Breeding Ethics

[Adam_Wysocki]

But do you really believe that either the spider spin or the caramel kink isn't genetic?

I really believe that I can say with as much certainty that it COULD BE environmental or developmental as you can that it IS genetic.

What makes you so much better than me that your "theory" has to be fact and I am BS? What HARD DATA do you have over random postings on internet message boards and off the cuff comments by people that do ZERO breeding in large numbers (and some, zero breeding at all)? I'll tell you .... NONE.

The sporadic nature with which both are seen could well indicate a developmental or environmental component

Exactly.

but it sure sounds like both are way too common in their respective lines not to also have a genetic component.

What is "way too common"? How many spiders have been produced and what percentage spin? Do you know? Can you describe any pattern to the reproducibility of spiders that spin that might indicate that it is a genetic problem being passed from generation to generation? Do you have better than a guess gleamed from some post on a message board by a kid with a personal score to settle against a breeder that produces spiders? How about caramels? Do you even know how many different caramel lines there are Randy? Do you know if all or only some of the lines kink? What data do you have on the number of caramels produced to date vs. the number with kinks? Have you ever spoken to ANYONE that has had success producing large numbers of caramels without kinks by using a dryer than normal incubation medium? You sit in front of your computer and imagine theories and scenarios based on posts on message boards, but you have NO IDEA what is really going on out there.

What percentage of non-caramels are kinked, maybe 1%?

This is the science you are using to come up with your theories? LOL ... You have no idea of all of the "unpublished" data out there. Do you think ANYONE really talks about their shortfalls, bad clutches, and defective offspring? Heck Randy, you've produced what 5 clutches of balls and everyone knows that you've seen kinked babies ... what do you think the guys that have produced 800 clutches over the last 10 years have seen? ... You really have no idea.

If 50% of the imported caramels have been kinked that comes as close to proving a genetic link as I think we are going to get.

50%?????? LMAO. What is that, "kentucky windage" science? Where in the world did you pull that number from? Do you even have a clue how many caramels have actually been imported in the last 15 years? Have you ever talked to anyone that's directly imported anything? Oh, that's right, you only read posts on message boards so if you haven’t read it on a message board, you don’t have a clue.

Even if the animals picked for display at Daytona where a representative sample and 3% of them spin that is way higher than spinning in non spiders (I think I've actually heard of one).

So because Randy Remmington that sits behind his computer in the middle of CO reading posts on internet message boards has only heard of one instance of a non spider spinning you are declaring yourself in the know enough to make the judgment that the percentage of spiders that spin is caused by a genetic flaw. Can you honestly call that a proper scientific method and keep a straight face?

So basically I'm calling BS on your post trying to give the impression that you really believe that either kinking in caramels or spinning in spiders might not be genetic.

I could not care less what you are calling BS on. You're just some guy that reads the message boards and makes up wild theories about the ball python world based on ZERO real data. Heck most people can't even understand what you are trying to say when you post and just move on. I TALK to breeders and base my thoughts on the numbers that the large scale breeders give me in real conversations .... Could spiders spinning and caramels kinking be genetic? Sure, I have never said anything to the contrary. But there is just as much real evidence that they could also be environmental or developmental problems as genetic flaws. There is no PROOF either way, just speculation, and it sounds like your speculation is based on a partial picture.

Randy, you have no idea what I do and don't believe. Who do you think you are to tell me what I "really" believe. I guess just like you feel comfortable enough to pound your speculative theories all over the internet as fact, you now feel comfortable enough to everyone what I really believe. NICE. You have a view that is not the same as mine, and that's fine ... do what you want with that. But, please tell me that you don’t seriously think you know what I do and don’t believe now? That’s a stretch even for you!

Before this gets more personal than it already has, why don’t we save these good people the suffering of watching our petty little squabble yet again and take this offline. Please feel free to call me anytime on my cell at 301-922-4959 (collect if you’d like) and I’ll tell you what I really believe over the phone and then you can decide if it’s really BS or not.

-adam