IHS - FBH - Spider Morph Ban & others

[DLena]

It’s very easy to ridicule a position by pushing it to the farthest extremes... it’s called the “slippery slope” logical fallacy, Zina.

Human beings have been manipulating animal genetics to meet our needs, desires and vanities pretty much forever: more wool, more white meat, more milk production; flatter faces, excessively sloped hips, colors/patterns.
Manipulating genes for desired/targeted traits has also yielded undesired/unexpected traits. This cannot be negated.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, people have the power to decide the genetic makeup of animals. People who believe the end product is worth the problems have the ability and legal right to propagate and sell that end product. People who believe the problems outweigh the value of the end products have the right to not purchase them or propagate them.

[Godzilla78]

It’s very easy to ridicule a position by pushing it to the farthest extremes... it’s called the “slippery slope” logical fallacy, Zina.

Human beings have been manipulating animal genetics to meet our needs, desires and vanities pretty much forever: more wool, more white meat, more milk production; flatter faces, excessively sloped hips, colors/patterns.
Manipulating genes for desired/targeted traits has also yielded undesired/unexpected traits. This cannot be negated.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, people have the power to decide the genetic makeup of animals. People who believe the end product is worth the problems have the ability and legal right to propagate and sell that end product. People who believe the problems outweigh the value of the end products have the right to not purchase them or propagate them.

Right on the mark

[cchardwick]

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard, that would ban a large part of my collection LOL. I have a few spiders that are perfectly normal. They may as well ban every snake that the sponsors don't like, just go down the tables and pull them one by one LOL.

[artgecko]

It’s very easy to ridicule a position by pushing it to the farthest extremes... it’s called the “slippery slope” logical fallacy, Zina.
.

That is true, but we are dealing with zealots in the AR movements and politicians that are willing to back them. We also have some proof of Zina's train of thought happening with the breed-specific bans on dogs. First they started with pit bulls, then rottweilers, GSDs, Dobermans, Several mastiff breeds, etc. The AR movement tends to chip away starting with the weakest point and going forward. Also look at the Lacey act and FWS adding more snake species to it..They stopped at boas, this time, but their next attempt may include them as they work their way down the exotics commonly kept as pets list. I know it is cynical, but there are a lot of AR groups whose agenda is eventually to end all animal ownership and they have a nasty tendency of using lobbyists and politicians to do their dirty work.

I personally don't agree with breeding any animal that has a known genetic issue that could affect quality of life, health, etc. To that end, I have chosen not to work with any of the genes that have neuro issues or kinking, or breed super forms that could have kinking or other issues (duck billing, bug eyes, etc.). It is easy to make this judgement call when we see an animal that obviously can't function (severe kinking, etc.) and has to be euthanized, but it is harder with something like the wobble, where effects are varied per individual and even per situation, with the majority showing very few symptoms.

IMO choosing to work with neuro genes or those that are known to cause issues (kinking) is a tough moral call. For me, I don't want to do anything that would increase my odds of producing an animal that might be born with severe issues and have to be euthanized, for others, the risk may be worth it. IMO though, this is something to be dealt with by individuals who have been educated on the facts and risks involved. The more we eagerly get government involved IMO, the more likely we are to open the door to them banning ownership of all exotics. In this case, it is an individual show organizer (if I'm reading that correctly) that has decided to ban them. This is not a law or legal action. They can still be bred / sold privately, and shown at other reptile expos (as far as I'm aware). So, breeders can vote with their feet and $$ and choose not to vend at that show, which might effect the sponsor's decision. Now what I don't know, is how many other shows there are in the UK for breeders to support.

From what I've seen on some documentaries, etc. The UK is going through a much more intense period of AR or at least AW activism, including the kennel club allowing the humane society to bully them into changing breed standards to appease them..Notably after a documentary came out about how atrocious pure-bred dogs were. I can't remember the name of it, but I did watch it. I read some opinion pieces on the documentary afterwards and some of the people (including vets, breeders, and historians) said that it was heavily lopsided in what it showed, including showing images of dogs that would be considered not-to-standard as what was promoted as ideal, overstating rates of health issues, etc and not covering any of the positives of pure bred dogs (i.e. genetic testing for carried diseases, hip screening, etc.). I think this instance (banning the spiders from being sold at this show) happened after that and while that was still currently ongoing news.

I think I remember seeing this posted...if not here, then on FB, some time last year. I know I heard about it somewhere because every once in a while someone will comment "Yeah, well, spiders are banned in the UK." having mis-read the article or heard incorrectly about it.

[Regius_049]

I will join those on saying this is a good thing and I think will help the community moving forward, and here is why -

1. This "ban" is coming from the IHS and FBH, which are organizations made up of reptile keepers and advocate for the responsible keeping of reptiles and amphibians. They are similar to USARK in the United States as I understand it. They are not AR organizations, which as most know, would rather we didn't have animals of any kind. With that in mind, this, from my perspective, is an example of the community policing its own against potentially problematic practices.

(A) Whether you agree with this particular move or not, I think most can agree the ideal is to have the community police its own and not someone else (government, AR, etc.).

(B) If the community (reptile keepers) do come under attack in the public eye for whatever reason, it seems to me, moves like this would help instill confidence among the general populace that keepers are trying to do the right thing.

2. The "ban" is not really a ban. People are still allowed to keep, sell, and breed spider ball pythons in the UK, just not at these sponsored events. If you want a spider, you can still easily get one.

3. As others have noted, the spider morph is the most well-known defect seen in morph breeding and thus comes under the most scrutiny, generally speaking. It may be a "starting point" for banning morphs at IHS/FBH events and it may not. I think the "slippery slope" argument is a bit misplaced here due to, as noted above, (A) this is coming from reptile keeper organizations, and (B) If they had banned all 'deleterious' morphs, i.e. spider, champagne, woma, etc., would that have been an improvement to those against the move or have changed your mind? While perhaps more consistent, I am guessing it would not have changed the opinion of the 'pro-spider' crowd.

Personally, I have never thought the morphs with known problematic abnormalities coupled to the morph trait should be bred and would be happy to see the community collectively decide - "hey, lets stick to morphs that don't have known problematic side effects". There are still a ton to choose from. I have seen discussions go on about the pros and cons of morphs within the reptile hobby, and propagation of morphs like the spider is usually #1 on my list of cons. The general defense of the spider is some permutation of: "In captivity, my spider morph eats and does just fine.". While this is generally true, I have an extremely hard time personally resolving these same people saying (essentially) "I have the best interests of the animals at heart", without viewing it as somewhat hypocritical. I wish I had a more elegant way of wording this, so I will try and clarify - This is not meant as an attack, I understand and believe that people who possess spiders love their animals. These animals already exist and I am happy to see people giving them good homes. However, I can only see propagating more of them as a vehicle for either profit or valuing aesthetics over the health of the animal. If I remove the "paint job" from the equation, no one is going to select an animal with a neurological problem over one without one.

I'll throw out an example: let us say I breed a clutch of morph X ball pythons and if I use a certain biological agent on the babies at birth, it will turn them a unique blue color, but at the cost of creating a neurological wobble. I can almost guarantee that I would be lambasted for such a practice due to the side effects...but this agent was required to turn the babies blue and if they feed and do OK in captivity, then it should be fine based on the above. I am happy to hear counter-arguments to an of the above, but at the moment, I am unable to morally rationalize the breeding of these morphs.

[Skyrivers]

Honestly don't know how I feel about it. This decision does not affect me because I personally do not deal with the spider Gene as a personal choice. Is someone who desires to start breeding, having a baby that is unable to function properly or at all is already a fear adding and increase probability of difficulty isn't something I choose to do with. Once again I do feel it is a personal choice. With that being said I do see the appeal of the spider Gene. Lots of beautiful healthy snakes out there that have it.

Sent from my N9560 using Tapatalk

[CloudtheBoa]

This really is ridiculous !!

And like OWAL said, what about all the other neuro morphs?

And of course there will be people supporting it. In large, because it doesn't affect them directly. Its always easy to join in to ban something or support (or not support) something that doesn't apply to one selves.

But oh what a slippery slope this can turn into..

If we "support" and applaud such interference then these interference's will happen more and more often. And maybe just maybe, they WILL affect more of us eventually. Lets just say they figure out there are "other" neuro morphs. Then we have the "Deserts" who can't procreate. The Caramels that kink.

And just perhaps one day they'll think, gee, those "morphs", so many genetic nightmares, who knows what other defects they have that aren't visible. Lets just ban them ALL !!! And while we are at it, why keep snakes as pets at all? Let's just ban em altogether.

Think it can't happen? Well, where do you draw the lines? The more you allow them to interfere, the more they will.

This isn't an actual ban. This is a ban from certain events, which as the owner's of those venues, they are fully within their rights of doing so.

Imo, if a morph is inherently unhealthy, it should not be bred. I will never knowingly buy from or support a breeder who chooses to breed these or similarly unhealthy animals. Not everything has to be a slippery slope, that is fear mongering. Just as it takes effort to cause a ripple in the breeding of unhealthy morphs, it takes effort to not let them become overzealous. Which I highly doubt a venue hosting company/organization will just outright ban all morphs...they'd quickly go out of business.

Ethically speaking, it is irresponsible to breed animals that have no way of ever being healthy. For me, eating, breeding, and growing is not enough to say if a morph is healthy and can thrive.

[AbsoluteApril]

Imo, if a morph is inherently unhealthy, it should not be bred.

I know the spider issue is separate since it's a neuro issues fully associated with the morph and proven to not go away with out-crossing. However originally albino boas were thought to be unhealthy, there were eye issues (missing eyes, bulging eyes), kinks, premature litters, albino females not producing... all things that would lead one to believe the morph is unhealthy. However years of out-crossing has stabilized the issues quite a bit and you hardly ever hear about these things happening and tons of healthy good litters have since been produced and female albinos breed now without issue. If, in the first 5 or so years of them being out, people all saw them as unhealthy would they have been 'banned'? What is the line of something being considered an 'unhealthy' morph? Can definitions change over time or once it's labeled bad - it's bad?
I'm simply asking because I think it's a very interesting discussion

[zina10]

April, you are correct.

There are a lot of other "issues" with many morphs. Some internal and not readily seen.

The issue with albinos in Boas (and resulting morphs, like Sunglows) has been an ongoing one. I'm not sure what some breeders did, but I do know that quite a few animals got culled. It was the price to pay for the ones that were healthy and beautiful. But even throughout years of trying to eradicate that problem, it tends to linger from what I've been told. The "bad ones" usually just don't make it onto the market. Efforts are ongoing and reputable breeders do all they can to minimize this problem.

I stand by my opinion that people find it easier to disregard interference such as that, if it doesn't affect them directly. And I do stand by my opinion that interference such as that can grow and eventually affect more and more people. That is not fear mongering. It has already happened in other instances. While this is not a ban, yet, it is how these things get started. And who are we to say what is "worse" for quality of life? A spider with a wobble (and most aren't bad) or a animal with a kinked spine (ouch)? With eye problems, missing eyes, bug eyes, etc ? (remember, eye problems can be painful) Issues that come along with albinism? Reproductive issues? Genes that produce "lethals"? Genes with possible internal problems?

Its similar to actual laws and regulations that are passed. Some cities banned giant snakes. Of course that didn't cause a huge outcry, because ..its only "that" city. Its only giant snakes, and not every reptile keeper owns them. But then the laws changed. Suddenly its not just giants but constrictors. Or anything over 4 feet. And not just the city, but the county or other cities. Suddenly it affects more people but at this point, but it is getting harder and harder to fight this, because the stronghold has been achieved.

Personally, I do not own any Spiders anymore. I won't breed any. I owned a Bumblebee that was simply a beautiful and amazing Ball Python, no wobble seen, happy, healthy and a great eater. Many are just like that. Technically I have "no dog in this fight". I simply find it irrational they pick "one" morph with issues. Do it right, or don't do it. I can't agree with their ignorance.

However, in the end, this is just "my" opinion. And I respect that others don't share it. It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
At least we all love and care for our reptiles, and that is the most important part

[artgecko]

I know the spider issue is separate since it's a neuro issues fully associated with the morph and proven to not go away with out-crossing. However originally albino boas were thought to be unhealthy, there were eye issues (missing eyes, bulging eyes), kinks, premature litters, albino females not producing... all things that would lead one to believe the morph is unhealthy. However years of out-crossing has stabilized the issues quite a bit and you hardly ever hear about these things happening and tons of healthy good litters have since been produced and female albinos breed now without issue. If, in the first 5 or so years of them being out, people all saw them as unhealthy would they have been 'banned'? What is the line of something being considered an 'unhealthy' morph? Can definitions change over time or once it's labeled bad - it's bad?
I'm simply asking because I think it's a very interesting discussion

I own some boas and am on a few boa groups. I still hear accounts of albinos being born with eye issues... chiefly, born with eye infections. Some can be treated if caught early and immediately beginning antibiotics, others, end up loosing the eye :/ I'm not sure what the % is now, but if it used to be worse than it is now, that's pretty bad. I'd say I've read accounts of maybe 4 litters where at least 1, but usually a couple of the boas had eye issues at birth. I'm not sure how many litters go without any issues though. It is a very good thing that they recognized the need to outcross to help improve that.

You raise a really good question..How long should one give for a morph to be "tested" to see if the issues you see are inherent or just a result of in-breeding. I know one big factor with this is breeder honesty. I read that the "big name" breeders were not upfront with the spider issues when they first were discovered and being sold for big $$. The same goes for the lemon frost leopard gecko... The creator of the morph did not release any info on the issues until they had sold many of them. That said, they also claim that the issues did not present until they had already been selling them, so we can't quite pin down that one. Safe to say that no one is buying them now. The LG community has reacted pretty harshly and I don't think anyone is really working with them now that the truth is out. What is odd, is that the LG community has a case similar to spiders... I *think* it is the enigma morph, but I could be wrong? They have neurological issues, spinning, etc. similar to spiders in that some function seemingly ok while others do not. I believe that people are continuing to breed them though and it is similar to the stance on neuro morphs with BPs, you are either OK with it or not.