Do you think normal's are heartier than morphs?

[ed4281]

I was wondering what everyone else thinks?

I love morphs and plan to have several someday, however just through observation with my own and at the vet clinic I work at it just seems that normal’s are heartier. My normal is very laid back and doesn’t stress, has never missed a meal ever and is very content. My pastel gets stressed if you look at him funny.

What brought this to my mind is, I had a client today at work that called and said her snake was having seizures when it eats, she just got it at a show a month ago and this was the first time the snake was interested in food. This person came in with a bumblebee ball python that she bought because it was pretty (wish I could impulse buy like that) and new nothing about. The doctor and I looked it over and it seemed healthy no parasites, signs of RI etc, so I pulled up the spider wobble video on you tube and showed it to her, and that was exactly what her snake was doing. I explained to her that the wobble is normal and is attached to the spider gene and that we could do nothing about it. I printed off the care sheet on here and gave it to her and basically went over the things the breeder should have.

I know that that is normal for a spider BP however (don’t slam me) should we really breed morphs that have obvious neurological issues that are inherited because they are beautiful. I am not criticizing anyone just really wanted to know what everyone else thinks not trying to fuel a fire or anything.

[redstormlax12]

In my opinion, I dont really feel that normals are any more healthy than morphs. The morphs are just a varience in aesthetics. Yes the spider gene is linked to the neurological problem. I dont want to judge, but I dont think I would get spider just because of the possible problem. It doesn't effect the health of the snake as far as we know. Its kind of like springer range in American Springer Spaniels. Breeders in America bred the freckles out of the dogs and as a result the dogs went crazy. The sweetest dog would turn into a monster and not hesitate to bite anyone. I have an English Springer and I wouldnt get an American. I dont feel its fair to take the risk of breeding the freckles out just because people like the freckleless appearance. In this case it effects the health of the individual to the point where they must be euthanized. I dont believe this to be moral.

But I really dont think morphs are any healthier than morphs. Bob Clark has one of the largest retics, I think it might actually be the largest captive retic, and the retic is a morph, a tiger.

[mainbutter]

should we really breed morphs that have obvious neurological issues that are inherited because they are beautiful.

That's the $60,000 question, and there is no true answer.

When it comes to questions like this, you can only rely on your gut, your personal morals and ethics.

Each individual trait should be considered individually.

I have no issues with homozygous-lethal traits that are non-problematic heterozygous.

Spiders weird me out a little bit, but I've been convinced over time that the spider wobble does not stop a snake from thriving in captivity, eating, living, and reproducing. The same goes for Jaguar carpet pythons

I'm more conflicted on traits that are linked to kinking, such as caramel ball pythons.

[ed4281]

I like these opinions keep them coming!!

[Serpent_Nirvana]

In a way, I think you're asking two different questions here.

One is your post title: Are wild-type animals "heartier" than morphs? To me, this question implies a more "generalized heartiness;" what I read this as asking is, are wild-type ball pythons better feeding, (maybe) bigger, and less prone to illness -- overall "better doers" -- than mutation animals?

In my experience, when it comes to python and other snake color mutations, the answer, overall, appears to be "no." Though I have heard rumors of some nebulous associations between ill-health and albinism, I think these are poorly founded or perhaps founded more in coincidence, or extrapolation from the mammalian albino condition, than in true causative association. For example, I have one hobbyist veterinary book in which the author observes that he has never seen an old albino snake. His implication is that there may be some sub-clinical health issues inherent to albino snakes that cause them to have a shorter longevity than wild-type animals -- but I wonder if it's truly that, or the fact that most albino specimens haven't been around long enough to REALLY be considered "old."

In my personal experience, my mutation animals are just as healthy, hearty and "good doers" as my wild-type animals. Judging by the number of mutation BPs for sale, anyway, it would appear that they're just as fertile, too ..!

Your second question, as I see it, is: Is it ethically acceptable to breed animals with KNOWN defects associated with the mutation -- caramels (despite the kinking), spiders (despite the neuropathy), etc. -- provided they are capable of living a fairly normal life despite their defect. As far as I see it, that's pretty open to opinion. I can appreciate the argument that as long as the defect does not interfere with the animal's quality of life (which neither minor kinking, nor mild neuropathy, *appear* to do as far as we can assess); I can also appreciate the argument that we, as breeders, have an obligation to produce only those animals that are as close to ideal (health-wise) as possible.

That was all horrifyingly wordy, so here's as photograph to balance it out :