Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws?

[Serpent_Nirvana]

Let me start this by saying that my intention is NOT to open up a giant, mud-slinging debate with this thread. It is my sincere hope that we can all discuss this topic in a calm and non-judgmental fashion. I apologize in advance if this thread turns into a poop-show, and I truly hope that it doesn't. However, I've been wresting with some of these issues a lot lately and I'm curious to get the opinions of others on them.

I'm trying this out primarily in the form of a poll -- never made one before but I think it's the best way to survey this. I'd also be very interested in hear peoples' thoughts on this topic directly, though please please please try to remain civil However, the poll is there mainly because I'm curious to get a feel for the overall proportion of people who do avoid working with the mutations in question. It generally seems like most people work with and accept these morphs, but I'm curious if there's a bit more of a "silent majority/minority" that don't than it appears on the surface.

My primary question is: Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws, and if so, which ones? Do you avoid spiders because they have neurologic disease, or do you work with them anyway? Do you avoid caramels because they may produce kinked offspring? Homozygotes with flaws? (Ex; bug-eyed super lessers or kinked/duckbilled super cinnamons?)

If you avoid one morph, but not another, what is the basis of that decision?

If a new morph is produced that is known or suspected to have a given non-lethal flaw, do you believe it should continue to be propagated (either to attempt to breed out the flaw, or because the flaw is perceived as acceptable), or should it be allowed to "go extinct?"

Finally, if you own and work with a mutation with a known flaw, did you know about the flaw before you bought that animal, or did you find out afterward?

Thanks in advance everyone.

[Wh00h0069]

No, I don't.

[WingedWolfPsion]

I chose to skip working with caramels, in part because we now have ultramels that don't kink. I'm saving up for an ultramel.

The issue with kinking is that it can be fatal or very debilitating in a physical fashion (interfering with growth and passage of food through the digestive tract). Severely kinked hatchlings would have to be euthanized. I also would not intentionally produce a Pearl.

Spider and woma wobbles, duckbilling, or even bug eyes, really don't do any harm to the animal. I've heard of the occasional spider that was so severe it was dysfunctional, but that's very rare, and from what I understand, those animals could still eat with minor help. They weren't in physical discomfort.

So, I have no issues working with spiders, womas, cinnies, or lessers, or their supers.

Until we do some genetics studies on these morphs, there's no way of knowing whether selective breeding can reduce the severity of these linked flaws. It's possible that it simply can't. The question is, are these flaws so bad that we need to eliminate them? At the moment, the majority opinion seems to be that they are not.

There are plenty of pets out there bred to have flaws that people think are desirable--the huge head and smashed face of a bulldog, the chondrodysplasia of Dexter cows and Dachshund dogs, the tailless gene in Manx cats, which is fatal in its 'super' form, fainting goats...the list goes on.
If the animal isn't suffering due to it, and humans find it desirable, then the reality is, it is not a flaw in a pet species. It may be a flaw in a wild animal, but not in a pet.

I bought my spider and cinnamon knowing full well that there were perceived flaws associated with them. I was not aware of the super-lesser bug-eyes until I started working with lessers, but it doesn't give me cause for concern.
I was unaware of the woma wobble issue, because when I got my first womas, the usual opinion was that womas didn't have a wobble issue. I was certainly a bit bummed to discover that wasn't true, but now I've come to terms with it. (It's less common in incidence and severity than the spider wobble, but still prevalent).
Doesn't appear to distress them at all, and I've never heard of a 'trainwreck' woma the way I have spiders, so, no problems with it now.

I think if we ever discover a mutation that causes half the hatchlings to be born inside out, or something, then there will definitely be a call to eliminate that gene, but most of the morphs that have flaws now don't have anything quite that serious going on. Pearls can be avoided through careful breeding.

[purplemuffin]

I personally plan to avoid them myself, until I know for sure I can find a line with fewer or hopefully no issues. I am planning to go the pricy route and pick up ultramels and such. That's just me though! There is already the chance of flaws showing up just from genetics and simply funky eggs.... Add to that extra chance of failure?? I dunno.. Just not for me!

[Jonas@Balls2TheWall]

I try to stay away from animals with known flaws, some of my favorite morphs are those with the caramel gene yet I have none in my collection for that very reason. I will not get into the desert project until it is proven that females can breed. I will also stay away from the sable and any other gene that proves lethal. I even try to stay away from the spider gene all though I don't consider the wobble as bad as the other mentioned problems. As far as duck bills and bug eyes go, they don't seem to be that common, if I ever produced once I think I would offer it as a pet and wouldn't repeat the pairing.

[purplemuffin]

Yeah, I still haven't heard any news that has changed my view on deserts either. I love them though, so I'm constantly hoping that they will start to prove out(and not just one or two successful clutches out of dozens, at least a 51% majority hatching out in the future)

Since there are SO many females around, maybe there will finally be good news. Til then, not interested! Except as a pet. They ARE lovely.

[mainbutter]

Yes, I have no interest in working with spiders or caramels because of wobbling and kinking. As of right now those are the only morphs I don't want in my collection because of known issues.

[Maixx]

There are so many nice Morphs, I see no reason to work with or own any of negative gene morphs.
I won't touch any of em.

[bad-one]

I'm not avoiding any of these genes.

[SilverDemon]

While I would work with the genes, I would be even more super picky with what animals I choose to work with (and I plan to only save up for the most amazing representatives of morphs I can find when I finally get to a place where I can own snakes).

While the animals DO have a tendency to show those defects, I feel that by being extraordinarily picky and getting only the best, healthiest animals you can find to work with, you can at least severely reduce your chances of producing unhealthy hatchlings.

Again, it wouldn't stop me from working with the genes, I would just be extra super picky over which animals I get.

No pearls, though. That's a heartbreak waiting to happen.