Your post certainly implies that if people don't get the testing you advocate that they are not doing the correct thing. When there is no relaible test for the disease, no proof of it's means of transfer and no proof that isolates can transfer the disease(from the IBD fact sheet)I don't feel comfortable subjecting animals to invasive procedures that may have no diagnostic meaning. What if you test all of your animals and none of them have inclusions? Does that prove that the animals still don't harbour the virus in other tissues or at amounts that aren't detectable by the limitted sampleing done. Furthermore is it conclusively know that there is only one strain of the virus and that has a uniform virulence in all of the boids. Varients of the virus with different virulence could easily have an identical histolgic appearance meaning that animals that would never transmit a dangerous virus would be destroyed for no good reason. I am afraid that IBD is a diagnosis that is more frequently made than warrented like. I am not aware of the long term studies that have been performed on boas that show that exposure to all of the chemicals we expose them too isn't the frequent cause of their demise. Do you know conclusively that the plastic that you keep them in or the water that you give them or the bedding that you keep them on isn't contributing to their disease. Symptoms from many different causes can have a similar appearance and if IBD is so prevalent then why haven't more collections been wiped especially where animals that have been co-existing with others are found to have the disease.

One whole aspect of this discussion that I haven't heard mentioned at all is that we are working with genetic mutations. I know of no data that has sytematically looked at the different mutations we are working with and proven that they are essentially normal other than a pattern or color trait. You showed xrays of your Motley female below. Do you know from proven data that Motley boas are not more radiosensitive than other boas and that xraying the mother will have absolutley no effect on the growth or reproduction of the babies? There is probably exisiting data about xrays not affecting breeding, although probably very limmited, but I would be very surprised if there is data for different genetic mutations. How do you know the given morph when exposed in utero to xrays won't develop sarcomas or other diseases 10-20 years down the road?

I am all for gaining a better understanding of diseases and the health of our animals but I think we should wait until data is really in before we do invasive tests on animals and question the ethics of other breeders.

Bill Kirby

[ Show Entire Thread ]