• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

A question of morals - thoughts?

D

dragonspyrit

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Doylestown, PA
Or should I say morals vs. logic.

The scenario:
Animal X is one of your favorites to keep and breed. It's not be a very rare or "valuable" species, but you've always enjoyed producing fun morphs and keeping just for the pleasure of keeping. Any funds from the resulting young are icing on the cake!

You've got several clutches of Animal X incubating and coming nicely along. Most of the young hatch and are doing well; you now have a good number of babies on your hands. More are on the way. Several weeks in, one of the offspring becomes ill. You know from a few years experience with the species that while not contagious, it's not an easily fixed problem, compounded with the animals small size. Most likely the hatchling will die even with veterinary care that you know will be costly.

What do you do?
 
Very difficult choice. From an idealistic standpoint, I'd say do whatever you can to save it. As Tim said, sick doesnt mean its deformed or terminal.

However, all that said, we all know times are tough, money is tight and we all have to make tough choices regarding how we spend our finances. I applaud anyone who is willing to spend $50+ on a sick $10 animal....but at the same time, I do not begrudge anyone who chooses to put it in the freezer instead.
 
It's not really a question of logic. The logic is there regardless of what choice is made.
I'd take it to the vet. As someone said, it's a sick animal, not a deformed one. I'd let the vet make the determination that the illness is too far along to warrant care. Hell, we have a corn that I've spent almost $800 on medical care for; not the most fiscally conservative choice, but it's the one that I've made.
If the motivation is strictly financial, I understand making the choice to cull.
 
A similar question was brought up in a poll on Cornsnakes.com. That poll worked out because it specifically asked how many animals you keep and what you would do, which in my opinion has a huge impact. If I had a single pair, I wouldn't hesitate to take a hatchling to the vet if I thought the snake had a chance of surviving.

For example:

  1. Less then 25 animals - cull
  2. Less then 25 animals - vet
  3. 26-100 animals - cull
  4. 26-100 animals - vet
  5. 101+ animals - cull
  6. 101+ animals - vet
 
Since we are discussing living, breathing creatures that we have facilitated their entry into this world, I believe morals is the relevant term. IMHO, whether or not the affliction is in the breeders estimation treatable or not; unless the breeder is also a qualified vet, they have the moral obligation to take that animal to the vet to verify what they believe, and if necessary (taking into account the pain and suffering during treatment, and ultimately the possibility of failure of said treatment) humanely euthanizing that animal.

If a person is basing their decision solely on their financial limitations and not on probable success of treatment, then a visit to the vet would still be warranted, again either for referral to a rescue capable of caring for the animal, for the humane euthanization of said animal.

Again, just my humble opinion, this is not meant to imply judgement on anyone elses opinions.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the results of that poll. I would guess the trend to be as you said, with keepers of less animals providing more individual care per animal based on experience. Likewise, I might expect experienced breeders to find isolated death's more acceptable with the understanding that not everyone can be saved and that funds would be better allocated to the ones with a greater chance at being saved.

Obviously I can't say any of that for sure, which is why I've posted this.
 
Here is a general one on culling.
Here is one as I described in my first post on this thread. For some reason I thought it was broader then that...But I might not have found the exact one I was thinking of.
 
TheFragginDragon said:
Since we are discussing living, breathing creatures that we have facilitated their entry into this world, I believe morals is the relevant term. IMHO, whether or not the affliction is in the breeders estimation treatable or not; unless the breeder is also a qualified vet, they have the moral obligation to take that animal to the vet to verify what they believe, and if necessary (taking into account the pain and suffering during treatment, and ultimately the possibility of failure of said treatment) humanely euthanizing that animal.

If a person is basing their decision solely on their financial limitations and not on probable success of treatment, then a visit to the vet would still be warranted, again either for referral to a rescue capable of caring for the animal, for the humane euthanization of said animal.

Again, just my humble opinion, this is not meant to imply judgement on anyone elses opinions.
Click to expand...

I want, so very badly, to just be able to nod at that and agree with it and feel good about myself.

I'd be a hypocrite if I did though, since I've taken actions that are directly counter to some of what you said and plan to take them again in the future if they seem like the right thing to do.

I am with you in my own practices in ascribing a value to an animal that isn't necessarily directly linked to the cost of the animal. There are some animals that I would be hard pressed to give away that I've happily paid to have treated by a vet. This is probably made a lot easier by the fact that I keep animals I like while giving the middle finger to the morph market and the fact that I have none of my financial future tied up in animal production or sales.

Unfortunately, I am not with you on two other points you raised.

The first being the necessity of a vet in determining that an animal is unable to be saved. There are some conditions that an individual with experience- even if they aren't a licensed veterinary doctor- can know, beyond all shadow of any doubt, are terminal and insurmountable, regardless of the willingness to spend money on treatment. Not every individual has that experience and not every situation will be black and white... and the gray ones get a vet visit, but the ones that I know will not, under any circumstances make it... I don't need a vet to verify it.

The second being the need for a vet to be involved in the process of euthanasia. It's a discussion I've had on these boards before in much greater detail but the bottom line is that I can kill most animals just as quickly and painlessly as a veterinarian. More quickly and painlessly in many instances, given the methods used by vets and their spotty success rate when used on ectotherms.
 
Points taken Seamus....my statements regarding the utilization of a vet were and are targeted to a more general audience, not towards those who have the years of experience necessary to make those kinds of judgements regarding whether an animal can be saved or not, and whether or not they can humanely dispatch the animal.
 
Thanks for giving them consideration in the same vein that I intended to express them.

For whatever it might be worth, I agree completely with you as a generalization when the person making the decisions isn't someone specific who I'd trust to know when that line has been crossed into "cannot, under any circumstances, be saved" and, for my own part, if there even the slightest spark of doubt in my mind about drawing that conclusion, I will go see a vet. Absolute certainty on the subject is a rarity and generally only present in extreme cases.
 
What do you do?
Click to expand...

For me, this question begs the question, why do you ask? Are you trying to resolve a dilemma based on an acute, isolated case with the feedback that you get here, or are you trying to base a general policy on the feedback that you get here? Either way, there are no definitive answers without more information,
IMO.

If your answer is the former, that you have an isolated case, then I say get the baby to a vet! I say this because of a few key words in the language that you use to construct your scenario. First, you use the phrase, "most likely". If you are not sure that the animal would die even with vet care and the question is really about money, then ethics goes out the window. If you breed and keep these animals, then, in my opinion, you do have a moral obligation to take care of them, even when it hurts a little in the pocket book. If this condition is a rare or isolated case, then do the right thing and make sure there is definitely no hope with a vet visit.

If your answer to my question is the latter, that you hope to base a sweeping policy on the responses that you get here, then you are simply
asking the wrong question, IMHO. You should be asking yourself, "why is this happening and can I make some changes that would prevent it?" You suggest, when you say that
You know from a few years experience with the species that while not contagious, it's not an easily fixed problem, compounded with the animals small size
Click to expand...
that this condition has turned up before. Illnesses and conditions happen for a reason, whether that cause is genetic, environmental, or viral. Since you have seen this condition/illness before, the bigger questions that I have are how often is this happening, and if it is happening more than would suggest that it is clearly an anomaly, then is there something about your set ups, breeder pairings, or method of incubation that might be causing it? :shrug01:
 
My reason was a combination of both these things. I have asked several breeders, as well as this forum, for opinions on the matter because I want to make sure I am following a code of ethics that is not only logical, but morally sound to both me and the community of people who may be my peers, and fair to my animals. In other words... I'm a noob, and I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

The answers I have received have mostly said the same thing; if from experience you know there is little to no hope and/or the animal's quality of life will be forever lowered as a result of it's problem or illness, don't vet the animal (except for possible euthanization); decisions have to be made that are best for all of your animals, and occasionally this means the loss of one. Some have recommended culling, and others natural death.

When I say this:
You know from a few years experience with the species that while not contagious, it's not an easily fixed problem, compounded with the animals small size
Click to expand...

I am not necessarily referring to the exact same problem. If you have been working with an animal for a decent amount of time, you become familiarized with the ailments that may affect it and the methods of treatment available to it.

The animal in this case was a runt, and was either born with an incomplete anus or suffered from severe constipation despite regular fluid intake, and could not pass excrement. I have never seen anything like it before, but I felt I knew enough about the animal and about this particular animal's health and care options based on taking others to the vet, and probable future development even in the best case scenario.

Thus far I have learned that the subject is a divided one, but it is one that must be made by the individual caretaker acting in the best interest of their animals (this includes financially), which is what I did. Going back to the poll Stephanie was talking about, the community I am normally part of is one made up pretty much entirely of pet owners with one or two animals. They have a vastly different approach to individual animals than someone who breeds, and I was second-guessing myself based on their opinions. I wanted to make sure early in the game that I had a good head on my shoulders going into things. I'm happy to have found that the general consensus (based on most replies) is that I am off to a good, if rough, start.
 
You will always find differing opinions on every subject. Do what you feel is right for you and your animals. I'm a believer in culling defects and not prolonging the inevitable. Always remember that you and only you are responsible for the health and well being of the animals that are in your care and those that you produce.

I will say from experience, you will see more problems the more animals you produce in a season. Every year I see 1-5 hatchlings with defects from less then 200 hatchlings a year. It always makes me wonder how many Rich, who produces 4,000+ a year, sees in a season.
 
I also think that if you are breeding, there is a strengthened rationale for culling animals born with defects: to avoid inadvertently passing along avoidable genetic problems to future generations.
 
This is tough. If the animal was pretty bad off, I'd probably put it down. Money isn't everything, but it is something whether we like to admit it or not and I'm not going to waste money on an animal who might not make it anyway when I have other mouths to feed. I grew up on a farm, and that is how it is with livestock... I don't think there is a wrong answer in this circumstance, as long as the animal does not suffer. However, if this animal has a good chance of survival, it should be taken to the vet. I don't care if it is a $10 animal or a $500 animal.. If it can make it I'm going to try to save it if treatment will more than likely work. Of course, there are limits on how much one can justify spending on any particular animal... But I think I've made my point.
 
Back
Top