And herein lies the issue. Setting aside differences in opinion completely, ball python morphs have been bred for such a short period of time. Some people have been in it long enough, or have bought only top shelf stock and are consistently producing very nice animals, so they would be producing fairly obvious "nice" examples of whatever morphs they are producing. However, the 10-15 year period that is the morph craze just isn't a long enough time to set the standards. Who knows how much more refined some morphs may become with further selective breeding and line breeding? It could take many more years to really focus on and bring out some subtleties in some morphs, rather than just reproducing them for the obvious traits. It really blows my mind to hear it when people talk about balls already nearing the end of their popularity when so much more can be done. Maybe there won't be any more mind blowing morphs coming over from Africa, but there's more than enough in our hands now to work with for a long time. Point being, could ball python breeding be so young/fresh/new that we truly don't even know yet what "the standard" should be? I think something gets lost with so many people seemingly in a rush to at least stay with the curve...but think of what could be done with a pastel or a lesser with 20-30 more years of just working with a pastel or a lesser. It almost unfortunate that with ball pythons, NEW and MORE seems to far outweigh PERFECT.Originally Posted by Rhasputin
Even MOUSE breeders disagree, when the standards for mice were written over 100 years ago, and competitive breeding has been going on for upwards of 300 years.
Reply With Quote