Immorality of morphs/selective breeding

[lilwing89]

Disclaimer: Forgive me if this sounds a little pretentious - I know that I haven't been a long-time contributing member and I am fairly new to the concept of herpetology. Nonetheless, I think I know enough now to bring a fair debate to the table.

When I was first deciding what 'kind' of snake to get last year, I visited a lot of breeder sites and did a lot of research. I had an idea that there were different morphs/phases of snakes, but I knew just about as much as you'd expect a newbie to know. I was absolutely shocked by vast number of morphs I found and since I was overwhelmed with innumerable choices, I decided to stick with 'natural' CB phases and ended up with an Okeetee (which coincidentally, I still prefer over many morphs and phases!).

During my first twelve months of owning a snake, I learned a lot from observation and continued learning about snakes from various internet sources (This and that forum, Wikipedia, articles by herpetologists) More recently, I discovered how selective breeding can be harmful to [several of] the offspring it produces. I've read various threads on here and other forums and this and that source everywhere I've looked about customers purchasing CB snakes from breeders that suddenly, for apparently no reason, die after a few months of captivity... probably from health issues occurring as a result of selective [in]breeding. Given that so many neonates per clutch do not survive in nature for which ever [natural] reason, how do breeders justify selective breeding, knowing the possibility that their intervention could directly lead to unnatural health defects in neonates? I mean, if you take husbandry and breeding completely out of context and isolate it; just for the sake of breeding... not appealing to customer preferences or community/research, or personal interest.

Is that maybe a little too convoluted?

Another question I'd like to bring to the table is "What is the ultimate reason/purpose for selective breeding?"
I know this question has an obvious answer, though maybe not easily explained, or is ambiguous/subjective... but I'm asking out of rhetoric; what is the purpose of herpetology/keeping snakes if the interest of the majority in owning a snake is focused on some unnatural phase/morph from selective breeding/inbreeding? What happened to the 'natural' qualities of snakes and are they a popular choice among buyers? Are there any breeders or owners who prefer 'natural phases' to 'unnatural'?

Feel free to give your insight/disposition/argument. I'm interested in hearing any and all perspectives.

 

[Hypancistrus]

Tara and I own a bunch of snakes-- some are wild color patterns, some are selectively bred morphs. We like the diversity of color and patterns you find in pet snakes, coupled with ease of keeping. That's why we keep snakes.

Conscientious selective breeding doesn't have to increase the propensity for disorders. Constant, repetetive inbreeding can, but most breeders don't do only line breeding-- crossing of related snakes.

All of the colors we see are technically natural-- they occur in the snakes normal genes and were just brought out by the selective breeding that folks did. Unnatural colors would be like in the zebra glofish, where genes were added by humans. I don't like that-- and choose not to purchase animals like that.

Why would you assume that unexplained loss of some hatchlings is unacceptable when in the wild, MOST hatchlings don't survive to adulthood? I think our success in captivity is actually a lot higher than in the wild, in spite of all the "genetic deformities."

Now... I see your point with some things, like the so-called "scale-less" morph and the "one-eyed" and "no-eyed" turtles that some idiots like to push at herp shows. Some things really are deformities and should not be propogated.

Also... Wikipedia isn't a great source to use. Anyone can add to it.

 

[Outcast]

Wiki is not a good source at all, In fact, none of my professors will accept it as a source on any papers.

Also, do you own any dogs or cats? They have been selectively bred to suit people's tastes and to make "good" pets. Just think of all the hip and joint problems various breeds of dogs have just because of that selective breeding.

I also agree with Lauren, the hatchling's chance of survival is much better in captivity, no matter the morph, than the normal's in the wild.

 

[slitheringdead]

I don't even think you have to go down as far as selective breeding. Take a step back and ask yourself whether it's moral to keep pets in the first place.

 

[lilwing89]

Thanks for your quick response. I think you have valid reasons for keeping your snakes.

I want to clarify that I am not attacking selective breeding in general (cross breeding is completely fine with me), but rather the inbreeding. I do not know how common this practice is, but it exists, and I do find it immoral to risk offspring's life just to squeeze out a couple of genes. Furthermore, I think that what you've mentioned of breeders "scale-less" morph and the "one-eyed" and "no-eyed" turtles that idiots try to push up is absolutely despicable!!!

I also want to clarify that I don't find there is anything wrong with captive breeding. And lastly, yes, everything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt and I always verify with valid sources unless it seems to be valid, widely accepted information.

 

[ghosthousecorns]

Some hatchlings do die unexpectedly, but I think that does happen in nature too, not just because corn snakes often get line bred. Line breeding just recombines genes that are already there, "concentrating" them because no outcrossed genes are added to the mix- it doesn't cause "bad" genes, but may bring them to the surface if they are already there.

I try to keep and grow mine for a while before selling to make sure any poor eaters or anything don't make it out there. I feel most problems can by prevented if you ensure a hatchling has eaten and digested a few meals before selling or rehoming.. If I had a breeding with a lot of poor feeders I would not repeat that pairing in case it was a genetic problem, though.
I think the worst thing you can hear as a breeder is that the snake you sold someone has died.

 

[lilwing89]

Wiki is not a good source at all, In fact, none of my professors will accept it as a source on any papers.

Also, do you own any dogs or cats? They have been selectively bred to suit people's tastes and to make "good" pets. Just think of all the hip and joint problems various breeds of dogs have just because of that selective breeding.

I also agree with Lauren, the hatchling's chance of survival is much better in captivity, no matter the morph, than the normal's in the wild.

I don't accept papers from my students if they use Wikipedia as a source (High school teacher)

Nor do I own dogs or cats... can't stand them. I've always had reptiles, but maybe a husky would be nice to have someday. As for the captivity vs. chances of survival in the wild, I agree (I addressed this in my last post)

I don't even think you have to go down as far as selective breeding. Take a step back and ask yourself whether it's moral to keep pets in the first place.

Morally, it is just fine to keep pets in the first place, guaranteed that its living conditions would be on par or better (if at all) than in nature. I.e. keep them fat dumb and happy, and it's all okay... though there may be an ethical problem with the basic principle that inclines us pet owners to have a pet at all.

 

[lilwing89]

Some hatchlings do die unexpectedly, but I think that does happen in nature too, not just because corn snakes often get line bred. Line breeding just recombines genes that are already there, "concentrating" them because no outcrossed genes are added to the mix- it doesn't cause "bad" genes, but may bring them to the surface if they are already there.

I try to keep and grow mine for a while before selling to make sure any poor eaters or anything don't make it out there. I feel most problems can by prevented if you ensure a hatchling has eaten and digested a few meals before selling or rehoming.. If I had a breeding with a lot of poor feeders I would not repeat that pairing in case it was a genetic problem, though.
I think the worst thing you can hear as a breeder is that the snake you sold someone has died.

That's a pretty nice way of handling your business and I completely understand.

Great responses so far. Looking forward to seeing this debate grow.

 

[ghosthousecorns]

That's a pretty nice way of handling your business and I completely understand.

It's kind of standard for the industry, unless you are purchasing "out of egg" hatchlings most breeders won't sell hatchlings until they are established ( this usually means having eaten 3 meals ) and will cull the weaker ones or at least label as nonfeeders. Some breeders are more passionate about not inbreeding so if it was an issue to someone buying a corn there are nice corns out there that aren't inbred.
I am planning a couple of outcrossings and a couple of line breedings this year myself

 

[ZiggysMom]

Lilwing89,
It is obvious to me that you have never studied breeding in any other animal species. I too am a person who is concerned that weak animals could be produced from excessive inbreeding in any animal where humans control the breeding. BUT, go ask a dairy farmer how related his cows are some time if you want talk about inbreeding. Most of the "best-in-show" dogs, cats, and you have it, are very inbred. Several breeds of horses can be traced back to a single ancestor. As ghosthousecorns said "bad" genes will only show up if they are there. From what I have read on this forum, most breeders here understand the good and the bad of inbreeding. Is it "moral" to practice inbreeding? YES. The real morality comes with what the breeder does with the results of the inbreeding. If the young are not eating, not behaving properly, kinked, otherwise deformed and you sell them anyway with out disclosing what you know of the offspring's problems, that is immoral. If someone knows they are buying or getting a non-feeder, fine. But selling on without disclosure or breeding known deformity, immoral. I am reassured by the existence of the corn snake registry. At least for registered animals, you can see for yourself how inbreed one is or check the relatedness of two animals before breeding. Reptile husbandry is still very new and there is not a great economic incentive to study all the causes of animal loss. With humans and most other animals that humans breed, the mothers are given special vitamins or inoculations and or the babies are given the inoculations or vitamins. Maybe some day we will all give our hatchlings a special supplement and there will be almost no neonate losses.

None of my corn snakes would be mistaken for wild. That is fine with me because I am not planning on letting their natural predators any where near them.

 

[ForkedTung]

I decided to stick with 'natural' CB phases and ended up with an Okeetee

Unless your 'natural' Okeetee was from very recent, locality collected parentage, you can bet it was line-bred.
Except for the few known morphs that have genetic problems, there really isn't any overwhelming evidence that genetics or line/inbreeding plays a dominant role in the 'unnatural' deaths of captive cornsnakes, a better bet would be husbandry practices and unknown pathogens etc...our homes are absolutely filled with noxious chemicals in the air, etc...

 

[Hypancistrus]

I don't even think you have to go down as far as selective breeding. Take a step back and ask yourself whether it's moral to keep pets in the first place.

And if your answer to this is no, then you wouldn't be here in the first place. Unless, of course, you were a troll.

 

[kathylove]

Why do humans ever domesticate and selectively breed ANY animals?

Historically, people have wanted cows that give more milk or meat, chickens that produce more eggs or meat, faster horses, or dogs with either more abilities to do a particular job, or that just have a desirable look or personality.

So they bred the most extreme examples to each other and eventually ended up with turkeys with such big breasts they can barely walk, dairy cows that might not survive birth without human help, Pekingese dogs that can barely breathe, and Dachshunds with all kinds of back problems.

At least with our reptiles, we are mostly tampering with just the aesthetics of color and pattern (except for the oddballs already mentioned, such as one eyed turtles). Although it often takes a certain amount of inbreeding to accomplish goals in breeding, whatever those goals are, the thinking breeder will outcross whenever possible, and CERTAINLY whenever a decrease is seen in fertility or health of the offspring. If not, then those goals are put into jeopardy.

As has already been mentioned, most babies in the wild do not survive, and most babies in captivity do. That is not necessarily because we are better breeders than Mother Nature is. It is a combination of breeding vigor, husbandry, food, and lack of predators. But whatever the reason, breeders seem to be generally producing pretty good lines. And those registered in the ACR will be able to prove their ancestry, and what those related animals looked like, physically and genetically - a great idea!

I always find it interesting when a customer tells me they want an okeetee because it is "natural". If you have ever hunted the okeetee area in SC and found any corns there, you will realize just how UNnatural our gorgeous c.b. okeetees truly are! If you are lucky, 1 in a few hundred wild okeetees will be worth keeping, if you are looking for something to compare to an average, nice c.b. okeetee. My customers would be very disappointed if I sent them one that looked like a typical color and pattern of a wild okeetee.

I have worked with my line of okeetees since the mid '80s. They are more inbred than some of my other lines. Every time I outcrossed, they got a lot more ugly, and I never wanted to keep the babies. (I did keep a few so that I got a little outcrossing, but it always took a few generations to get the good colors and borders back again). My line has always been quite vigorous - if it wasn't, I would have kept more of the "ugly", but vigorous babies to bring back into the line. However, this line tended to be a bit on the nippy side. So when Bill finally caught a decent okeetee several years ago (nice, but not as nice as the ones I already had), I used him (the snake, not Bill!) on a couple of my best females, and kept a few babies that are now only half related to my others. The youngsters have very nice color, but only moderately thick borders. But they are more friendly. So they will outcross my line, after which I will inbreed again, and then see if the results call for more outcrossing or more inbreeding. That seems the most logical way to proceed.

Great debate! A lot of the "ol' timers" have had this debate before, but a lot of the newer keepers may not have thought much about it yet.

 

[Rich Z]

During my first twelve months of owning a snake, I learned a lot from observation and continued learning about snakes from various internet sources (This and that forum, Wikipedia, articles by herpetologists) More recently, I discovered how selective breeding can be harmful to [several of] the offspring it produces. I've read various threads on here and other forums and this and that source everywhere I've looked about customers purchasing CB snakes from breeders that suddenly, for apparently no reason, die after a few months of captivity... probably from health issues occurring as a result of selective [in]breeding. Given that so many neonates per clutch do not survive in nature for which ever [natural] reason, how do breeders justify selective breeding, knowing the possibility that their intervention could directly lead to unnatural health defects in neonates? I mean, if you take husbandry and breeding completely out of context and isolate it; just for the sake of breeding... not appealing to customer preferences or community/research, or personal interest.

Actually, what I have seen is that many people will blame ANY problem they have with animals they have purchased on inbreeding. It's a handy catchall boogey man to blame, isn't it?

Quite simply, a percentage of all living things will suffer infant mortality. Even humans, which in most parts of the civilized world, inbreeding isn't much of an issue. But still infant mortality happens. And there just may not be anything obvious to pin the blame on. It's just a fact of life that you have to take into consideration if you are going to be exposed to living things. They all die sooner or later. Sometimes sooner and suddenly, with no discernable reason. And it will pretty nearly always have nothing at all to do with anything directly related to mutli-generational inbreeding.

Seriously, this line of reasoning about inbreeding makes all sorts of assumptions that are not necessarily true. Saying that inbreeding will always produce problems has just as much validity as saying that inbreeding will always produce a new desirable gene. Are both statements true? If not, why not? Can one be true and not the other? If so, how so?

 

[lilwing89]

I really do appreciate all these well-thought responses you guys have written. I'll try to address each post as good as I can.

Lilwing89, It is obvious to me that you have never studied breeding in any other animal species.

This should be obvious, since I basically admitted that breeding is a new topic to me in my disclaimer. But I am quite aware about some of the selective breeding of domesticated animals you've mentioned, such as livestock; when I was in high school, I worked on a few livestock farms and had a few agriculture classes, and I've seen plenty of documentaries like Food, Inc., which examine these kinds of issues. Had no idea about the horses, though! My step father actually owns a herd of wild painted horses (Acquisition through his tribe)

As ghosthousecorns said "bad" genes will only show up if they are there. From what I have read on this forum, most breeders here understand the good and the bad of inbreeding.

I'm acknowledging this because I think it's a valid point. I also agree that most breeders here understand the good and bad of inbreeding - that's why presented this as a debate. I am not criticizing anyone for inbreeding.

Is it "moral" to practice inbreeding? YES. The real morality comes with what the breeder does with the results of the inbreeding. If the young are not eating, not behaving properly, kinked, otherwise deformed and you sell them anyway with out disclosing what you know of the offspring's problems, that is immoral.

Though I can't quite agree that inbreeding is exactly moral (really depends on a few factors for me), I do think that you hit the nail head-on about how a breeder should act on an honest policy (though this is kind of irrelevant to the argument)

Reptile husbandry is still very new and there is not a great economic incentive to study all the causes of animal loss.

This is also a valid point, because it does, in a sense, justify inbreeding as a method of genetic research.

Unless your 'natural' Okeetee was from very recent, locality collected parentage, you can bet it was line-bred.

In retrospect, I agree that my Okeetee is probably line-bred or from a largely inbred lineage. But that does not change my original incentives, which were based on a misconception that 'Okeetee' meant natural, or bred from wild caught specimens, or from a direct lineage from them. I was misinformed. I learned my lesson, which is why I stick to breeders now. Actually, this emergence of realization has led to my recent interest in carpet pythons; I'm currently working out payment arrangements for a fem. jungle jag carpet sibling. Her direct lineage is to a 10% diamond jungle and a jaguar coastal, which were crossbred intergrades of wild caught Australian imports. I was also interested in getting an inland carpet from a local breeder who is one of the first to breed them in the USA (apparently) but his clutch won't hatch until spring and they will be kind of expensive for my tastes.

So they bred the most extreme examples to each other and eventually ended up with turkeys with such big breasts they can barely walk, dairy cows that might not survive birth without human help, Pekingese dogs that can barely breathe, and Dachshunds with all kinds of back problems.

In general, I don't find anything wrong with selective breeding when it leads to more economic domestication... but this has gone far beyond what is acceptable and humane.

As has already been mentioned, most babies in the wild do not survive, and most babies in captivity do. That is not necessarily because we are better breeders than Mother Nature is. It is a combination of breeding vigor, husbandry, food, and lack of predators.

Breeding with the aim of yielding aesthetically pleasing color/pattern morphs seems to take away from the relative natural beauty that a wild corn might have. This is something you seem to agree with later in your post. Of course, I'm not saying that everybody should desire natural morphs - that's the buyer's and the breeder's discretion. On the other hand, I'm personally kinda disappointed that the majority of buyers seem to be more interested in unnatural morphs that would likely never occur in nature... it just shows that the general market/interest in owning/observation is mainly caused by attraction to the morphs/genes rather than the snakes themselves.

I always find it interesting when a customer tells me they want an okeetee because it is "natural". If you have ever hunted the okeetee area in SC and found any corns there, you will realize just how UNnatural our gorgeous c.b. okeetees truly are! If you are lucky, 1 in a few hundred wild okeetees will be worth keeping, if you are looking for something to compare to an average, nice c.b. okeetee. My customers would be very disappointed if I sent them one that looked like a typical color and pattern of a wild okeetee.

This is the most fascinating (and controversial) part of your post. The fact of the matter is that most people will not see a wild "Okeetee" species and thus have no reference to compare your Okeetee morphs to. In that sense, breeders get to decide what a 'natural' corn looks like, unless they have WC specimens to share. I do think your (Both yours, Kathy and other breeders) Okeetees and other corns are gorgeous, on the other hand, I have also seen quite a few natural, wild snakes in my life time, mainly rat snakes, and I often typically find the natural patterning/colors very beautiful! And what adds to the beauty is the sense of superiority that the pattern/color morphs in nature aid the animal in survival as camouflage, even if they are organic or imperfect. I can't speak for others, though, since aesthetic beauty is subjective.

Great debate! A lot of the "ol' timers" have had this debate before, but a lot of the newer keepers may not have thought much about it yet.

Yes, what actually sparked my interest in the topic at first were some ol' timer threads I read, haha!

Actually, what I have seen is that many people will blame ANY problem they have with animals they have purchased on inbreeding. It's a handy catchall boogey man to blame, isn't it?

I also think it is wrong to blame any problem on inbreeding/genetics and I can see how that might burn a breeder's business when a buyer does not take responsibility for proper care/maintenance! It's also hard to account for what constitutes 'natural death' and deformity.

Quite simply, a percentage of all living things will suffer infant mortality. Even humans, which in most parts of the civilized world, inbreeding isn't much of an issue. But still infant mortality happens. And there just may not be anything obvious to pin the blame on. It's just a fact of life that you have to take into consideration if you are going to be exposed to living things. They all die sooner or later. Sometimes sooner and suddenly, with no discernable reason. And it will pretty nearly always have nothing at all to do with anything directly related to mutli-generational inbreeding.

Inbreeding is more of a taboo among humans than anything else... though there are quite a few links to physical disorders. I think it's important to clarify, am not attributing all neonate mortality to birth defects caused by inbreeding. On the other hand, I think it's a little bit of a fallacy to say that because death/mortality is a fact of life and that it "just happens", and that because everything eventually dies, that it is perfectly fine to risk a clutch's health with heavily concentrated inbreeding. If you replaced snake with human in this case, and inbreeding with life-threatening scientific tests, your views probably would not be consistent. I know I'm drawing huge parallels and introducing whole other levels of humanism with this, but a lot of the info/knowledge we have about hypothermia (as well as, say, Siamese twins and other genetic phenomena) all come from unjustifiable research funded by Nazi science that was conducted on unwilling concentration camp prisoners.

Seriously, this line of reasoning about inbreeding makes all sorts of assumptions that are not necessarily true. Saying that inbreeding will always produce problems has just as much validity as saying that inbreeding will always produce a new desirable gene. Are both statements true? If not, why not? Can one be true and not the other? If so, how so?

I know I am repeating myself, but I did not make this claim. Anyway, it seem like the last few questions you ask here are rhetorical. Do you have answers or proposals for these issues?

 

[lilwing89]

I also think I should include another disclaimer, lol:

I am not equating inbreeding/selective breeding of snakes to the tragedies of the holocaust!!! I am simply trying to find consistency in posters' views on the subject.

 

[Susan]

What exactly do you consider "heavily concentrated inbreeding"? A sibling breeding? A father/daughter breeding? A half-sibling breeding and then a sibling breeding of the resulting offspring? Or 6 generations of various breedings of 1st and 2nd cousins?

 

[chris68]

This is the most fascinating (and controversial) part of your post. The fact of the matter is that most people will not see a wild "Okeetee" species and thus have no reference to compare your Okeetee morphs to. In that sense, breeders get to decide what a 'natural' corn looks like, unless they have WC specimens to share

just for a point of reference :*)

their parents are w/c Jasper County specific Okes...Both are ACR registered as from wild-caughts...

Okeetee X Anery A

 

[Rich Z]

I know I'm drawing huge parallels and introducing whole other levels of humanism with this, but a lot of the info/knowledge we have about hypothermia (as well as, say, Siamese twins and other genetic phenomena) all come from unjustifiable research funded by Nazi science that was conducted on unwilling concentration camp prisoners.

Hmmm, interesting. Do you mind explaining to me how the Nazi's conducted multi generation genetic research with humans in the relatively brief time they were in power in Germany?

 

[diamondlil]

I always find it interesting when a customer tells me they want an okeetee because it is "natural". If you have ever hunted the okeetee area in SC and found any corns there, you will realize just how UNnatural our gorgeous c.b. okeetees truly are! If you are lucky, 1 in a few hundred wild okeetees will be worth keeping, if you are looking for something to compare to an average, nice c.b. okeetee. My customers would be very disappointed if I sent them one that looked like a typical color and pattern of a wild okeetee.
Great debate! A lot of the "ol' timers" have had this debate before, but a lot of the newer keepers may not have thought much about it yet.

Kathy (and anyone else who's bred from wild-caught corns) Could I ask about the heavy melanin wash often seen in wild corns. Does it come through in the subsequent generations of captive-bred offspring? Do you think it's genetic or due to exposure to natural light?