Disturbing......

Click this link..... Scroll to the last leo and look at the comment under it..... What do you all think???? I think it is pathetic.....

http://www.bowsersreptiles.com/carrot-tails.htm

that has been there for at least a year

I personally don't find it all that disturbing unless there is something connected with the trait that negatively affects health. It's no different than someone finding the first albino/patternless/blizzard/etc. and breeding them. As long as there is no detrimental effect its his choice to whether to breed her or not (though he should definitely note that any normal tailed babies from her are from her).

Originally Posted by StinaUIUC

I personally don't find it all that disturbing unless there is something connected with the trait that negatively affects health. It's no different than someone finding the first albino/patternless/blizzard/etc. and breeding them. As long as there is no detrimental effect its his choice to whether to breed her or not (though he should definitely note that any normal tailed babies from her are from her).

I agree to part of that ie. "if there are no detrimental affects".......it is after all, the tail, they do fine without tails, or stumpy regrown tails. I just don't equate a "physical" defect to a "color" defect. To me it's like saying because my sister, brother, parent, etc, had different colored hair or eyes, somebody is " physically defective". I've said this in another thread, so probably we don't need to go back and forth............I was just adding my seemingly different 0.2¢

wow, i dont know how anyone can find that ethical, or desirable..

I just don't equate a "physical" defect to a "color" defect.

The thing is is that a "color defect" can be detrimental or fatal just as easily as a "physical defect." An example of this is the merle gene in dogs...it is actually a lethal gene when it is homozygous dominant (although some dogs do live, they have a LOT of health problems). Some organs require certain pigments be present for teh organ to function properly. I believe one of the problems with the merle gene is that it stops pigment from developing in the liver or kidneys (I don't really remember...it may be something different that that...)...most homozygous merle puppies will die before birth...some survive but are usually deaf and blind (or partially so for both) and have metabolic issues. "Color defects" commonly affect more than just outward appearance. At any rate...back to the geckos specifically...Dan...why do you find it unethical?...if there is no harm caused, what makes it unethical?... Also...as far as desireability goes...that is entirely personal opinion...I personally don't find the trait attractive either...but I'm sure some people will find it desireable. Now I don't know anything about the guy...so I'm not trying to defend a friend or anything...I just don't think people should be so fast to jump down someone's throat when they don't have any idea what the whole story is.

Fainting Goats . . .

Originally Posted by StinaUIUC

I just don't think people should be so fast to jump down someone's throat when they don't have any idea what the whole story is.

Agreed. I think we need to make sure that there are no health issues that arise before we can assume it is unethical. If it is found that animals with the stub-tail all die after 2 years, I'd consider that a defect and it's breeding should stop immediately.

I do think that physical changes tend to be harmful to the animal's health (a lot more than color defects), but not always. Basically I think we need to study the effects of the defect before we can make any judgments about how ethical it may or may not be.

the whole thing confuses me. if proven genetic and not just some deformity than i guess its okay given the gecko is able to live a normal life in captivity and the stubby tail isnt a deformity.

I'm having the most nauseating feeling of deja-vu....