• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Scale less Corns anyone?

Yeah, let's just all go back to keeping wild-types!
 
snakemom1961 said:
Snakes were originally developed WITH scales for a reason. They were also developed with color for a reason, but I would imagine they could survive without melanin easier then without scales. I've seen nature programs with white(melanin)free animals surviving in the wild, but I've yet to see furless or scaleless animals surviving.
S0, yes, IMO, scaleless snakes are bred unethically, and I for one would not buy from a breeder who would purposely breed snakes to create such freaks of nature.
Click to expand...

Again I will ask, have you done the research to find out? Allele frequency could easily explain why you have seen no "nature" program with a "scaleless" animal on it. I have seen pictures of adult and baby scaleless snakes. To me they seem fine. The arguments against having scaleless reptiles are the same arguments that were used against amels when they first surfaced. Until you find out for yourself, you will never know. The opinion of a layperson has no value in this argument. I will add, that in the world of scaleless reptiles I too am a "layperson".
 
snakemom1961 said:
Dogs and cats were originally created with fur for a reason. To purposely breed away from their intended purpose to me is unethical.
Click to expand...

I assume you don't have dogs or cats then, right? After all, this is what dogs are meant to be:

gray-wolf.jpg


And I find this totally unethical, as dogs were meant to look like the first picture I posted:
http://visual.merriam-webster.com/images/animal-kingdom/carnivorous-mammals/dog-breeds_1.jpg

After all, they were wolves for a reason, weren't they? Breeding away from that is unethical.
 
I think that, unless a snake without scales is proven to be in pain or suffering, there is no reason to dislike those who breed or like them. So, does anyone have personal experience involving a scaleless snake that is in pain or suffering? Any proven research?
Are hairless dogs a crime against nature? What about english bulldogs, or perhaps chihuahuas?
I personally find scaleless snakes very interesting and cool, and I am a vegetarian and I work for a local, nonprofit organization that rehabilitates wild animals. I would never find something that caused harm to animals "cool".
 
salvadorian said:
I think that, unless a snake without scales is proven to be in pain or suffering, there is no reason to dislike those who breed or like them. So, does anyone have personal experience involving a scaleless snake that is in pain or suffering? Any proven research?
Are hairless dogs a crime against nature? What about english bulldogs, or perhaps chihuahuas?
I personally find scaleless snakes very interesting and cool, and I am a vegetarian and I work for a local, nonprofit organization that rehabilitates wild animals. I would never find something that caused harm to animals "cool".
Click to expand...

Hmm, I've read texts where human beings were labeled as being "hairless apes"........ :bang:
 
Rich Z said:
Hmm, I've read texts where human beings were labeled as being "hairless apes"........ :bang:
Click to expand...


Hey! I got hair. Maybe I'm a rare haired human ape? Really I do. Wanna see? :dancer:


From "Corn Snakes: The comprehensive Owner's Guide", By Kathy Love and Bill Love.

"Most of the new cultivars will be winnowed out as they fail to withstand the hatband test of popularity over time, but a few will manage to pass the test."

This statement certainly applies here. Basically, the designer snakes that come into existence will stay around as a result of people wanting them and buying them. In general, you can expect that laypersons (such as many of us here) will either buy them or not. If we do, they'll be around in plenty of numbers. If we do not, they won't be around in any great popularity.

BTW, to all those who continuously advise people to buy this wonderful book, thank you dearly! It was one of the best book purchases I've ever made. :spinner:


Leim
 
I was going to stay out of the hole is it moral thing, Oh well.

Now this is one example how nature up grades a species. In order to succeed you must try. this is nature way of trying out something different. You never know how this gene could survive in the wild . It has occurred in different snakes species. Why lets just say in one of the species of snake it was beneficial. Well that little new gene may have started a whole new group of snake, herp,or a whole new family group related to reptiles. There are elephants in the wild with no tusks. Well if lets say in the future their habitat changed the maybe a elephant my need no tusks. Who is anyone to say this animal is in any type of pain or discomfort. How do we know if any of the pattern or color morphs are effecting or animals. As Mike pointed out about amel. If it was not for genes like this, all the fauna on earth would never would have come to be
 
*chuckles* On the subject of dog breeds, many of them ARE abominations, frankly. There are breeds that *usually* need to give birth via C-Section because they can't pass the fat heads of their puppies. The short-nosed breeds have been exaggerated to ridiculous extremes and have a myriad of problems because of it. If you have any doubt that we are destroying purebred dogs by breeding them for the traits we currently do, watch the BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

I think these are interesting and I would love to see what the future holds for them. I would buy one.
 
Rich Z said:
Hmm, I've read texts where human beings were labeled as being "hairless apes"........ :bang:
Click to expand...



..... how does that relate to this? are you saying that scaleless corns are a ok or not?
and it's true, we ARE hairless apes. at least technically and genetically. ha.
 
ceduke said:
*chuckles* On the subject of dog breeds, many of them ARE abominations, frankly. There are breeds that *usually* need to give birth via C-Section because they can't pass the fat heads of their puppies. The short-nosed breeds have been exaggerated to ridiculous extremes and have a myriad of problems because of it. If you have any doubt that we are destroying purebred dogs by breeding them for the traits we currently do, watch the BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

I think these are interesting and I would love to see what the future holds for them. I would buy one.
Click to expand...

Breeding for the show ring is the worst thing that's ever happened to dogs. However, I still don't believe that ALL dog breeds are abominations and many breeds in from working lines are still extremely functional. Showline GSDs are frog legged freaks, not to even touch on the "American Show Shepherd" (which isn't even a GSD any more IMO). I don't know who the "we" breeding purebreds for poor traits is, but it's not anybody I would have anything to do with - they can keep their showring curs.
 
My chi is an abomination. And if he pees on my newly-cleaned carpet one more time, he'll find himself in a tied-off pillowcase with a brick, observing the fauna at the bottom of the river behind my apartment. Glub-glub...
 
LOL Dean.

Hey, I'm ok with companion breeds as long as they're not grossly exaggerated and bred for excellent temperament! ;)
 
mike17l said:
Can you imagine if an amel, or God forbid a blood red broke out and breed with wild species. OMG, it would be horrific. I mean amels and bloods, and sunkisseds, and aners, and hypos and stripes, and every other color and/or pattern morph only pleases the eyes, they do nothing to strengthen the gene pool of the wild or captive population.
Click to expand...

LOL..Mike..I actually thought about what I said while I was saying it (typing it)..BUT..1 track mind here...haha..I guess its kinda weird on my part..because I honestly could care less about morphs. I mean, the colors are beautiful..and I do own different corns myself...But I think I get excited over the snakes that still have the "wild look" I guess..CB of course..
BUT a snake with no scales just is not attractive..unless its type evolved that way...Its just My opinoin that its stupid and pointless to breed scaleless reptiles.I don't really expect anyone to agree...I said nothing about hating people who do it though..

(P.S.) I also did not read all the posts from my last one on..soo....:shrugs:

~~'Manda
 
*salAMANDA88* said:
...BUT a snake with no scales just is not attractive...
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. I find the scales on reptiles, and fish for that matter, very beautiful. I guess its interesting they are around at all, but they hold no appeal for me in anyway... the whole moral debate aside. I admitedly have only seen a few pics of scaleless rat snakes and know nothing of their care. I just dont agree with 'ugly' traits being promoted, and i find the scaleless snakes rather homely, but thats PURE opinion baby! everyone knows what they're worth. :laugh:.
 
mike17l said:
Do you know that? Have you done the research to find out?
Click to expand...

Well I´m pretty sure because the lacking pigment don´t even change the way the iris works and that controls ho wmuch light comes in to the eye aso.

And i think evolution is something else then trying to suffer a desire by breeding such poor creatures!
 
I would have to withhold my opinion on this until I actually got to see/handle one of these scale-less wonders, and talk to a breeder who would know more than I do about them. I'd have a million questions - are they more touch-sensitive (I'd expect so, but how *much* more?) Are they more susceptible to mites or diseases? Do they require different temperatures? If they don't have belly scales, how difficult is movement for them? And more... I'd say it's not something I'm likely to want, but I'll not judge it morally until I have more info.

As was said, this is a mutation that *could* occur in the wild, and if it proved beneficial to the lil' guy, a whole new variety of snake could start right there. Or not.

As far as purebred registries, I think their original purpose was a good one. To encourage good breeding, and reward those who kept excellent bloodlines. I would say for the last century or more, though, people have gone away from the original requirements of the breed and bred for bigger extremes and "prettiness". This is where breed issues have become so pronounced. Many purebred dogs have lost the ability to do what they were originally bred for and stay healthy doing it. To me, staying healthy includes being able to give birth without requiring a C-section. Bulldogs, Greyhounds, GSDs, Dalmations, just to name a few. My two bits worth. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top