Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws?

[Genetics Breeder]

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.

That is the main reason I don't think it is good to breed defective morphs. There are literally hundreds of other single genes to pick from. Just think of the time when there was only normal ball pythons. There are still some species with only the wild-type, no morphs.

I guess maybe I'm still hopeful that selective breeding may eliminate or decrease the incidence of kinking -- unlike the spider neuro issues, it isn't a guarantee out of a caramel breeding, though obviously it is a risk. I don't know what percentage of caramels actually come out kinked; I would be curious to hear that statistic.

I started the poll because I'm seriously wrestling with whether to nix my spider projects. My female spider started out as a perfect baby, but as she's aged she's become more and more neurologic. She still eats like a champ and oddly, stops spinning or spazzing if I pick her up. She also has a perfect righting reflex. It's a very weird defect, but it just kind of bothers me to watch her ... And I feel as though if it bothers me that much, I shouldn't breed her (or my two spider combo males).

Then again, when I pick any of them up to interact with, they look and act like totally normal, healthy snakes. It's just that sometimes ... They spin.

This website says that all caramels have kinks, when x-rayed, no matter what the breeder claims.
Scroll down to caramel-
http://vmsherp.com/ViewPastProjects.htm

Also, reptiles are adapted to look like they are not dying, unless they are at the very close point to death. If a predator saw a dying snake (or spinning), it would probably try to catch it over a normal, completely healthy snake.

Any time you breed the babies can be messed up. For years I have been breeding spider and spider combos, cinnys and cinny combos. Never had a genetic problem with any of the resulting babies.

That said, I have had plenty of problems with pastel, pinstripe, yellow belly and normal babies.

If you are super worried about making babies with issues, my advice to you is don't breed at all.

Of course there will always be a small percentage of deformed babies, even in wild populations. It's that the mutations are associated with the problems that make them more likely.

aren't all morphs some sort of genetic flaw if it is not a normal then it has a genetic flaw right

Yes, the morphs are all genetic flaws, but the difference is that most ONLY affect color or pattern. The ones that have associated problems are the most debatable about breeding. Albinos, pinstripes, pastels, piebalds, and most other morphs are completely normal in every way, other than their pattern or color.

I have a really clean bee. She has slight wobble before she strikes, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Of course not. If it bothered you, you probably wouldn't have spiders, since the mutation is not natural, and most people NOT into reptiles are actually the only ones that realize that. Someone above already said that about reptile vets.

Also, it doesn't matter if it bothers you, it's the snake that is living with it. Try shaking your head back and forth for a few minutes.

If it's 1/10,000, then the additional risk from having the spider mutation truly is negligible. There are some folks that are simply disturbed by the ataxia of spiders, as it reminds them of ataxia in humans, which is usually associated with something unpleasant.
On the other hand, waltzing mice have their fans. Some people would never dream of breeding waltzing mice, while others love them.

It all comes around to the definition of a 'defect'. Is a change in body shape desirable, or a 'defect'? Obviously, we don't demand conformity of shape in our other pets--check the difference in shape between a pug dog and a greyhound! So, is the duckbilling that occurs in cinnamons an actual issue, or just a neat alteration of form that is desirable? Do bug eyes in a super lesser actually cause any harm?

Is a spider's ataxia substantially worse than what's seen in fainting goats, or waltzing mice?

I think calling some of these traits 'genetic flaws' is loaded language--it's making an assumption from the outset, which not everyone will agree with. Not all of these things are necessarily flaws.

They are genetic mutations. All morphs are the result of genetic mutations being propagated. If they are not obviously detrimental to these animals as PETS, why call them flaws?

They would be detrimental if the animals were put back into the wild.
Yes, I know that the morphs would probably all die if put into the wild. I think, like many other people, that messing with the color and pattern is enough. Once you get to the point of altering the brain function (spiders), or spinal issues (caramels), it can be said that you are ethically going too far.
I am also against breeding ANY animals with known or associated problems.

I will agree that it's loaded, but I can't think of another term for it. You're absolutely right, though -- some people might like bug-eyed snakes.

All animal breeding is a very loaded topic, with a lot of contentious issues. I think it all ultimately often comes down to what is considered acceptable within the community of people that work with that animal -- but I think sometimes it is important to consider it from an outside perspective.

For example, there are some breeders of English bulldogs who will just take it as a given that the animal will need multiple surgeries (airway surgery, eye surgery) at a relatively young age. It's just a part of owning a bulldog. To them, it's "normal," and it's acceptable. In my mind that doesn't make it acceptable. I go to a school where the word "breeder" (and "exotic pet," FWIW) are considered dirty words by an awful lot of people, and I see an awful lot of judging going on every day, so I try very hard not to be judgmental. However, I just don't believe that deliberately and consciously breeding for a dog that you know will eventually need a surgery to survive past a couple years of age can ever be considered acceptable.

I'm not about to compare spiders to English bulldogs -- not by a long shot. And indeed, in my mind I really don't see much that's ethically unacceptable about breeding, say, a duck-billed super cinny or a bug-eyed lesser, provided those things don't affect the animal's health (which they really don't seem to from what I can see). I had been under the impression that they were undesirable largely because they are "deviants" from the normal physical conformation of snake, which seems to be overall undesirable to this community. Maybe that's changing, though. (Who knows, maybe in the future we'll even start to see selection for morphologic characteristics other than color ...)

And as for the spiders -- yes, I agree 100% -- it is very much like the myotonic goats. (I don't know too much about waltzing mice, though I can guess about it ...) I don't know that I am totally comfortable with the idea of selecting for an animal that falls down when it gets too excited, either. To be honest, since I've never met a myotonic goat (to my knowledge), I can't really comment on it, but I will say that I don't take it as a given that the breeding of myotonic goats is ethically acceptable.

Clearly the propagation of spider ball pythons is, by and large, accepted within our immediate ball python community. I can tell you, though, that when I mention it to other veterinary professionals (or non-ball python herp people), the reaction I get most often is, "Oh, so people don't breed those now that they know about it, right?" Well ...

I am still running my male bumblebee through my females, FWIW ... Though I am debating making this my last year with the morph. I don't know.

Ironically, as far as the caramels -- I am still tentatively planning on going forward with them. For some reason, I have very little internal debate there -- even though my little poll is clearly indicating that on the whole, ball python people are much more concerned about the ethics of caramel breeding than spider balls (though I wonder -- how much is ethics and how much is economics? You can sell a spinny spider because it's commonly accepted, but you can't get rid of a kinked caramel ...) I think that for me, the path for that project is obvious -- one kinked baby and I nix the project. Over and done. For the spiders, my biggest worry is that I'll hold back a perfect, gorgeous three or four banger combo (or worse, sell one) that later in life turns into a spastic train wreck.

... That post was also stupid long, but more rambling than pedantic ...

I don't think people would like the morphs with problems. It seems more like they are trying to cover up for it.

Breeder 1-
I like the spider problems. It gives them personality.

Breeder 2-
I hope that someday the spiders can be bred out of all of the problems.

If someone reads this whole thread, they will see both 'breeder 1, and breeder 2' typed by different people. Why would someone try to breed them out of the problems if they like them the way they are?

I'm not going to breed caramels or spiders because of the issues. I'm going to replace the spider in combos with pinstripes partially because I like them better and partially because they don't wobble.

The whole "duckbill" thing seems to be asthetic only. I actually think it's cute, so I will be breeding super black pastels.

How often do the pop eyes appear in BELs, and do they also appear in super fires ( or any black eyed lucy), super mojos, and lesser/mojos?

I heard powerballs (super spotnose) wobble but grow out of it, but I can't find much info about that.

I didn't know deserts had any problems but I never really liked them anyway.

I have no problems about keeping spiders as pets but personally I wouldn't breed them.

There are very few people that keep spiders as pets, compared to the number that breed them.

Also, look at what people have done to dogs. Years from now, I'm sure there will be some pretty screwed up 'shapes' of ball pythons. This is just the beginning.