Likewise (more on culling)...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ]

Posted by Gerry Binczik on August 13, 2002 at 10:57:35:

In Reply to: Some comments ... posted by patricia sherman on August 12, 2002 at 22:33:29:

I agree with a great deal of what you said, Tricia. I think this discussion could benefit tremendously from the participation of other folks, but in lieu of that I wanted to comment on a few things you said.

> It well may be the best course of action, but is it the course that breeders will take? Dealing with it from a strictly scientific standpoint, it is undoubtedly what has to be done. But, there's an emotional factor involved in this...

I wouldn't call it a scientific standpoint, but rather simply one of responsible animal husbandry. And I am VERY GLAD people have an emotional investment in their herps, but I think we should always try to temper emotion with logic, ESPECIALLY when it pertains to how we caretake other living creatures. Misguided emotionalism too often leads to unintentional animal suffering and death! The bug-eye mutation under discussion so far sounds rather benign (which is why I questioned whether it was really universally perceived as undesirable; for all I know, some consider it yet another exotic and exciting morph of the species!), but I've no doubt much more deleterious heritable traits will appear in captive snake stocks if they haven't already. People should be mentally preparing themselves for the responsibilities of animal husbandry if they're determined to enjoy its benefits.

In addition, I think it is not only emotionalism but also pursuit of profits which prevents many breeders from pursuing what appears to be the best course. What portion of breeders selling animals which they believe might or do carry an undesirable heritable trait reveal that to their potential buyers? In contrast, what portion remain decidedly silent about that fact - and often even endeavor to sell those animals in pairs - knowing full well their potential buyers are looking to get into the breeding game themselves? Frankly and cynically, when it comes to commercial snake breeding, I think monetary considerations are at present much more in control than emotional considerations.

And to toss in my answer to your rhetorical question, no, I don't believe snake breeders as a group are prepared to cull their pets or their profits. That's the source of my concern.

> ... With dogs and cats, there's always the option of neutering the progeny, so that they may be sold as pets without any worry of them perpetuating the problem. With our snakes, that really isn't a practical option.

I agree that would be an ideal solution, but as you said, so far it is not practically applied to snake breeding. Besides, in truth few dog breeders (I'm not familiar with cat breeders) even employ it for their pet-quality product. Most often they simply sell the animals clearly identified as pet-quality but without restrictions on what may be done with the animals in the future, less often they ask or even stipulate that such animals be neutered by their new owners, and far less often still they have such animals neutered themselves before selling them. This is understandable - again, in purely economic terms - but we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that any strategy short of neutering an animal prior to its sale prevents that animal from being bred. Look in the classified advertisements of any newspaper and see how many backyard dog breeders are operating out there! I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the horrific incidence of heritable faults such as hip dysplasia in many dog breeds as a result.

So I believe that even if snake neutering were to become a practical method of preventing breeding, it would really only address the problem of heritable defects if 1) sellers took it upon themselves to have the snakes neutered PRIOR to sale, or 2) the defects were severe enough that few people would be willing to ignore the defects in the pursuit of profits (and that would have to be pretty darn severe, in my opinion!). The bottom line remains that breeders themselves bear the responsibility for controlling the spread of heritable defects which appear in their stocks, and the most effective method of control is euthanasia.

> ... I can applaud those that decide not to breed from carriers, but I can't do anything to prevent others from breeding them...

That's not entirely true. One can manage one's own breeding programs as responsibly as possible (from your posts, I've no doubt you do), one can speak out in promotion of responsible animal husbandry (as you and I have been doing here) and widely warn the uninformed about the situation so that they do not unwittingly support less responsible breeders. One can even bring irresponsible breeders under the direct scrutiny of their peers and potential buyers, if one has the stomach for such conflict. After euthanasia of affected stock, probably the most effective method of control available is to cut the market out from under irresponsible breeders by educating their potential buyers. It's not ideal, but it's certainly something.

> ... Euthanizing carrier progeny is an action only likely to be practiced if buyers are willing to pay a premium for livestock guaranteed free of the recessive. I'm not sure that the buyers would pay for it...

I'm sure it depends on the defect. As I said, I suspect far more serious heritable aberrations than bug-eye await us.

> Is it overproduction, so long as there's a market for the offspring? This is a hobby that is still in its infancy, when you compare it to the breeding of many other pet species...

Well, perhaps we've reached the unruly teenage years, anyway. There are an awful lot of herps being produced and trading hands - for an awful lot of dollars - every year now, after all.

We can argue about what "overproduction" means, I suppose. What I meant is that there is a frighteningly high percentage of people getting (deeper) into herps because they want to breed them to make money, and that I believe this type of buyer now far outstrips the "real" market of those who want herps simply for hobby/pet purposes. Production is currently very high to accommodate that demand, but it seems inevitable that it will ultimately drop down to or near the level of the "real" market, very likely quite suddenly. There are many examples of this phenomenon in recent livestock breeding. By coincidence, there is a place only a couple of miles from my home here in rural northcentral FL where a fellow is having difficulty selling his ostrich chicks - which once went for remarkable money - at $25 apiece; probably he could be persuaded to give some away nowadays, just so he doesn't have to feed them. (I thought about getting one for the dog to chase around the backyard - more likely it would quickly be the other way around! - but my wife nixed the idea...)

> Whether or not you intended it, I suspect that your post has offended others. None of us likes to be the objective of the pointing finger of blame.

If so I apologize. All I was saying was that such was not my intent, for any who care about intent (as I do). I know from long experience that it is my nature to be blunt, and that I am not entirely successful in softening my manner when the situation calls for it. In any event, you misread me if you think I wish to point a finger of blame at anyone. My goal is always to discuss a problem and its possible solutions, not the specific people involved unless absolutely necessary, and to promote action. The confusion is understandable, though, when at the heart of a problem is human behavior.

Thanks for the discourse, Tricia. I DO still wish someone would post a picture of a bug-eyed animal, as I've never seen it and am curious as to what it looks like.

Gerry
gbin@zoo.ufl.edu

Follow Ups: