Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I read a few of the replies and found most of them to be mislead. subspecies are not breeding nics to colombians or to panamanian. the sunglow is not a "Mutt" they are all classified as BCI, they may not be locality "pure" but are far from mutts.

As far as the locale thing goes it seems to be mostly for profit. A few big breeders knocked a couple of little guys for producing "Mutts" from doing a breeding with a C/A line motley to a C/A T poss. Funny thing is that they do the same, example breeding motleys to Cancun's, they find this okay. But there still not "mutts" they are all BCI.

In today's market there are very few boas that are "pure" or "true locals". If you want Pure boas there's only a VERY FEW breeders out there, and their not the "big breeders"

Thks for the clarification....
-----
Paul Harb

I know that all are bci like Nic, Col...... but to me they are either pure or not pure so sorry if I refer the sunglow and bloody salmons as mutts but they are just "not pure" so I call them mutts so sorry for that. Nice post btw
Bob

It's so nice to be used as an example in forum debates! Here's an OLD pic of one of those dreaded mutts us little guys have next to an arabesque. Isn't it just awful???

Pure racial thing,lol.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Has anyone seen the cloned glow in the dark cats? Scientists have manipulated a protein during the cloning process so these cats glow in the dark and can be recognized as cloned, is this the next step in fashion boas? Will this be acceptable to all the designer boa creators...?
ok at this point I know this debate is futile, Tnk said it best every couple of years this debate comes up and goes down the same road. But for arguments sake here I go.

1.Just because you can do something does not make it right. Just to see what they produce or if they will produce does not make something right...put a male and female together and what do you think they are going to do? Just because the Romans are doing it doesn’t mean its right or you have to too.

2.Just because you keep snakes (not natural in itself) does not mean that all "unnatural" things are acceptable now. Just because you keep snakes in plastic boxes etc is not an excuse to breed recessive mutations together or crossbreed etc. To go against nature is part of the natural process for sure, but for a decided advantage, or to overcome an existing set of circumstances.

3.Dogs, wolves, cars etc and all other anologies are not applicable.

4.When you reduce everything down to its core or base we can only apply reason.

5.It is reasonable to assume that a Guyana/Suri will not mate with a Hog Island. And that most subspecies of Boa C.C are separated by natural boundaries which prohibit contact.

6.It is reasonable to assume that (pick your recessive mutation here) will not survive without interference from man.

7.It is reasonable to assume that recessive traits, while they may naturally occur will "fade" away in any given population because they are disadvantageous and a weakness. Detrimental to the survival in the wild of the species.

8. It is reasonable to assume that selective breeding is “unnatural”, however the purity of the animals and quality/health and appearance of the animals being bred is to exemplify the best of and dominant traits as they are in the wild.

8.It is reasonable to assume that there is a right and a wrong in this debate. If you had to choose which side is right (its obvious to me which one that it would be) and which is wrong that you would have to err on the side which seeks to replicate as closely as possible, in a captive setting the boas as they exist in the wild. FROM THE STANDPOINT ALONE THAT WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN CAPTIVE SETTING WOULD NOT OCCUR OTHERWISE. Except for the fact that the following reasonable observations about “Pure Boas” carry more weight than that of “Designer Boas”
“Pure Boas” of any given locale and/or subspecies will survive and breed naturally in the wild. “Designer Boas” don’t and wont.
“Pure Boas” of any given locale and/or subspecies will survive and breed in captivity. “Designer Boas” only will here.
“Pure Boas” 2
“Designer Boas” 1

9. Naturally none of the so called Sharpies, Boaphiles etc have anything to say…and they will go on pumping out, like the puppy mills, another toffee cream popsicle or the other creation, they may even be working on the glow in the dark boa as we speak…just because they can…and all without a 2nd thought as to the right or wrong or ethics of it, and as long as so many don’t care either, they wont care.

10. Sure people will want to flame me for mentioning the above #9 because of the good they have done for the "hobby" instead of sticking to the argument itself. But I think they have done more harm than good. Dont be sheep. In my opinion.

My last thought on the matter...

Yes, "just because it can be done doesn't make it right"... but, who decides what is "right"? Unless it involves crime, I don't want someone deciding for me what is wrong or right.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume all the points you made. But, if something is possible, there is the chance, however small, that it could happen in nature. Evolution is affected by small probabilities (mutations) producing creatures that are more likely to survive, though it takes a long time, and the dice don't always roll to all possible results.

Sure, it's not likely (hog island mating with a surinam in the wild), but it could happen. Just because you or I don't think something could happen, doesn't mean it won't. I'll take the low road and point out 9/11 (no one anticipated that sort of event as being probable).

And, I have to disagree with you about the other arguments (dogs/wolves and even cars) not being applicable. The arguments cannot be COMPLETELY applied, but sections of those arguments do hold water in certain aspects. For the dog/wolf argument, it's not the *same* because the domestication of dogs from wolves occurred over thousands and thousands of years, while the breeding of boas in captivity only began decades ago.

But, there was a study done a few years back about the domestication of fur foxes. On some fox farm, silver fur foxes were being raised. Breeding was determined by quality of fur only, and the little buggers had pretty nasty temperments (especially after they became adults), despite interacting with humans every day. This matched behavior of wild foxes that were brought into captivity.

However, the study started breeding some of these foxes for disposition (ie, breeding foxes that weren't quite as nasty with each other). Within a few generation, these "nicer", more domestically behaving foxes started displaying WHITE markings that NONE of the ancestors had. The point was that perhaps our domesticated dogs started displaying white markings in the same manner, somehow white markings and tractable behavior being genetically linked.

So, you have a new "look" appearing that separated these foxes from their wild counterparts, within a few generations. I might add that the foxes being bred together were NOT from different locales or phenotypes (they were all silver fox). That study may be more applicable than the wolf/dog argument.

Is domestication wrong, in your eyes? Yes, pure lines of rare animals should be preserved, but if people want pretty, easy to handle pets, is that wrong? Not to me. It's just two paths of animal keeping. "Pet foxes" that were well behaved would not be an attempt to save their species, but an attempt at domestication. Separate breeding programs to preserve the wild look and behavior of the species would have to be present.

So, bear in mind that the moment you choose a snake that is easy to handle over one that wants to bite your face off, you've started down the road of domestication, and who knows, even THAT in snakes could lead to different physical attributes in future generations.

Heh, I guess I always feel the need to argue with people who seem to want a "black or white" answer. I like shades of grey!

Great discussion, and of course hopefully everyone agrees to disagree...
-----
Lauren Madar - OphidiaGems.com | CageMakers
1.1 Ball Python, 1.0 Hog Island Boa, 1.1 Hypo BCI, 1.1 Surinam BCC, 1.1 Saharan Sand Boa

It's all a matter of degree. Some people say just keeping them in captivity is too much human intervention. I believe PremoMaximus mentioned the same. My own brothers feel that way. They don't understand me at all.
I know a lot of people have pure animals that look nothing like their wild counterparts. I personally don't care for striped snakes where normally banded or blotched snakes occur in nature. A lot of people like them that way and they are pure.
Like I said, the the imperitor group is so arbitrary and ill defined. It's just an all encompassing catch all. Who's to say?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

We already live in houses, use electricity, keep 'pets' that look nothing like their original counterparts, dye our hair, watch tv.... etc. etc. etc. Hell, I don't know how a bubbly eyed goldfish would thrive in the wild, but a lot of naturalists that preach against all of our 'meddling' among other things keep those, etc. and do all the aforementioned things nonetheless.

What of the creatures we've changed and caused to relocate due to our housing moving in? What creatures that lived where a city popped up moved out of their homes, or disappeared, or changed to adapt? This is a little off base, but what we do isn't necessarily natural, but we do it anyway and it changes life around us. To say what we are doing with our already captive animals is not natural, could be applied to everything we do and how it effects the world around us, the temperatures, the air, the water?

I don't say that other peoples purist beliefs are wrong, but I'm doing what I love with animals I love, pure or otherwise. In reality, it is such a small subject in the world of what is or isn't right or natural. I think we are small fish here and should be supporting a hobby that is honest, well represented, and willing to help eachother along, as well as take love in what we do (rather than just money from it)... not forcefully going back and forth over something that all comes down to opinions and beliefs. There will never be a "RIGHT" or a "WRONG" because people will always be parted. Others who said it will always come up and end the same way are right for those reasons. There will always be bad in the hobby, pure breeders and morph breeders, but we have to set a good example.

Do what you love and for all the right reasons...
-----
Steph S.
Boas...
1.1 Albino boas (Loki & Hope)
1.4 07 Het. albino boas (Petty & Lady,Sierra,Madeline,Lola)
0.1 Reverse stripe poss. het albino (Cookie)
0.1 Salmon/hypo (Scarlet)
0.1 Anery poss. het snow (Missy)
1.0 Anery (Reno)
0.1 DH Sunglow (Bonnie)
1.0 Het. Anery (Guy)
0.3 Normals (Ophelia, Sasha, & Lulu)
1.1 Surinames (Solomon & Surreal)
1.2 Hogg Isles (Mr.Orange & Peaches, Apricot)
0.0.1 Central American (Sassy)
0.1 Emerald Tree boa (Jade)
1.0 ATB (Satan... seriously!)
Pythons...
2.1 GTPs (B., Monty & Jewel)
0.0.3 BPs (MJ, Precious, Houdini)
1.1 Carpet Pythons (Jackson & Charlotte)
0.1 Blood python (Akaia)
Misc.
1.1 Mandarin Ratsnakes (Jack & Jill)
1.0 Boxer/Pitt Mutt (Tyson)

damn I should probably stop feeding my snakes those white lab rats and go catch lizards and monkies so that they can eat only whats natural.

By the same statement you are saying it isnt natural for a white man to date a black woman because they are from natually different areas.

Other things selectively bred for human advantages,

Beef cattle
chickens
"farm raised fish"
there is even hybrid corn wheat and rice.
all the dairy farms in wisconsin.

I "might" be taking this to the extreme but said ".Just because you can do something does not make it right. Just to see what they produce or if they will produce does not make something right..."

Theres a town in michigan with pure black squirrels they must be doing something unnatural there too.

95% of human life is based on unnatural things that destroy natural things. instead of bashing the big name breeders why not dump motor oil on yourself and protest something that really matters.

and as for saying that they are doing bad for the hobby we all know who steve irwin is. He had a pure white croc named casper which he bred. I bet that steve was a bad guy then too. reguardless he brought more awareness than anyone really in the past 20 years.
-----
My Photobucket

Wow, you are trying to lump this guy in with racists? Think about that a little bit, are you sure that was wise? Farmed fish is the worst thing to put in your body now days and it is almost as bad as the oil you talk about, mercury poison for babies and all. Fun stuff on your post buba. fun stuff

not calling him racist at all just going with locals and all that trash. he said basically it isnt right to breed stuff that has a natural boundry to make "hybrids" humans are a part of nature. was simply stating that africans came from africa. is that a racist comment? I certainly dont think so its the same as saying white people come from europe and mexicans mexico. boas that we are talking about are from central and south america so if I used boas would I get called prejudice against species local? its the same book different cover.

What I was trying to get accross is simply that there are other things more important to waste energy on than how some people make money creating life naturally(given the genetics might be recessive) whos to say they wont live in the wild for sure? besides whats wrong with albinos I have seen many albino people should we dispatch of them for being unnatural? should we stop little people from having babies together because the genetics are there to make more little people? dwarfism in humans is recessive yet I dont see this guy picketing them from being with each other making more little people.

Now I would like to see this convo stop because like I said it is a waste of energy. Focus on real matters like global warming or animal abuse.
-----
My Photobucket

2.Just because you keep snakes (not natural in itself) does not mean that all "unnatural" things are acceptable now. Just because you keep snakes in plastic boxes etc is not an excuse to breed recessive mutations together or crossbreed etc. To go against nature is part of the natural process for sure, but for a decided advantage, or to overcome an existing set of circumstances

Not true, in fact nature try news things all the time that dont work or are complete biological failures.....not everything nature does is a better version.....its a test.....
-----
Paul Harb

FLAME ON!:

Ok, right and wrong is a fuzzy place, the only way the snakes will stay “pure” is to protect their habitat and don’t alter nature by bringing them into captivity. When we breed them we make the choices, not nature. No matter what we try to do, it’s selective breeding.

I think the dog analogy is being used wrong! Pure breeds are mutants cultured threw the human alteration of the omega, wolves are pure, mutts are random mixes. Technical speaking, sunglows are pure by “canine” standards.

All BCI and BCC come from a common ancestor, geographical differences have caused changes and certain advantageous mutations have added in survival for a given environment. With the encroachment of man, we will see other changes or the illumination of species. Evolution!

If you are a true purest you would not own any animals but protect their natural environment. The definition of evolution is advantageous change, in response to climate change or factors of other species. Man isn’t from Mars, so I think we could be categorized as an influencing species. If we left the planet tomorrow and came back 20,000 years from now I think we would see some changes in the “natural” populations.

As far as how well the “mutts would do in the wild; I think someone should talk to the Florida Fish and Game Dept..

I do see the value and preference of wild strains, but let’s not kid ourselves; they will NEVER see the wild again, so purity is a preference, not right or wrong.

They aren’t going back to the wild (by law) so what happens to them in captivity, as long as it doesn’t cause them pain and discomfort, is irrelevant.