The whole "Hybrid" conundrum...again ;)

[abell82]

We're not altering bone structure,
overall size, muscling, or instincts through our breeding.

Really?? Do you think all snakes automatically hatch from an egg
looking for a mouse to eat?

(to be honest, I am really more concerned about people
buying and breeding from non-feeding snakes of any species,
as I feel that will be more detrimental to captive snakes than
selective colourbreeding)

Don't you mean "Non-Mice Feeders"? A true "non feeder"
would not last long, certainly not long enough to breed.

But seriously. You can't compare dog breeding and snake breeding,
not really - completely different animals bred for
different purposes under different circumstances.

Why can't you? the only difference so far is that
Dogs have been bred for Hundreds of years, and snakes
only for a few short decades.
Do you really believe that there aren't breeders, that have already
started breeding for size, as well as color?

 

[Kokopelli]

Many animals don't -seem- to suffer. Snakes especially will not allow a single hint of pain to show due to their extreme survival skills and their inability to express many things in a manner which we will understand. Fact is, you don't know.

By that logic even the pure cornsnakes we have in little sweater boxes or 75 gal aquariums may be suffering, too. I don't see that stopping anyone from getting more snakes. So, in essence, neither of us knows if any snake in captivity is suffering, where they're pure or not.

Within nature- you have natural selection to "weed out" those who cannot survive. In your home- you take this major factor away. You can assume all you want that a said specimen will or will not survive in the wild- but it remains an assumption because you cannot and shall not imitate a totally natural environment to see if he dies or not.

It is taking a chance, and you won't be the one who ends up paying for your mistake but they will.

Are we breeding these animals to release them into the wild? No. We aren't trying to save a species and repopulate natural habitats. We're breeding pretty snakes. If you find a vet who has studied, and concurs, with your theory, then I will take it more seriously. Until then, we can only go by what we experience and I haven't had a single vet tell me my snakes are suffering from cross breeding. So again, neither of us knows for certain.

Personally I think too many assumptions are made without really testing them out. It is far more comfortable to think that the snakes are fine because they -seem- fine, but in truth they may be suffering.

Just like many dogs who are very happy and seem totally healthy, but in truth will suffer from leg/waist/jaw pains when they get older.

And so do wolves and lions and tigers and elephants and deer and any other wild animal you want to mention. They don't just go merrily along, healthy as the proverbial horse, and suddenly keel over and die. Their bodies get old, they get arthritic, they get cancer, they get a myriad of other problems that humans had no hand in.

Dogs today suffer from ailments due to our selective breeding- whoever think that snakes won't end up suffering from the same fate is delusional at best, in my opinion. It is the same process, it is evolution which is condensed into unnatural environments and terms, which heeds to rules which have little in common with the that apply in the wild. I don't think you should expect different results a few generations hence, as as I said before- again it won't be us who pay the price.

I still don't see you giving up your snakes, although they may have been inbred. Who knows whether they were or not? We're each in this for our own reasons. I am well aware of potential pitfalls when crossing genes and playing God. Humans do that every day in everything that we do. Are we headed for disaster? At some point we will probably destroy the planet through global warming and other lovely side effects to our experiments and lifestyle. Do I think that we are risking the suffering of snakes by hybridizing them? No. Not at all. I want proof. It's that simple. Theorizing only goes so far for me. You ahve your belief and I have mine. I think we can get by on that.

First let me the first to tone things down a notch- I am not personally attacking anyone, so telling me that "you still don't see me giving up on snakes" is a tad personal in a very general, and I hope- a well mannered, debate over principles and ideas.


Your last comment is... it doesn't sit well with me. Of course it is far easier to demand proofs from others than examine yourself and actually allow doubt to creep in, isn't it?
And what proof do you need? Dogs? cats? Cows? Every single animal that we have domesticated, we have altered in a very significant way over the years. So sure, now it's coloration- but do we not strive for bigger or smaller snakes?
What about behavior? people won't prefer calmer snakes that aggressive ones?
The fact that the field is in its diapers does not by any mean mean that it will now follow the exact same course. We know a deal less about snakes than we do about dogs nowdays- we are knowingly ignorant and still we play at creation.

At the end of the day- you are accelerating a process that if occurs naturally, will be occurring on a -far- smaller scale if at all. You cannot give an ultimate proof to support or cancel my claim- it does not mean that the other end of the spectrum is the truth because you cannot prove it either.

The way I see it- I would rather resist the temptation to breed two very different species of snakes and know that I might be missing on something than breed them and know that I might be harming generations to come.

Breeding will not cease, the chase after more morphs will not be deserted. So I think that at the very least we can try and avoid adding so many unknown differentials into the equation- it will be a deal easier to track issues down and uproot them should it come to that.

It's a matter of opinion, there's no wrong or right, only things to think about.

 

[dionythicus]

This is all a matter of opinion and beliefs and I never intended offense. I never said I didn't have doubts about whether it's right or wrong. My entire stance has been against the idea that our snakes are "suffering" because of our decisions to interbreed. That's where I would like to see proof that we are creating physical problems with snakes. Even if it's true, we won't know for years either way. It's an ethical dilemma that individuals will grapple with forever. Human nature is strong. Nature is stronger. I don't think we'll agree on the "suffering" part, but I do see other reasons for not breeding hybrids. I've chosen to deal with them in my own way.

 

[Susan]

Although it's true that some defects are brought to the surface by line breeding, there are just as many, or more, that appear just by the proverbial roll of the dice. Getting away from dogs, horses, snakes, etc, take a look at our own species. With the billions of humans on this planet, and not counting the small population from "Deliverance", I would say that line-breeding in humans is extremely rare. Yet, look at the number of birth defects found in our species. And we do nothing to prevent those defects from reproducing in the general population. At least with animals, we either cull the defects or prevent them from reproducing it. Now I'm going to run and hide from the comments that are sure to follow.

 

[toyah]

Really?? Do you think all snakes automatically hatch from an egg looking for a mouse to eat? Don't you mean "Non-Mice Feeders"? A true "non feeder" would not last long, certainly not long enough to breed.

I don't think all snakes automatically hatch looking for a mouse to eat, no - but many do (to be fair, I consider a corn that comes out of the egg looking for anoles a good feeder too, as that is a natural prey item for them - my only consideration is that they eat something). We're not breeding for extremes of instinct and temperament like in dogs, either.

The terminology "non feeder" was a poor one, but I am sure despite your multiple question marks you know what I mean - poor feeders who need lots of TLC, who in the wild may well have a worse chance of survival than a sibling who feeds like a hoover. Snakes that are assist or force fed for months on end, and may well remain weaker and less robust than others.

Do you really believe that there aren't breeders, that have already
started breeding for size, as well as color?

I do believe that some people may prefer larger snakes (though I question whether they really want larger corns, or simply faster maturing corns - faster sexual maturation is a "symptom" of domestication so that will reliably occur eventually, I imagine). I also hope and believe that in the thousands of years since we started domesticating and selectively breeding dogs, we may have learnt something about how to correctly and carefully breed animals.

Of course, we do not see the extremes in snakes that we see in dogs - a small corn snake compared to a large one does not look like a chihuahua sitting next to an Irish wolfhound. Maybe once we've bred snakes for the 15,000 years that we've bred dogs we will see that range in phenotype, but I just don't think it will happen close enough in the future for me to worry about.

 

[Kokopelli]

Although it's true that some defects are brought to the surface by line breeding, there are just as many, or more, that appear just by the proverbial roll of the dice. Getting away from dogs, horses, snakes, etc, take a look at our own species. With the billions of humans on this planet, and not counting the small population from "Deliverance", I would say that line-breeding in humans is extremely rare. Yet, look at the number of birth defects found in our species. And we do nothing to prevent those defects from reproducing in the general population. At least with animals, we either cull the defects or prevent them from reproducing it. Now I'm going to run and hide from the comments that are sure to follow.

Hehe no one is :flames: here.
Fact of the matter is though, we have more control over the breeding of animals than humans. We are more involved, to say the least. You cannot really make breeding something which is overseen and controlled, it goes against too many things in the human nature. I doubt such a plan
would succeed, even if, for argument's sakes- it might actually bring less defects and lessen the chances for over-populace.

The chance for a defect to arise is high- but by line breeding you make it higher. There's no running from this simple truth. Statistically speaking, the chances of someone who is het for a defect to wed another het for said defect is far smaller than when two people of the same blood-line wed- because the likelihood of them being carriers for defect are high.

At any given moment, we might die. Does this mean we should cross the road without looking? because there's a chance we will spontaneously die anyway?
Statistically speaking the chances are different.

I am not condemning all who hyberdize to eternal hell or anything of the sort :crazy02:

But I do think that there are several ethical questions here, questions which, if we all keep asking ourselves, might help us being more moral in our breeding and be more aware to the consequences of our actions :shrugs:

 

[dionythicus]

The chance for a defect to arise is high- but by line breeding you make it higher. There's no running from this simple truth. Statistically speaking, the chances of someone who is het for a defect to wed another het for said defect is far smaller than when two people of the same blood-line wed- because the likelihood of them being carriers for defect are high.

Case in point, my husband and I have chosen not to have children for many reasons, but one of the biggies is that he potentially carries the gene for a rare and fatal condition. It's extremely rare, especially for one person to have all the symptoms, yet four of his mother's siblings had all the symptoms and none lived past their 30's. So two completely unrelated people (my husband's grandparents) met and carried this gene. Would the odds of it showing up again be higher if two of his family members bred? Probably, but given that two total strangers each carried this gene makes me think that the chances of that happening again with two other strangers is just as likely.

 

[abell82]

Well, Alright let me take a stab at this....

editted for content version...
Although it's true that some defects are brought to the surface by line breeding, there are just as many, or more, that appear just by the proverbial roll of the dice....take a look at our own species. With the billions of humans on this planet, and not counting the small population from "Deliverance", I would say that line-breeding in humans is extremely rare. Yet, look at the number of birth defects found in our species. And we do nothing to prevent those defects from reproducing in the general population. At least with animals, we either cull the defects or prevent them from reproducing it.

Actually line breeding in humans is NOT that rare or uncommon, but maybe a bit further down the line so to speak...

1. Most scientist believe the human race began on the continent of Africa, and branched out from there. So assuming we are all from the same 2 or 10 original humans, eventually....

2. In Some "Old World" countries (used so as not to offend anyone) it was customary to "arrange" marriages, within families, to keep royal blood lines "pure". (IE : Line breeding):eek1:

3. How about Iceland?

The 270,000 people who live in Iceland, are descended from a small number of original settlers, mostly Norsemen who came to the island around the 9th century. Since then, most Icelanders have been intermarrying and choosing their spouses from the same small group of Nordic families.
In the early 1400s, the Black Death swept through the island, killing two of every three inhabitants. Later, smallpox struck. And in the late 1700s, the volcano Hekla, east of Reykjavík, erupted and spewed ash over gardens and pastures. A severe famine followed. These catastrophes, combined with the isolation of the place, created population "bottlenecks" that constricted an already narrow gene pool.

I am sure there are far more examples, on many more Islands, and continents as well, but I think I have proven my point.

 

[Susan]

Well, Alright let me take a stab at this....




Actually line breeding in humans is NOT that rare or uncommon, but maybe a bit further down the line so to speak...

1. Most scientist believe the human race began on the continent of Africa, and branched out from there. So assuming we are all from the same 2 or 10 original humans, eventually....

2. In Some "Old World" countries (used so as not to offend anyone) it was customary to "arrange" marriages, within families, to keep royal blood lines "pure". (IE : Line breeding):eek1:

3. How about Iceland?

The 270,000 people who live in Iceland, are descended from a small number of original settlers, mostly Norsemen who came to the island around the 9th century. Since then, most Icelanders have been intermarrying and choosing their spouses from the same small group of Nordic families.
In the early 1400s, the Black Death swept through the island, killing two of every three inhabitants. Later, smallpox struck. And in the late 1700s, the volcano Hekla, east of Reykjavík, erupted and spewed ash over gardens and pastures. A severe famine followed. These catastrophes, combined with the isolation of the place, created population "bottlenecks" that constricted an already narrow gene pool.

I am sure there are far more examples, on many more Islands, and continents as well, but I think I have proven my point.

So just taking your third example of Iceland, by many peoples' opinions of line-breeding and defects, most Icelanders should now be loaded with all sorts of birth defects. Are they or have you just proven that line-breeding isn't as bad as many think?

 

[Kokopelli]

Well I know of at least one family line in the Gazza strip that is the subject of many researches. The family line has an odd defect in which all the babies seem to be girls- they are incapable of creating testosterone prior to puberty.
When they reach puberty, the women's clitoris grows into a penis. Sorry for being graphic here, but this is not a "fairy-tale", it was discussed among several researchers. This family practices in-family marriages exclusively.

These things do happen, and statistically, there's a difference. Also, you need to remember that this chance becomes less and less potent as you multiply, some of the children will not carry the defect at all- and so on. To the singular person statistics mean squat, but in the larger picture- it makes a huge difference. Especially as you continue the line-breeding.

Take this as an example: Every time you flip a coin, the chance for it to fall on tails is 50%. But the chance for it to land at least -once- out of 100 on tails, is a deal higher.

 

[abell82]

So just taking your third example of Iceland, by many peoples' opinions of line-breeding and defects, most Icelanders should now be loaded with all sorts of birth defects. Are they or have you just proven that line-breeding isn't as bad as many think?

Actually Iceland isn't exactly an example of line breeding, but more an
example of a limited gene pool. As far as the Icelandic population is concerned, why would it have to be birth defects? Birth defects are not the only defect, associated with in-breeding many defects are of the auto immune,and/or Nervous system, but since you asked specifically about birth defects, here you go.....

Between 1990 and 1999, there were 44,013 live births in Iceland, of which 740 patients were diagnosed with congenital cardiac malformations, accounting for 1.7% of the live-born children. The distribution was made up of 338 patients with ventricular septal defect (45.7%), 90 with atrial septal defect (12.2%), 85 with patency of the arterial duct (11.5%), 48 with pulmonary valvar stenosis (6.5%), 38 with a bicuspid aortic valve (5.1%), 28 with aortic coarctation (3.8%), 22 with tetralogy of Fallot (3.0%), 14 with transposed great arteries (1.9%), 11 with aortic stenosis (1.5%), 10 with atrioventricular septal defect and common atrioventricular orifice (1.4%), 9 with mitral valvar regurgitation (1.2%), 7 with sub-aortic stenosis (0.9%), and 5 with hypoplasia of the left heart (0.7%). Extracardiac anomalies were seen in 89 patients (12.0%). Chromosomal defects were seen in 36 patients, of whom 28 had Down's syndrome. Discussion: The annual incidence of diagnosis of patients with congenital cardiac malformations increased during the period of study. This was noted for minor defects, but the incidence of the major anomalies did not alter. Our observed yearly incidence, at 1.7%, was higher than noted in a previous study covering the years 1985 through 1989, and is also higher than in other population-based studies.

Coincidence? Maybe, it's just better record keeping?:shrugs:


Please note: This is from only one study, studying ONLY Congenital cardiac malformations This study does NOT study birth marks or Body Malformations,etc..



Excerpt taken from:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=E847DF33722CE5F55FF748E567AD07F1.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=269841