thesnakeman
thesnakeman
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.
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.
