DWARF Leopard Geckos???

Stina, I never said you did not make it clear..... All I said is that we were not talking about hypothetical leos...... These are real leos with real defects..... I never argued the fact that if they evolved to be smaller there would be no problems..... Infact I aggree with that statement, but the animals in question did not evolve that way..... They are defects...... What you are talking about would not be considered dwarfism anyway....... So again, your argument holds no water....

{quote}Gregg,
They have evolved and adapted to their situation based on the strongest animals that lived before them...... In the natural world, larger and stronger is better......

Stronger doesn't necesaraly mean bigger! but I think we both know what were talkin about....Im just trying to get you going and you won't bite! LOL

{quote} Monte,
I think this is all opinion . . .

Monte, BINGO!

{quote}James,
Montee, I aggree 100%

I do too!

{quote} Marcia,
Yes. I do! Julie has been a personal friend of mine for about 7-8 years, and I am completely aware of what is behind the "dwarf" leopard geckos! They are truly dwarfs, not just small geckos, like I have said in two separate posts in this thread.

I am also aware of 3 other breeders (who's name I will not mention out of respect) that worked with these dwarfs, and ALL of them came to the conclusion that this is a very undesirable trait. Why? Because the vast majority of them could not reproduce, the ones that did died from dystocia (egg binding). The few offspring that did make it, were 'normal' sized geckos, and the only breeder I know that bred those normal offspring did indeed wind up producing a few dwarfs.

Marcia! Why didn't you tell us all this in the beginning? From now on would you please use a flashlight while you are in the tunnel?

{quote} Christina,
Anyway as far as small leos in the wild...Gregg if you had read before, I was not speaking of "true" dwarves (of which there are several different kinds of dwarfism), I made a point of saying smaller leos with NO other affects to their physiology. I am fully aware that more babies get picked off than adults, however there is a lot more than just size involved there. My point was that they don't all get eaten just because they are small, plenty make it to adulthood to support the species. Being smaller could move smaller leos into a new "predator notch" but being smaller would also make it easier to hide and would make them harder to see...it is impossible to say whether it would really be detrimental or not as there are too many variables involved. As far as evolution goes, they may be evolving larger or smaller...someone would have to do a study of leo size over many years to find out if they are getting larger or smaller or if their size is remaining consistent. Remember evolution is a continuous process (while VERY slow...it never really stops) and as an environment changes, so do the species residing there. Environments are also constantly changing...so what was ideal a hundred years ago for leopard geckos, bringing them to their current size, may not be ideal for them today (leading to larger or smaller geckos).

Christina! Bingo!

It would be futile to comment on anyone else’s breeding experiences with dwarfs. There are way too many unknown variables that have been left out.

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more that the controlled variables may have been left out, if they even existed in the first place. I have not seen any real scientific statistical anaysis or experimentation on theis subject... I have only seen these dwarf geckos and discussed it in depth with the breeders and a Veterinary Professor that worked with them. Based on that information, I would not knowingly or purposefully breed what I consider a negative characteristic into my stock.

Ah, I am James...

How does my argument not hold weight?...I was referring the ENTIRE time, to the same hypothetical animals...I was not reffering to true dwarfs. ...and no, they would not be true dwarfs, but people generally refer to smaller than normal animals as dwarfs or midgets, and I did not know (and still do not) the genetics of the animals in question. If you had read my original response to you and agreed with what I was saying about NOT true dwarfs...then why would you have argued with me about it? I said I did not know the actual genetics of the "dwarf" animals (dwarf meaning simply smaller than normal in this case...and not necessarily genetic dwarfism of whatever kind) and that IF the "dwarf" animals had nothing wrong with them other than size, they wouldn't necessarily be at a disadvantage....you argued back at me...I was saying NOTHING different than I am now...

I think there is two questions going on here!
One: is it ethical to breed small geckos?
Two: is it ethical to breed Dwarf geckos?
Well if the "Dwarf Geckos" are all messed up with stumpy little legs and a fat out of proportion tails than Unless thats what you specifically want, than no It probably would not be a good idea! OK but if someone wanted "Smaller" leopard geckos that were physically fine in every respect, than I would have to say definitely yes!...why the hell not?

As far as that goes, I say if a leo can do things normally including breed, it is not "unethical." However, if the animal cannot do things normally, including breed, then it is. Simple as pie for me...

Ah, I am James...

Sorry, James! ummm... Steve? ummm...

Well, you can now add Chris to your list as well.

I would honestly LOVE to discuss this with Chris! How can I get a hold of her?

One: is it ethical to breed small geckos?
Two: is it ethical to breed Dwarf geckos?
Well if the "Dwarf Geckos" are all messed up with stumpy little legs and a fat out of proportion tails than unless thats what you specifically want, than no it probably would not be a good idea!

Overton, that is exactly the original point of this thread.

Oh to add to mine......while I do not think it unethical to breed animals with some minor defects (such as genetic tail kinks), that does not mean that I condone it. There are certain minor defects that do not cause the animals any negative affects that I would not see unethical to breed, but would not want propagated.

Gregg Said, "Yeah I know, there are dwarf retics...... Unfortuanly for this particular argument they are not genetic dwarfs.... They are smaller in size because of where they live and the availablity of food"

Actually, I am not so sure I agree with you there. That seems to be the case with many of the Hogg island Boas, as they were once considdered by many to be a Drarf Boa form. Once they were bred in captivity, they were attaining legnths of 7+ feet (a pretty hefty Bci). Anyway, I am not so sure that this is the case with some of the drarf retics. It is my understanding that the Jampea Retics (also known as Dwarf Retics) are somewhat smaller, and that the Kyaudi animals (also known as Super Dwarf Retics) are even smaller (6 to 8 feet) than the Jampeas. These have been bred in captivity, and it seems to be holding true...