 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by KJUN on March 10, 2003 at 12:43:14:
In Reply to: If the idea was to posted by Tony D on March 10, 2003 at 10:29:24:
I doubt if that was the main reason Manser was working with the parents to these guys, but it was part of the reason why I got them, but not the ONLY reason. I'm not against working with outcrossed morphs as long as they are pure specimens. (The real danger comes from hybrids IMO.) I've got them for other reasons (including I think they'll be pretty animals).
On another note, why should Stillwater's be any different from generic corn morphs or generic Sonoran morphs or....... How many people that say it is wrong to breed Stillwaters to anything but a Stillwater own NOTHING that isn't a locality animal? I'm more glad than you can know that Stillwaters can be got in locality hypos, but I'm really depressed that I can't get locality hets, too. I COULD travel up there to TRY and catch some, but this is NOT the only locality morph I work with. I couldn't afford to do all of them even if I could take the time off work to do it for even one of them....lol.
Now, to answer the real question: why not use a closer locality? Well, again I didn't produce these snakes, and this was probably done to produce a more colorful animal and not just for genetics. However, I paid for these animals and plan to get another one directly from Ginter. This means I must agree with it since I'm buying them....lol. Like I said, I don't see this mutation as being anymore unique than any of the other mutations, so owning an outcrossed albino bullsnake but not a Stillwater-gene hypo of generic locality would be hypocritical of me.
So, now that I've explained my reason why I'm not against this outcrossing over and over, let's address your real question. I think a distant locality bred to a Stillwatwer may actually be better than a close locality for one reason: fraud! People will probably be able to get more money for a red bull X Stillwater cross since the babies MAY be redder, so the "bad guys" may not be tempted to lie about the bloodline. Also, the offspring may be distinct enough to tell it isn't a regular Stillwater hypo. Cross similar localities, but still making it a generic, may just result in some people being tempted to lie about them being really locality animals. Follow my worries?
So, generics are generics in my mind. If I make a generic, I want to have a GOAL in mind. Besides, all of this might be for naught. Ginter has told the stories on these things numerous times. They were collected by a wild-collecter who claims to have captured them in the Stillwater locality and brought them to the Stillwater round-up. That is NOT good enough for me to trust the locality 100%. If that collector would have caught them somehwhere where he couldn't collect them, of course he would have lied. Besides, maybe he didn't keep track of which snakes came from where...or even how far away they really were from Stillwater, OK. If someone trusts that locality 100%, I've got a some ocean front property in AZ I'd like to sell them....lol.
Sooooo, all of these concerns may be for nothing in my eyes. We can't even prove they really are definite Stillwater, OK, locality animals in MY eyes! They almost definitely are, but I've still got some lingering doubts. Wit htese doubts, why whould I stress over which locality animal they were bred, too?
Besides, I wish we had this much energy into speaking out against creamsicle corns, Jungle Corns, northern pin e hybrids, etc.....lol
Good thread!
KJ
