BIG can o worms!!! - Robert Bruce

I got this from the other indigo forum at kingsuck.com I just about fell out of my chair when I read it. So I coppied and pasted his post here. My intent is not to flame Robert, or anyone else. But to invite him to come to this forum and discuss his opinion here. And hopefully to see the error of his ways! I have added my opinion/commentary to the end. Robert is more than welcome to discuss this right here where he does not enjoy the protection of the forum Nazis at kingsuck.com


Posted by: robertbruce at Sun Jul 23 03:32:14 2006 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

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.

I strongly disagree with this opinion. Most of us probably do. Most of us are struggling to keep the captive gene pool as deep and clean as possible,...for what should be obvious reasons. When we have someone like Robert Bruce, with a huge collection, and an opinion like this, it causes me great frustration, and concerne. It causes me to feel as if I am shoveling s**t against the tide! Someone like this can screw up the captive gene pool faster than we can fix it. And once it gets totally screwed up, we won't be able to fix it.

In my opinion, the high dollar inbred morphs, mutts, and mutants available in many of the other species are an abomination. A snow ball python, is no longer a ball python at all, but rather an inbred man made mutt. I don't know about the rest of you, but I want my indigos to be indigos. Not man made inbred mutants with many of their original genes missing. The real deal is perfect, just the way it is. Only the original creator has the authority to "play god" in deciding what genes are keepers, and what genes are undesirable. I want the REAL DEAL, not a fake, man made, piece of junk. Who knows what we are getting rid of when we weed out "unwanted" genes. One gene, can control a number of different things. You might weed out the gene which controls an undesirable trait, but that gene may also control something like fertility!

And now that I know what I know about Robert's opinion, I am sorry as hell that I gave him my money! Because it seems very likely that the animal which I bought from him is probably quite inbred. And now who knows what genes are missing. Thanks Robert. You say you "love" indigos. Sorry Robert, but when you truly love something, you must love it the way it is. And you must protect it from harm. When you try and manipulate it, and cause possible harm, you're not loving it at all. That's not loving. It's coveting.

Some of you may recall a time when I thought it would be o.k. to cross a Texas indigo with an eastern, because the government would not have any control over a hybrid. I still hate the politicians messing with things that they don't understand. And I still think they should leave us indigo breeders do what we do best, in ANY STATE WE WISH TO LIVE! So Robert an I agree on this point. But I have since seen the light as it pertains to breeding practices, and the captive gene pool. A hybrid indigo would not be a good idea. And the same analogy applies to what Robert is saying. It's not a good idea to inbreed. We must protect what we have and we must not screw it up. We will most likely only get one chance.

As for your argument about biologists,...please! Inbreeding, and other irresponsible breeding tactics can only serve to deepen the divide between us and them. Please Robert,...wake up and smell the bloody coffee!!!
T.

Calm down, Tony,

Robert loves to debate and often starts such a thread to get everyone riled up, hence he called me out at the end of his post.
Robert has done a lot of great work with D. couperi and has always approached husbandry and care in a scientific manner, something many herpetoculturist with a passion for the species they are working with do not understand. While I will not hesitate to say; I do not agree with some of Robert's techniques, I will say that he has demonstrated a level of success which cannot be disputed or matched by anyone else that I know of, in regards to the husbandry of D. couperi.
As for my thoughts and response to Robert's post, I had the following to say:

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, 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

Yup, after I thought about it for a while, I decided he was just trying to crank my tail. He sure knows how! I just hate to see stuff like that posted because it may influence the inexperienced to move in the wrong direction. I know he's smart,...surely he's smart enough to see the error of his ways. I saw the error of my ways, and I'm not that bright.
T.

Robert,
While I am not allowed to post over there, I do read. And I am following the thread. I hope you read here too. And you are welcome to register, and post here as well. Sure I'm a little blunt,...but that's just the way I was raised, { my dad was a carreer sailor, WWII} and then I was trained that way as a soldier. Don't let it get you down! Just fire right back. I just want you to listen to reason.

You have the nations largest resivoir, and perhaps the worlds largest resivoir of couperi genes! That's a pretty big deal! And therefore you must claim ownership to the obligation and responsibilty of treating that genetic supply with absolute care! Because your collection is so large, your influence on the captive gene pool as a whole is proportionaly large! So basiclly whatever you do to your collection will eventually trickle down to the rest of the captive gene pool.

There are other ways to tell if an animal is wild caught or captive bred. I know it would be expensive, but a DNA registry for couperi could tell us where each one came from. And electronic identifacation chips could be a tool to help impliment such.

Please Robert,...designer indigos are not what we need! Like I said before, we only get one chance to do this right. Once the bloodline is screwed up, and genes are lost, we may never fix it.

And who knows what tomorrow will bring. The truth is that wild releases are not totally impossible. It is possible, however remote that we may be called upon to donate animals for that cause some day. We just need to do more research in that area to determine the best way to do it. There have been some successful releases of other species. We don't know how successful Speaks work was. Some of us are planning to visit some old release sites to see what's what. You are welcome to join us! In truth of the matter, we just don't know anything with any degree of certainty yet. We need to get busy and do the work first,...but in the mean time, we must try our best to maintain a healthy, and complete captive gene pool.

Please Robert, don't kid yourself into thinking that designer indigos is the way to go.
T.

Bob,
We both know your logic is flawed. But you won't bait me into posting over there. If you want to discuss this with me,...you'll have to do it here.
T.

Robert, most likely, will not post here as I suspect he views posting the same argument in two places as redundant.
I am not going to flame anyone for their views, as we are all entitled to such, and I am not going to tell Robert what he should do with “his” collection, as I believe anyone who has built up such a collection should know what to do with it and so far as I know, Robert has not violated any regulations or broken any laws.
While I consider Robert a friend, we do not always agree, but we still respect one another’s opinions. Robert, as I have already stated, maintains a very scientific approach to his ideas and methods, which are often not well received by the mainstream or even the scientific community at large, but history has been full of such “free thinkers” , many of which went on to prove their theories in spite of what the mainstream believed. I also believe it is unfair to condemn someone for their thoughts, theories and beliefs, though I believe it is okay to disagree with such. This is a reality we must learn to grasp, as there are many folks out there who harbor a high degree of knowledge and experience, but do not share such, as many have come forth only to be condemned, not simply disagreed with…

Best regards,

Jeff

Jeff,
I'm not condemning him, or anyone else for that matter. Just the practice of inbreeding indigos. And my opinion, is that such activity would be wrong. And I find it particularly inflammatory to suggest that there could be any "virtue" whatsoever associated with the inbreeding of captive eastern indigos. And I find it extremely difficult to respect that opinion. IT"S JUST NOT RIGHT!, and I hope most folks can see that. What I really hope, is that somehow HE might see that.

And while I do not pretend to believe that he should somehow do with his collection, whatever I, or you, or anyone else tells him,.....I do think he should listen to reason. Simply because whatever he does with respect to the breeding of his collection will eventually show up in OURS. And I think he does know what to do with his collection also. But he just won't do it.

Furthermore, the wild population is not a "sure thing" as far as it's continued existence. If we have screwed up this planet the way I think we have,...the wild population could very well be doomed. No more endless genetic spring from which the captive population can draw an occasional drink. Then we will be stuck with whatever is left in our captive population. Remember we are not talking about prolific species such as ball pythons or red rat snakes. We are talking about an endangered, animal. One which is difficult at best to reproduce and maintain in captivity. Red rat snakes, and ball pythons, and burms and such will never be in short supply, but indigos already ARE in short supply. Isn't it then our duty to protect with every fiber of our being that which is in danger? And does Robert Bruce not share the greatest burden of doing the right thing with his breeding practices, for that reason? And if he is screwing up something so big, and so important, should he not be reined in somehow? Should I not speak what I know with every fiber of my being to be true?!!!

I do not pretend to grasp the deep, complex, scientific, analogies, and theories to which some of you guys subscribe. I do not speak Latin, nor do I plan to learn. But I am smart enough to see that this guy is wrong. Dead wrong. And I am just stubborn enough to speak up about it. And I am tuff enough to take whatever heat comes my way. And flames are just heat. And I'm not sorry about it either, because this is not about you, or me, or Bob, or our precious feelings.

This is about doing everything humanly possible to protect, preserve, and promote the eastern indigo snake. Period. All feelings aside, he's wrong. And he has to know it. When one of us is wrong, the rest of us should recognize it, and advertise it. I know I take my share of heat rounds when I am wrong,..some to my face, and some to my back. But that's o.k.,...I keep taking it, and I keep comming back for more. And I always will. And somewhere along the way, I learn a thing or two,... about a thing or two. We are all going to take some hits and feel the sting of flames now and then. That's just how it goes. And that's o.k., as long as we learn.

Robert does not seem to be learning. And he is in a position to do terrible harm to the captive gene pool. So I guess I should be nice, but,...sorry I just can't.

Oh,... and we're not talking about Columbus telling folks he thought the world was round, and then proving himself right. We're talking about Robert Bruce telling folks that inbreeding of eastern indigos, somehow,... has virtue. What I'm saying is that he cannot be allowed to try and prove it. The consequences of him being wrong could be disastrous to the captive population. And I can find no upside to him being right. None whatsoever. And no matter what "scientific" approach he pretends to use to justify his obvious profit based motives, he cannot possibly expect to vindicate his husbandry methods, or the inbreeding of eastern indigos. Nor should he be allowed to try.

And both HE and ME are welcome to go toe to toe right here. One of us is not allowed over there, and HE knows it. Just like he knows he's wrong. He is WAY too smart not to know how wrong he is. Which tells me that he does not give a rat's behind about this species as a whole. Personally,...I think all he cares about is making his indigos profitable for him. Period. Which is exactly why he won't swim in this pond. I don't think he has one iota of compassion for his animals, {which comprises the largest captive collection of eastern indigos, that I know of}, the captive population, or this endangered species as a whole. And that,...upsets me, to say the least. And I find it difficult, if not impossible to be respectful or polite to him about it.

And you seem to be the only one he listens to. And you seem to posses the similar intellectual, and communicative abilities as he. And I know, that YOU KNOW he is wrong. So,....You have more patience than I with Robert. So see if you can tighten his shot group!
T.

And another thing,...I have NO desire whatsoever to tell anyone what to do with their snakes! I shouldn't need to!! But,...with this guy,....it looks like somebody needs too!!!
T.

[ Back to Indigo Forum ] [ Reply To This Message ]
[ Register to Post ]



Posted by: robertbruce at Sun Jul 30 13:47:47 2006 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Where were you guys when I put up the original post on Virtues of Inbreeding?

Steve has pointed out a trait that we all want to have in the captive Eastern population -- easily started on pinkies.

Like I was arguing, some traits in the wild population would not be missed by captive breeders, and are probably better that they be gone from the captive gene pool. Nobody wants to have animals that are picky about what they will eat when they are hatchlings.

I think that we have somewhat of a consensus about a couple things. Firstly, that the captive population will genetically diverge from the wild population, and that this is a normal thing, an expected thing, and a good thing. Some people lament about this phenomenon and to them I say (kindly) get over it, it is a normal thing, and there is nothing we can do about it anyways.

The other thing we have consensus on is that everyone seems to agree that the captive population will never be used to restock the wild population. Mike pointed out that captive populations have sometimes harbored pathogens that were not present in the wild population, and re-introduction of these animals caused problems.

Captive animals are selected for "desirable" traits by their keepers, and animals from different localities in the wild are crossed with each other. How many of you have known of breeders who crossed all-black Easterns with red-throat Easterns? The captive population is a mix-mash of animals from diverse localities that have been selected for traits that would not be beneficial for wild survival.

If we accept this, then we can see the wild population as completely distinct from the captive population.

The techniques of selective breeding and limited inbreeding can be used to enhance the captive population with desirable traits. The more desirable the captive bred animals are, the less value are poached animals. By selective breeding and inbreeding, we take poaching pressure off of wild populations. This is how, as captive breeders, we can influence the wild populations of threatenend and endangered animals.

It looks like my original post has gotten broken up. I suppose this is OK because it had gotten buried down below. I would still like to show that there are common fallacies about inbreeding. I would like to show how inbreeding can be performed in a good way that doesn't lead to gene loss. I would then like to show how, using limited inbreeding and selective breeding, we can uncover and propagate unusual and desirable traits in our captive population.

If anyone is interested in these things, I will continue with this in upcoming posts.

Robert Bruce.

Bob,
So far the only real argument Iv'e seen against you has been right here.
Consensus???I don't think so! What you have is a nice little well protected click in which I am not allowed to conflict.

Don't speak for me Bob, I DON"T want indigos that have been bred to make them easy feed starters. I do not want to loose ANY wild traits. I'm willing to do the work to get mine started! When you loose one thing, you have no idea what else goes with it. "When we tug on one thing in nature, we find it permanently attached to everything else"! I don't want to loose any wild traits or genes. When you loose one, you may also loose some others that go with it.

The captive population does NOT have to genetically diverge from the wild population. And I, for one, would rather it did not. It is not a "good thing". It is not an "expected thing". It is not a "normal thing" It is an evil thing created by greedy humans who do not care about the species with which they work. When my grandchildren go to the zoo, I'd like for them to see the real deal, not some man made morphmut halfindigo.

"We",...DON"T "all" agree!!! All this talk about releasing captive bred indigos into the wild is incomplete. We simply don't know. Yes some species have been released with negative results. But we can learn from these experiences and make changes to avoid problems. In fact, many, many, more species have been released with GREAT SUCCESS! So it is possible. It can be done. And who knows what tommorrow will bring. Even if we never release a single indigo, we should not burn that bridge! We should strive to maintain animals which are as close to their wild brethren as possible. If it isn't the same as the original, it isn't an indigo any more. It then becomes something else. I do not want something else!

No I'm not going to get over it! It's NOT a normal thing. We can work to prevent it.

We won't reduce poaching pressure by creating designer indigos. We will reduce poaching pressure by encouraging captive breeding, and commercialization in [[ ALL ]]states. Allowing people to breed, buy, sell, and trade captive bred indigos in places like Florida, Georgia, etc. will eliminate wild poaching. if you make it legal for folks to be able to do what I do here in my state, they will line up for miles to get a permit. Then charge money for that permit, and use that money to do conservation and research work for wild indigos.

The captive population is not, and does not need to be "distinct" from the wild population. This and all of your other arguments only serve in an attempt to justify your desire to make a living from breeding indigos. All you are doing is posting a feeble attempt to rationalize your greed. You just want to get rich from indigos, and creating designer indigos would do that for you. And everything you have said points to that fact. You may fool your cronies Bob, but you don't fool me! Get a job! Or breed a different species. PLEASE! Stop trying to convince people that it's o.k. to screw up the indigo captive gene pool for your profit! Others may follow your pied pipers tune, but not me. And I will stand firmly upon what I know is right. And I will continue to tell everyone. You can baffle the rest of your kingsnake buddies with b.s., but I can smell it a mile away!

But perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh. Maybe we should all just shrug our shoulders and agree that its perfectly o.k. to inbreed indigos, and turn them into whatever flavor of the day that Robert Bruce wants. Then he can be the first to sell that ivory, snow, creamsickle, pied, het, hypo, hyper albino, big eyed, scaleless, million dollar morphmutt, and we can all be happy for him. Right? Trust me folks, that is exaclty what he wants. He's not fooling me for a second. We don't need to uncover unusual and desirable traits. We already have them in the real thing!
T.

I do not believe Steve or Craig will qualify as a "clique" catering to Robert's ideas, as Craig is an associate professor at USC and Steve has been working within the zoological arena for years. Both Craig and Steve have posted information which is both true and accurate.
Having discussed the posts made by Robert, with a few geneticist here at the university and with Robert himself, I have found that his ideas actually do carry some merit, as Robert is not speaking of repetitive inbreeding or line breeding, but “selective” breeding for specific traits. Of course, some inbreeding would occur with such a project, though on a limited basis and outcrossing would occur with the offspring produced from such. Genetics is not my target area, which is why I sought answers from individuals harboring a greater knowledge than I on the subject and have found that limited inbreeding does not create that great of a danger in the way of physical and physiological anomalies. Unfortunately, there are problems associated with even the limited inbreeding, as D. couperi have been protected since 1973 and very little wild stock has been introduced to the private captive population since that time. It is also unfortunate there are no accurate historical records indicating the origins and lines of specimens within private collections today. The lack of such records and the fact that most D. couperi in captivity today originated from three or four breeders means even unrelated specimens acquired from opposite coasts could be more closely related then we know.
While little in-migration is required to maintain genetic diversity among a wild population, few herpetoculturist working with D. couperi within the private community have access to specimens taken from the wild or even first or second filial generation progeny from such…

Best regards,

Jeff