Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have commented on this topic before but I would like to bring some issues up again as I have recently seen posts about this.

Firstly, the inbreeding issue to me seems like a bandwagon that people who claim to love Indigos must jump on in order to publicly demonstrate their affection for the animal. I love Indigo Snakes, particularly Eastern Indigos, which I breed exclusively. Nonetheless, I see the need for some inbreeding in captive populations of Easterns, and it is one of my goals to convince people that inbreeding is not anathema, and indeed has virtues.

The only good reason I can think of to avoid inbreeding in captive populations of animals is that inbreeding can result in "gene loss." This phenomenon is indeed true. Gene loss not only occurs in captive populations, but also in wild populations, especially when the numbers of individuals in the population is limited (in the thousands or less). When gene loss occurs, an individual gene allele disappears from a population and can then never return (well, at least is less likely to return).

For wild populations, biologists are very concerned about gene loss because it is genetic diversity, and the multiplicity of allelic variants that gives populations the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Populations with more genetic diversity are more likely to endure and recover from changes to the ecosystem.

I applaud everyone's concern for the plight of the Eastern Indigo, and I congratulate those who want to see the animal survive and flourish again in the wild. I also think, however, that people should be able to keep Easterns in captivity, because they are awesome animals for humans to maintain and personally identify with as living creatures.

The number one virtue of inbreeding for captive populations, in my mind, is that it is pretty much a necessity to inbreed in order for the propagation of unusual traits.

Why should we be concerned with propagation of unusual traits in captive populations? Speak to a DFG biologist and you might discern my answer. The number one concern of DFG biologists, and state biologists, is to reduce or eliminate the poaching of animals from the wild. Many biologists are unhappy with any public keeping of threatened or endangered species, because they can't tell whether captive animals have been poached or not. This is the reason for the generally worthless and totally wasteful and ineffective permitting procedures we currently have for Easterns. Somehow this is supposed to decrease the likelyhood of poaching.

Let me ask everyone, how many times have you seen a "snow corn" and thought it was wild caught? How many times have you seen an albino Burmese Python and thought it was wild caught?

Inbreeding allows for the proliferation of unusual traits in captive populations. If any of these traits are considered valuable to keepers, then such traits can be used to distinguish between wild and captive populations. The more we are able to distinguish between captive and wild populations, the lesser significance is attributable to biologists concerns about poaching.

If a solid red Eastern popped up in my breeding population, I would be jumping for joy. I would bet you that I could convince DFG biologists to forego any permitting or other restrictions on Easterns that were solid red, because they are never seen in the wild.

Gene loss is not always bad for captive populations. In the wild, Easterns would probably be benefitted by reacting with fear to vibration (such as an approaching car). The same wild animals would probably also be benefited by attempting to violently bite any human who tries to pick up the animal. How many of you want captive populations to have these characteristics? Whatever genes might be responsible for these traits don't belong in the captive population. I wouldn't mind to see gene loss here.

The only argument that could oppose what I have just stated is that we may at some point, as a society, attempt to repopulate the wild with captive animals. I would like to state (bluntly for now) that this will never happen with Eastern Indigos. This has never been done successfully with any animal. For the reasons I have just described, captive populations do not represent the wild populations, because breeders and keepers naturally select for traits that are valuable in captive animals, not wild animals.

I have written long posts in the past and have gotten burned because there is a magical timer that erases and throws away anyones efforts if too much time elapses. I will try to elucidate these arguments later in this thread.

Jeff, I would particularly like you to put forth your argument about your desire not to propagate "defective" genes (anything that results in non-wildtype traits) if you remember our discussion. Yes, I am setting you up (in a friendly way of course).

Robert Bruce.

Robert,

You know I always enjoy our discussions and reading your posts. You also know that I harbor the utmost respect for your thoughts and opinions. BUT, you know I do not advocate the inbreeding of D. couperi, or any species for that matter.
Yes, we all know color morphs are produced and developed via inbreeding, but Elaphe guttata, Python regius and Python m bivittatus are not threatened or endangered species.
Gene loss is as much a problem for the captive population as it is wild populations, as such is the reason behind many autoimmune and neurological anomalies. Recent studies, conducted at the Edinburg Genetics Unit also indicate bilateral and unilateral anophthalmia and dwarfism to be attributed to gene loss, the latter of which has already become present among captive D. couperi and D. m erebennus,m as well as, isolated wild populations. Unfortunately, wild D. couperi and D. m erebennus are not readily available to help bolster the genetics of the captive population, unlike the other genera you indicated.
I am not simply voicing my affection for these protected Drys, but rather my concerns for the future of the species in captivity. Drymarchon are not nearly as prolific and Elaphe guttata or Python m bivittatus and most herpetoculturist producing color morphs of the species indicated can attest to the high number of mortalities and physiological anomalies generated from repetitive inbreeding.
I do agree with you, as I seriously doubt the private community will ever be called upon to contribute captive produced specimens for reintroduction and repatriation projects, as there is plenty of “wild” stock within zoological and educational institutions, since specimens confiscated from poachers are not returned to the wild, but rather given to such institutions.
I would write more, but I am severly pressed for time. Perhaps we can continue this discussion later... ;0)

Best regards,

Jeff
-----
Jeff Snodgres
University of Arkansas
snodgresjeffreys@uams.edu
501.603.1947

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for the willingness to put forward some beliefs that are typical of the educated group of breeders and keepers of Eastern Indigo Snakes. As you know, I am intending to show what I believe to be fallacies in the conventional way of thinking about inbreeding.

In animals, where there is a "trait," be it skin color or anything else, there is always at least one and maybe more than one genes that control that trait.

Anophthalmia must mean the absence of eyes ("an" means absence of and "ophthalmia" means having to do with eyes). Both the absence of eyes and dwarfism are examples of mutant or defective genes in affected individuals within a population. These traits (at least in captive animals) could be considered to be non-lethal mutations, as they don't necessarily cause the death of the individual. The traits, anophthalmia and dwarfism, affect individual members of populations.

Gene loss is a phenomenon that affects populations as a whole. When a population loses a gene, what that means is that one particular "allele" of a gene is lost and no longer present in the population. In small populations, this can happen by chance, and a specific trait will be no longer available to that population. This can make populations less likely to survive changes in the environment which would require the presence of that trait.

I doubt that the Edinburgh study that you came to the conclusions that you mentioned because were gene loss to cause anophthalmia or dwarfism, then all of the members of the population would have those traits.

I suspect that the study may conclude that defective genes or mutations may have caused those traits or conditions. There are many ways a gene can become mutated. One type of mutation is called point mutation and another is called deletion mutation. Deletions are where large parts of genetic material (DNA) are deleted from the chromosomes in a mutation event. It might be possible that the conditions of anophthalmia and dwarfism could be caused by deletion mutations.

Robert Bruce.

In the fifth paragraph it should read:

I doubt that the Edinburgh study that you cited came to the conclusions that you mentioned...

Robert.

Robert,

Gene loss is an evolutionary proponent which generally takes a great deal of time and the effect of such is inherently related to species differentiation, as demonstrated by the Bateson - Dobzhansky - Muller mechanism, where it has been demonstrated the point loss of alternative copies of duplicated genes leads to reproductive isolation, which in turn leads to gene loss.
You are correct, as the Edinburgh study did indicate point mutation as the cause of the phenotypic mutations indicated, not gene loss. My bad, as I simply do not have the time to give an overview of genetics and I should have pointed out the difference, though the two components play hand-in-hand, with point mutation having an immediate effect and affects gene loss over a period of time.
I still fail to see how you find inbreeding to be conducive to the species as a whole and would like for you to expound upon what exactly it is you are attempt to succeed in doing.
As has already been mentioned, inbreeding and selective breeding are not one and the same, as all breeders “select” what specimens they will pair for copulation, whether they be related or not .

Best regards,

Jeff
-----
Jeff Snodgres
University of Arkansas
snodgresjeffreys@uams.edu
501.603.1947

Being able to justify or rationalize doing something that is inherently bad does not change it to something good.

Robert,

It seems like you are going a long way to try to scientifically prove that selective breeding indigos is not bad. I assume you are doing this in response to past critisism of this practice....but I am not sure.

I have mixed feelings on the subject, but I do feel like you are making a very sweeping statement by saying that the #1 concern among wildlife biologists is the prevention of poaching. Poaching is certainly a concern, and one that backs the need for captive breeding. No doubt about that.

But...the number one problem that the indigo faces this time is not poaching. It is development, destruction, and fragmentation of habitat. It is my belief that most wildlife biologists "in the know" are (and should be) most concerned about this aspect of conservation.

It is impossible to say how many indigos are still poached, but I don't really see evidence of it. (although I'm sure it still happens).

Poaching will not be an issue when there is no suitable habitat left, and the remaining snakes all become road-kill.

Dear Dean,

My motive for this thread is to argue that techniques of selective breeding including the use of limited inbreeding are things that keepers/breeders of Eastern Indigo Snakes can do to help the wild populations, and to maintain the right to keep Easterns in captivity. It is not the shortest argument.

I am glad you mentioned captive breeding as helpful to prevent poaching. I agree with you completely about this, and our agreement here is a good place for me to begin to make some of these additional arguments I am talking about. Unfortunately, many wildlife biologists are not convinced that allowing public keeping and breeding of Eastern Indigos is a good thing.

One argument I have heard made by biologists is that if captive Easterns were not allowed at all, then there would be no question as to whether an animal was poached or not (as there is now). If a person simply had posession of an Eastern Indigo, then the animal would be considered poached. As of right now, a biologist is not be able to distinguish a captive animal as captive-bred or wild-caught.

I agree with you that captive breeding is helpful to the wild populations, because it takes the pressure off of poaching as a method to aquire an Indigo. If these animals are available from breeders, then it is not necessary for anyone to poach one in order to aquire one.

Although I intend to argue that selective breeding is equally as important as captive breeding to prevent poaching, it is obvious to me that selective breeding is really also a natural consequence of captive-breeding. Keepers/breeders of Eastern Indigos are always going to put their best snakes together. What "best" means to one person may be different than to another person, but could be any of a large variety of traits that are of perceived value to the person doing the breeding.

Robert Bruce.

Dear Dean,

You are right that I was making too sweeping a statement about wildlife biologists. In my rush to beat the time-out timer, I didn't re-read my post.

I meant to say that the need to decrease poaching is the number one reason wildlife biologists have for the (worthless) federal permitting system we have right now, and that poaching is the number one concern of wildlife biologists regarding even the allowing of public keeping of Eastern Indigos at all.

The number one general concern of wildlife biologists regarding any threatened or endangered species is the reduction of or the reversal of the decline in numbers of animals in the wild.

I also agree with you that habitat loss, and not poaching is the primary threat to the wild Eastern Indigo.

To whatever extent poaching actually does occur though, anything that keepers and breeders can do to reduce or minimize it is helpful. If captive-bred Easterns are more desirable because they have combinations of desirable traits that wild populations don't have (because of the selective breeding done by breeders) then pressure is taken off of poaching as a source of animals.

Robert Bruce.

Inbreeding does not equal selective breeding.

Thought you might find this interesting.

http://cc.ysu.edu/~helorime/inbred.html

BTW. In our lab, we see a dramatic decrease in fertility after only 9-12 generations of line breeding mice. Some individuals are completely sterile.

Sir,

I am positng late to this discussion, but I am doing it to add to the record because your assumptions about what "indigo keepers"think are desireable traits.
Indigos that readily take rodents are not universally wanted.
For me its fine if they eat fish or cold blooded prey.
Thee are many ,many other points of yours that are completely humorous to me but we will have to discuss them in newer posts.
MAtt