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

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

---

:rofl:

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.