|
The entire argument of selective breeding, especially in favor of simple recessive traits, is misunderstood by far too many people in our "industry" - I think the bigger problem lies in the lack of patience exhibited by breeders to create the next "epic super rare ultra mega foxy snake" or the most super-hypo-transluscent-silkback-dunner-paradox bearded dragon. So many of these recessive genes (and we know that most of them are recessive) have never been raised out into adulthood (adulthood not necessarily correlating with "breeding size") prior to combining them with 2+ OTHER simple recessives to create something else. Honestly, how do we know as a reptile community that all Pumas (in terms of ball pythons) don't die at 6 years old? We don't. It's a long shot, I know, but I think my point is obvious.
The same occurs in terms of things like the spider morphs in balls and the enigma morphs in leopard geckos. These genes (codominant/dominant, respectively) are KNOWN to carry neurological comorbidities along with them, yet still, they're being bred over, and over, and over, and over again - to the detriment of the animal and the species as a whole. Artificially weakening the gene pool is the last thing you really want to do as a responsible reptile breeder. I know that most people have no qualms breeding these genetic combos, but anyone saying that "well, the parents had no signs of the spider wobble or enigma syndrome, thus, the babies will show even fewer phenotypical symptoms, and eventually, we'll be able to breed it out" has clearly never taken a genetics course in their entire life. It doesn't work that way.
There is a LOT to be said for selective breeding in the realm of creating visually stunning animals, and I'm not a hypocrite, I do it too, but I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has to be done responsibly. When you can show me a 12-year old female hypotrans microscale leather dunner bearded dragon that dies of old age and natural causes, then I'll be OK with the idea of breeding them. The reptile business has become a game of "keeping up with the Joneses" (or the Trempers, or the Dovenbargers, and so on and so forth) - pioneers of the industry are just that: pioneers, but they've done the necessary backpedaling and maintained enough patience to know that what they're producing and selling is genetically sound.
Too many basement breeders thinking they're geneticists.
OK, rant = over.
As for euthanizing the hybrids, I'm torn on the subject. If it DOES happen naturally, that's fine and dandy, but allowing any kind of release of these hybridized animals into the wild (in other words, pawning off your self-created weakened gene pool onto an already genetically sound ecosystem) is not only reprehensible, but irresponsible. I'm not a fan of hybrids either (as I'm sure you've probably deduced already) - and I agree with Helen, Australia is a very special case. Rabbit and cane toad epidemics have RAVAGED many of the naturally occurring ecosystems due to lack of natural predation, niche assignment, etc - why contribute to the problem? People have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to keep captive breeding in captivity, and regardless of bioethics, on the most basal level, they don't know how to keep their freaks of nature (don't scoff at the terminology, that's what they are, love them or hate them) in their living room. A few bad apples ruin it for the entire bunch, and I fear this will be a problem that our beloved reptile community will grapple with for many many years.
Case in point: have you seen the (awful) special on the Discovery Channel/Animal Planet about the supposed naturally occuring Burmese x African Rock python super-hybrid? - I'm just saying, it's not cool to play puppeteer with live, reproducing, and genetically interdependent puppets. Especially not ones with zero Darwinian checks and balances placed upon them.
|