Interesting but unethical Hybrid attempt.

Originally Posted by Southwick Herps

And, Im soo sorry Dr Owens for stating my opinions as facts, please excuse my goddamn wrong sentence structure.

Michael,
This has nothing to do with sentence structure. You made pseudo-scientific statements that are ridiculously inaccurate, and you presented them as facts. People with science backgrounds will take exception to such inaccuracies every time.

Ill work real hard on that next time I try posting my opinion,

Good. You should. It's the responsible thing to do.

because Ive seen it done hundreds of times here, people stating their opinions as facts with nothing said about it...

Often times such statements go unchallenged because it gets old arguing with ignorance. However, in this instance your statements were so woefully inaccurate that IMO something needed to be said.

I don't see why I have you hounding me about it...

I am not hounding you. I merely posted one time in order to point out the falacy of your statements. I could have pointed out that you were making things up in an effort to appear smart, but I refrained.

Plus, the reiterations... were they necessary? To quote all the different instances in which I did it? A simple "what you said is simply an opinion, not fact, please don't state it as such" would've worked just fine.

Thank you for the tips on communication skills.

Ridiculous some of the crap I see here with no retorts, and I post something with good info, all be it opinion, and Im getting knocked for it...

Apparently you're still missing the point. You did NOT post good info. You made up a bunch of stuff using scientific terminology in order to try to sound like you know what you're talking about. However, based on what you've posted here...you don't.

If you would like to present a legitimate scientific argument against hybridization, then I would love to hear it. However, to try to defend your ethical position with false statements masquerading as scientific facts is worthless at best, and some people would call it down right dishonest.

Originally Posted by lucille

According to what I learned in economics, there is a law of supply and demand. If people are paying thousands and thousands, there is a demand for what is being produced.

If everyone saw this interbreeding as something not to be done, there would be no purchasers and no demand, but you yourself say that people want to buy these animals.?

So that makes it right?

Originally Posted by lucille

Why not simply purchase what you wish, and let other people do the same?

He's simply voicing his opinion (as are you, as am I). I don't recall in his post that he was saying it should be outlawed, simply stated that he was against it, and stated his reasons why. Besides, many (most?, all?) of our laws and our beliefs can be traced to religious, moral, and/or ethical reasons. You could probably debate this issue (hybridization), on any of the aformentioned three grounds, and probably several other criteria, so If someone feels strongly enough about it, why not speak out against it?

[sarcasm]I just can't believe that a discussion on hybridization is instigating such hostility! Who would have ever thought!? [/sarcasm]

Anyhow, I voted for "Stupid, pointless, why bother mixing these 2 beautiful species? " because in my opinion, I fail to see a justifiable point--that's all. I wouldn't call it "stupid" though, as I don't know what the breeder knows or what his/her intentions are. I do have to admit that I'd be interested to see what the results (offspring) are, but don't take that as encouragement or approval.

Originally Posted by PaulSage

[sarcasm]I just can't believe that a discussion on hybridization is instigating such hostility! Who would have ever thought!? [/sarcasm]

heh, yeah, who would have thunk?

Originally Posted by PaulSage

[Anyhow, I voted for "Stupid, pointless, why bother mixing these 2 beautiful species? " because in my opinion, I fail to see a justifiable point--that's all. I wouldn't call it "stupid" though, as I don't know what the breeder knows or what his/her intentions are. I do have to admit that I'd be interested to see what the results (offspring) are, but don't take that as encouragement or approval.

i agree, it would be interesting to see if any healthy offspring result, but i don't condone messing with captive animals, whether fr fun or for profit, any more than is reasonable. But you have to admit, that tiny BP looks a whole lot smaller breeding that (what is it again?) burm? anyways, rather silly looking in my mind...

There are many who purchase purebred dogs, with dog clubs like the AKC to trace the pure lines; and many who are happy with their mixed breed companions. I have heard that designer mixes in dogs also have elevated prices because people want to select for the particular combinations which are produced.

Why not simply purchase what you wish, and let other people do the same?

Using your comparison with these, "designer mixes", there's a whole lot of controversy over those as well Lucille, and a lot of the arguements are very similaif, if not identical, to many of the arguements posed against producing the snake hybrids....and it's a topic I tend to get VERY vocal about.

My biggest beef is the fact that they are touting these animals as being "healthier" than purebreds, because they don't have the same genetics...well, HELLO......the puppies still carry the parents' genes. I fear they are opening a whole new can of worms with some of these breedings... the most popular of course being the "Goldendoodle" or "Labradoodle". Here, we are taking a Golden Retriever or Labrador Retriever, BOTH breeds prone to hip dysplasia, and crossing it with a Standard poodle, a breed nearly free of dysplastic dogs. And claiming that they won't have hip dyplasia because they are not purbred Labs or Goldens....and because they are crossing them, they aren't having the OFA certs done on the Labs and Goldens as they should before breeding them....all because of the dang dollar signs in their eyes. How many people down the line are going to be shocked when their "doodle" ends up crippled because of a genetic problem that they, "couldn't have"?

Maybe it wouldn't bother me QUITE as much if they would just sell the dogs as what they ARE, Mixed breeds, instead of giving them a fancy name and promoting them as a new breed, but that's the way to make the big bucks, I guess.....these people have no CLUE. And neither do most of the people buying them.

That is just ONE of the MANY reasons that I feel that, "simply letting people buy what they wish" isn't necessarily the correct thing to do here.....when it comes to the future well being of the animals, someone needs to be looking ahead instead of just making money off from what's the "IN" thing right now.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

when it comes to the future well being of the animals, someone needs to be looking ahead

Off topic a little bit, but I have heard there is a hip dysplasia registry that keeps track of the dysplasia history of the ancestral dysplasia history in certain dog breeds, I think that is a good idea. A parallel problem in snakes, in that it may be genetic, are the eyeless snakes that emerge sometimes, I do not know if a registry would be helpful in those cases, what do you think?

Originally Posted by Dr Owens

Apparently you're still missing the point. You did NOT post good info. You made up a bunch of stuff using scientific terminology in order to try to sound like you know what you're talking about. However, based on what you've posted here...you don't.

If you would like to present a legitimate scientific argument against hybridization, then I would love to hear it. However, to try to defend your ethical position with false statements masquerading as scientific facts is worthless at best, and some people would call it down right dishonest.

Ok, so I made up all of those terms? Ill be the frist person to admit I don't have the most experiance in reptiles, I couldn't Im only 16. But, I didn't just throw out a bunch of crap and add a fancy name to it.
You're right, I don't have any prior knowledge to be able to state as fact that Burms and Balls can't cross, but why should they? A large python, that grows in excess of 15 feet that is not regularly found past India, that also lives a semi aquatic life mixing with a West African python, that grows usually no larger than 5 or so feet...
Evolution brought them apart from each other for a reason... If nature had intended for them to hybridize, then they would've evolved in the same area, from a common ancestor.
But, thats just my opinion and it's just my "no good info with fancy names slapped on".

Originally Posted by gmherps

Gee, that's really nice you BELIEVE in your little theory.

Yeah, I believe in my "little" theory.
How closed minded can you be to call the Theory Of Evolution a "little theory". Being that it is the corner stone of modern biology, there are entire branches of science dedicated to the study of evolution.
But it's just a little theory... Just like Catholicism is nothing more than a little theory...
Great to see we still have a nice jerk, who can say a little wise ass crack, and not post a single thing valuable. Good work jerkoff.

Originally Posted by lucille

According to what I learned in economics, there is a law of supply and demand. If people are paying thousands and thousands, there is a demand for what is being produced.

If everyone saw this interbreeding as something not to be done, there would be no purchasers and no demand, but you yourself say that people want to buy these animals.

Many of the pets that humans have cultivated, purebred or not, would not survive without the help of their keepers.

Why not simply purchase what you wish, and let other people do the same?

Lucille, you have some very good points that really made me reconsider my stance on hybrids because I started thinking about common non-reptile pets that are actually hybrids. Two came to mind: the society (bengalese) finch and the parrot cichlid--neither of these exist in nature, yet they seem rather well-suited to be kept as pets and there is a significant demand for them. Societies are easily one of the most abundant/common types of pet finches with good reason (in my opinion). Parrot cichlids aren't that common, but when I worked at a pet store, those were one of few types of cichlids that we could easily sell in the $25-30 range. There is a demand for them, and they seem (in my experience) well-adjusted and well-suited as pets.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Southwick Herps

Ok, so I made up all of those terms?

No. You didn't make up the terms. You "made up" the context in which the terms are applicable to this hybridization.

Bottom line...you were trying to sound like you knew what you were talking about by using big words...but you don't. The pseudo-scientific arguments that you presented in an effort to try to lend validity to your ethical position were not only inaccurate...they were downright lies.


For the record, I am NOT arguing here in favor of (or against) hybridization. However, I do take issue with people trying to "dress up" an ethical argument with lies posing as science. To present such distortions of truth as fact is in and of itself unethical.