Inbreeding

[KelliH]

***GROUP HUG!!***

LOL, only kidding.

 

[whiskersmom]

Actually, I'd rather do the Group, go to the bar for beers, hug!

 

[JimD]

If you dont like it, dont buy it.

No where have I seen anyone pushing this new morph.

Jim.

 

[Seamus Haley]

I never said 100% that I believe it's ok to breed and produce scaleless beardies. I said that as long as they thrive in captivity there is no reason why they should not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence that they do not do fine under captive conditions, if evidence is presented that they do not do well, then I would agree with you that they should not be bred.

Which should really be the focal point of the discussions about the mutation. When i got to the other thread, it was already six pages (Er... I set it to the maximum for posts per page) long and already full of the same kind of back and forth accusations and general failure to differentiate between BOI topics and discussion forum topics that will lead to this thread also being locked. So I didn't add anything.

Offhand I'd call it a negative mutation that would lead to a lower quality of life though. I'm basing this on a few things- many of which are going to be assumptions- evidenced assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Reptile scales have evolved along with the animal to fill a few biological advantages. The obvious one of protecting the animal's skin from harm is much less of an issue in a captive population that will never... ever... see anything but captivity and with human control over their environment. The questions about tears during breeding were valid and went unanswered though- beardies, along with any number of other species, can break skin during the course of breeding when the female has *normal* protective scalation; it seems logical to assume that risk goes up when the scales aren't present. Above and beyond that though, scales are important physiologically, foremost in my mind would be their role in moisture repulsion and retention, especially in a desert species like the vitticeps. I'd have a lot of questions about the ability of the animal to stay properly hydrated in a heated enclosure... and the ability of the scaleless animal to have a proper immune response against bacterial and fungal dermatitis if they're kept in an environment that's more humid (and high humidity isn't usually great for the resiratory system of a low humidity species). UV use and damage is a concern as well, they're a species which is particularly noted for their UVB requirements to maintain proper vitamin D synthesis and absorbtion, however UVB can also do considerable damage to tissue that isn't supposed to be hit by light. Is it even possible to maintain a balance between all the conditions a bearded dragon's body needs and has adapted to utilize... and the gimped requirements that a handicap like scalelessness would force? On paper, it's looking unlikely at best, impossible at worst.

I'd also have a lot of concerns about shedding. The scaleless mutation exists in a few snake species and they are known to be very, very prone to shedding issues. While rubbing, they'll sometimes tear additional layers of skin... since there is no additional layer scale beneath the one that's being sloughed. Also they will frequently "doughnut" where the shed will roll back on itself rather than turning inside out or tearing. This will sometimes end up constricting around the center of a scaleless snake, potentially causing injury if it's not *immediately* seen and dealt with. While the midbody sheds of a beardy aren't likely to have the same issues due to the shape, I'd worry a great deal about the limbs and digits.

Given that all logic would suggest a lower quality of life, my personal response would have been immediate euthanasia, a halt to all projects that could potentially reproduce the defective mutations and a massive warning issued through all avaliable sources that this negative outcome was possible... If euthanasia was an unswallowable option, then the initial animals displaying the deformity should have been kept virginal and observed for an extended period of time to determine just how signifigant an impact it had on the quality of life for the animals afflicted- and that should have been a period equal to the full natural life span of all avaliable specimins before any efforts were undertaken to duplicate the trait. That is to say that the quality is so obviously a negative one that proof should have to be provided that it does *not* result in numerous problems and difficulties, rather than a demand for proof that it does.

Matter of perspective I guess. Some people feel ethically obligated to actively attempt to improve a captive population through their breeding efforts and some people wouldn't know what morals were if they came up and bit them in the face. That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

 

[Denisebme]

Which should really be the focal point of the discussions about the mutation. When i got to the other thread, it was already six pages (Er... I set it to the maximum for posts per page) long and already full of the same kind of back and forth accusations and general failure to differentiate between BOI topics and discussion forum topics that will lead to this thread also being locked. So I didn't add anything.

Offhand I'd call it a negative mutation that would lead to a lower quality of life though. I'm basing this on a few things- many of which are going to be assumptions- evidenced assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Reptile scales have evolved along with the animal to fill a few biological advantages. The obvious one of protecting the animal's skin from harm is much less of an issue in a captive population that will never... ever... see anything but captivity and with human control over their environment. The questions about tears during breeding were valid and went unanswered though- beardies, along with any number of other species, can break skin during the course of breeding when the female has *normal* protective scalation; it seems logical to assume that risk goes up when the scales aren't present. Above and beyond that though, scales are important physiologically, foremost in my mind would be their role in moisture repulsion and retention, especially in a desert species like the vitticeps. I'd have a lot of questions about the ability of the animal to stay properly hydrated in a heated enclosure... and the ability of the scaleless animal to have a proper immune response against bacterial and fungal dermatitis if they're kept in an environment that's more humid (and high humidity isn't usually great for the resiratory system of a low humidity species). UV use and damage is a concern as well, they're a species which is particularly noted for their UVB requirements to maintain proper vitamin D synthesis and absorbtion, however UVB can also do considerable damage to tissue that isn't supposed to be hit by light. Is it even possible to maintain a balance between all the conditions a bearded dragon's body needs and has adapted to utilize... and the gimped requirements that a handicap like scalelessness would force? On paper, it's looking unlikely at best, impossible at worst.

I'd also have a lot of concerns about shedding. The scaleless mutation exists in a few snake species and they are known to be very, very prone to shedding issues. While rubbing, they'll sometimes tear additional layers of skin... since there is no additional layer scale beneath the one that's being sloughed. Also they will frequently "doughnut" where the shed will roll back on itself rather than turning inside out or tearing. This will sometimes end up constricting around the center of a scaleless snake, potentially causing injury if it's not *immediately* seen and dealt with. While the midbody sheds of a beardy aren't likely to have the same issues due to the shape, I'd worry a great deal about the limbs and digits.

Given that all logic would suggest a lower quality of life, my personal response would have been immediate euthanasia, a halt to all projects that could potentially reproduce the defective mutations and a massive warning issued through all avaliable sources that this negative outcome was possible... If euthanasia was an unswallowable option, then the initial animals displaying the deformity should have been kept virginal and observed for an extended period of time to determine just how signifigant an impact it had on the quality of life for the animals afflicted- and that should have been a period equal to the full natural life span of all avaliable specimins before any efforts were undertaken to duplicate the trait. That is to say that the quality is so obviously a negative one that proof should have to be provided that it does *not* result in numerous problems and difficulties, rather than a demand for proof that it does.

Matter of perspective I guess. Some people feel ethically obligated to actively attempt to improve a captive population through their breeding efforts and some people wouldn't know what morals were if they came up and bit them in the face. That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

Great, great post.
A while back on this site, there was a furor over a turtle ad that showed an eyeless turtle. I didn't follow the whole thread, but it appeared that someone was specifically breeding them that way, and profiting from the sale of what was obviously a genetically inferior animal.
This is no different, at least not to me. In most morphs, and it really doesn't matter with species of reptile you're talking about, even while you may be breeding to enhance a certain trait, the actual animals health is a critical factor when determining your crosses.
Its also true what Kelli said about animals in the wild not being overly choosy about who they mate with. That's the great thing about natural selection. An animal in the wild that is born or hatched with undesirable genetic traits normally doesn't survive long enough to continue the mutation.
The question for this industry, like any other, is how far is to far? In any industry that is self policing, its the reaction from the community that acts as a natural protection for for the animals themselves.
There is a lot of truth to the statement that most of us that have owned and worked with reptiles for any length of time do so not only because we love them, but also because we have a fascination for the genetics involved.
My issue with this since the beginning has been with the fact that this specific mutation has altered the way the animal processes keratin, which is pretty vital to ANY reptile. In the case of skin breaks, reptiles (and birds for that matter) are already slow healers and are prone to all sorts of problems when even normal skin breaks occur. Take away the layers of scale that protect them and the animal is at risk for even worse problems.
The thing that I find promising is that it doesn't matter what forum you go to right now where beardies are discussed, this is not a very popular development. Its not as simple as Jim's statement "if you don't like it, don't buy it", because the people who love this animal are speaking out right now to defend it.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Which should really be the focal point of the discussions about the mutation. When i got to the other thread, it was already six pages (Er... I set it to the maximum for posts per page) long and already full of the same kind of back and forth accusations and general failure to differentiate between BOI topics and discussion forum topics that will lead to this thread also being locked. So I didn't add anything.

Offhand I'd call it a negative mutation that would lead to a lower quality of life though. I'm basing this on a few things- many of which are going to be assumptions- evidenced assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

Reptile scales have evolved along with the animal to fill a few biological advantages. The obvious one of protecting the animal's skin from harm is much less of an issue in a captive population that will never... ever... see anything but captivity and with human control over their environment. The questions about tears during breeding were valid and went unanswered though- beardies, along with any number of other species, can break skin during the course of breeding when the female has *normal* protective scalation; it seems logical to assume that risk goes up when the scales aren't present. Above and beyond that though, scales are important physiologically, foremost in my mind would be their role in moisture repulsion and retention, especially in a desert species like the vitticeps. I'd have a lot of questions about the ability of the animal to stay properly hydrated in a heated enclosure... and the ability of the scaleless animal to have a proper immune response against bacterial and fungal dermatitis if they're kept in an environment that's more humid (and high humidity isn't usually great for the resiratory system of a low humidity species). UV use and damage is a concern as well, they're a species which is particularly noted for their UVB requirements to maintain proper vitamin D synthesis and absorbtion, however UVB can also do considerable damage to tissue that isn't supposed to be hit by light. Is it even possible to maintain a balance between all the conditions a bearded dragon's body needs and has adapted to utilize... and the gimped requirements that a handicap like scalelessness would force? On paper, it's looking unlikely at best, impossible at worst.

I'd also have a lot of concerns about shedding. The scaleless mutation exists in a few snake species and they are known to be very, very prone to shedding issues. While rubbing, they'll sometimes tear additional layers of skin... since there is no additional layer scale beneath the one that's being sloughed. Also they will frequently "doughnut" where the shed will roll back on itself rather than turning inside out or tearing. This will sometimes end up constricting around the center of a scaleless snake, potentially causing injury if it's not *immediately* seen and dealt with. While the midbody sheds of a beardy aren't likely to have the same issues due to the shape, I'd worry a great deal about the limbs and digits.

Given that all logic would suggest a lower quality of life, my personal response would have been immediate euthanasia, a halt to all projects that could potentially reproduce the defective mutations and a massive warning issued through all avaliable sources that this negative outcome was possible... If euthanasia was an unswallowable option, then the initial animals displaying the deformity should have been kept virginal and observed for an extended period of time to determine just how signifigant an impact it had on the quality of life for the animals afflicted- and that should have been a period equal to the full natural life span of all avaliable specimins before any efforts were undertaken to duplicate the trait. That is to say that the quality is so obviously a negative one that proof should have to be provided that it does *not* result in numerous problems and difficulties, rather than a demand for proof that it does.

Matter of perspective I guess. Some people feel ethically obligated to actively attempt to improve a captive population through their breeding efforts and some people wouldn't know what morals were if they came up and bit them in the face. That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

Very good post Seamus. I agree with many aspects of your post. I wouldn’t promote many traits such as the scaleless snakes or snakes and turtles without eyes. Determining if it is a negative trait or discussing breeding for negative traits should have been the focus here.

 

[KelliH]

That (hopefully obviously) isn't so much directed at you Kelli, I know you're as upstanding as they come- but when one is aware of the issues that scaleless snakes have and adds in the extra attention to certain captive conditions that are demanded by a beardie's pysiological needs, I don't see how anyone can possibly come to a conclusion that this mutation is anything but negative and damaging.

No problem, Seamus, I don't feel you are necessarily directing your post at me. In all honestly, I have never heard much about scaleless reptiles and do not know anything about them. That's why I said that I would like to know of any evidence that has been presented that they would not thrive in captivity before I made a final judgement call. Once I took the time to read the blurb on Daichu's page about the animal in question, I came to the conclusion that they were probably quite delicate and perhaps may not do well in captivity.

As far as inbreeding reptiles goes, I stand behind everything I have posted.

 

[KelliH]

An animal in the wild that is born or hatched with undesirable genetic traits normally doesn't survive long enough to continue the mutation.

Absolutely correct, which is why it is rare to see an albino reptile in the wild. They are normally picked off by other animals higher on the food chain. In captivity our animals receive the best of care, they do not have to deal with things like that. If no inbreeding was ever done, think of all the beautiful morphs that would never have been reproduced in captivity? No albino corns, no axanthic ball pythons, no blizzard leopard geckos... and the list goes on. I feel that as long as breeders are responsible and take care to outcross on a regular basis, there is no problem. To state, as one poster did, that inbreeding reptiles is animal cruelty is just ridiculous.

 

[shadi11]

Absolutely correct, which is why it is rare to see an albino reptile in the wild. They are normally picked off by other animals higher on the food chain. In captivity our animals receive the best of care, they do not have to deal with things like that. If no inbreeding was ever done, think of all the beautiful morphs that would never have been reproduced in captivity? No albino corns, no axanthic ball pythons, no blizzard leopard geckos... and the list goes on. I feel that as long as breeders are responsible and take care to outcross on a regular basis, there is no problem. To state, as one poster did, that inbreeding reptiles is animal cruelty is just ridiculous.

I agree. To come up with a morph a certain amount of inbreeding is needed. I dont think of it as cruel. but also theres nothing to really out breed with here and we all know that as well. So there is no way of purifying once the morph has proven as with other species.
I agree with the points on the scaleless reptiles and breeding for those traits are wrong. And I really think thats what has created the biggest controversy here. Not so much the inbreeding but the project itself. But the survival of the dragon and how it could be healthy for it.

 

[whiskersmom]

Admittedly, I know nothing about snakes or geckos, but when inbreeding is discussed regarding snakes and gecko's is it done to lose a fundamental part of their bodies? This is a legitimate question....as I said, I know next to nothing about them. Is it done to enhance color or to give a different pattern? Does their level of care have to change?
Would you purposely inbreed to create a snake or gecko so different, that their live's would have to be different from every other snake or gecko out there?
And if you would purposely create this snake or gecko, would you feel good about selling them to a public that already provides sub-adequate care for them?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Admittedly, I know nothing about snakes or geckos, but when inbreeding is discussed regarding snakes and gecko's is it done to lose a fundamental part of their bodies? This is a legitimate question....as I said, I know next to nothing about them. Is it done to enhance color or to give a different pattern? Does their level of care have to change?
Would you purposely inbreed to create a snake or gecko so different, that their live's would have to be different from every other snake or gecko out there?
And if you would purposely create this snake or gecko, would you feel good about selling them to a public that already provides sub-adequate care for them?

Sherri, Kelli nor I have taken issue with anyone who believes this mutation shouldn't be propagated. I think that you will find that the majority of us would agree that an animal being promoted with a severe disability, none of us would support. First you have to determine there is a severe disability that would hamper their ability to thrive in captivity. Seamus and Denise both made some valid points that should be discussed.

Your broad statements that you have made about inbreeding on both forums and threads is what I take issue with.

My first post on this thread

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you. If I replace silkback in the below quote and put in any mutation associated with snakes, geckos or any other animal, it would be called responsible out-crossing.

and comments so far has had nothing to do with this particular mutation.
Then you leap to this junk.

And if this is the way you do business.....btw, when you sell a snake do you tell them that this snakes brother is also the father? People accept that? Wow!!! I guess I am naive!!!
Do you also pump 'em up on steroids to make them bigger? I mean, if mating a brother to his sister is nothing, what else do you do? Where do you draw your moral line???

 

[Dennis Hultman]

The other points you have made.
I do have a problem with people who suggest that a government agency should come into everyones home and inspect their reptiles.

I do have a problem with you stating that anyone that inbreeds any animal doesn't care for their animals and only sees dollar signs.

I disagree with almost every post you made on the other thread because I create morphs and I do care for the well-being of my animals. I take offense to much of what you have spouted. Like Kelli, I enjoy my animals and also enjoy the genetics of it all.

 

[Tere Salazar]

Dennis-

I think what you're seeing is a huge case of frustration. We've been trying to get answers. There have been lots of questions about this mutation, and nobody answers them, no matter who asks, or in what "tone" of typing.

I am well aware that other species are sometimes inbred to create new morphs, and that responsible breeders then outcross (responsible being the key word here). The problem here is that one of the parties involved in this new mutation has proven to be not so responsible, and it's hard to imagine that this mutation would be outcrossed properly.

Yes, the majority of our issues are because it would appear that these animals' quality of life has changed, but it's really difficult to know anything for sure when you can't get those answers from the only people that know those things.

 

[whiskersmom]

Please, let me set your mind at ease, I did NOT notify a government agency...there are different people out there that I thought would be interested in knowing that this was being attempted. In no way were they government affiliated.

Yes, I'm frustrated and when I see what I thought to be someone (perhaps you, I would need to go back and read the posts) was condoning this type of practice, I got upset. The statement I made about "steroids" I apologize for. There wasn't any need for this type of sarcasm, it was made in the heat of debate and it shouldn't have been said.

 

[whiskersmom]

Dennis Hultman wrote:

I do have a problem with you stating that anyone that inbreeds any animal doesn't care for their animals and only sees dollar signs.

I disagree with almost every post you made on the other thread because I create morphs and I do care for the well-being of my animals.

Isn't it a little unrealistic to believe that everyone does it for the love of the animal and not for money. Or that they give the level of care that you say you do.

What I posted wasn't directed at you, I'm sorry if you felt like I was pointing a finger at you. Please, do not take offense for what I was meaning to be about the Silk back bearded dragons.

 

[whiskersmom]

So, I see this isn't a new subject....
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41695

 

[Drache613]

Hello

Hello,

This whole thread just makes me very sad. Too many people who are not seeing the big picture, & long term aspect of it all, are not real concerned with the inbreeding aspect. That is my main problem with it all, not just the inbreeding, while that is bad in itself, but to purposely inbreed to bring out a birth defect basically. I am sure it would not do well or survive on it's own in the wild. As Kelli pointed out, survival of the species, or the fittest. Of course, that is how it usually is.
What I have a huge problem with is to inbreed so closely to get a desirable trait that is going to be extremely hard to care for. I mean, look how the normal dragons are not taken care of properly, do you really think that people will do what it takes to protect these? What will happen, is that inevitably, as things usually go, the wrong person will get their hands on a pair, & will breed them, not knowing what the heck they are doing, & it will further weaken them, or possibly kill them.
I for one, am tired of people trying to hide instead of answer questions. There are so many contradictions with the husbandry, but common sense will prevail with the care as we can figure how they should be taken care of. I do believe that money is the motivating factor here, which is sad. It is cruel. Just like it is cruel to do it to other species. I do not agree with messing with a mutation to the point of weakening the species, which this looks like it will. Snakes are no different or other types of reptiles. They are all susceptible to more disease, weakened immune systems, etc. What is the point, why not breed strong & healthy one instead of taking chances with the already dwindling gene pool?
What if aliens came down, & started inbreeding us, to get all of us to only have 3 arms, because they thought it looked cool? I know that is a bit extreme, but it is the aspect anyway, you get the idea. Why can't we just leave well enough alone!
Adenovirus has been around a long time, & if it had of been properly addressed when it first came out, there could have been a number of things done to prevent the spreading of it. Instead it was covered up & nothing was done, all so the people could keep making money.
Those of you, & you know who you are, tend to get defensive when honest people have questions that need answering. There are several people who have posted on this thread that are fighting with everything that they have to help their dragons live with adenovirus, & remain healthy on a day to day basis. It just amazes me that you want to argue with people who have ethics. What is wrong with having ethics anyway, when it comes to the care & wellbeing of a species? Don't they deserve that much anyway?
I have just never seen so many mean & nasty people as I have when these types of threads come about. I am on alot of boards too, but have just never seen so many spiteful people.
We all have a right to our opinions, most definitely, BUT we do not have a right to exploit any animal. They cannot voice their opinion, so it is time someone fights for them for once. Everything is about money, & it just seems to me that no one cares about the welfare of the animal anymore.

Tracie

 

[whiskersmom]

I did have a long conversation with Tremper about the effects of inbreeding and weakened immune systems. He expressed concern and gave many examples of how crypto did not seem to effect WC animals, but that inbreed captive animals did not show as strong as resistance to the effects of crypto. Again, one of these days when I have research to support this I'll get more in depth.

That is a quote from Intense Herpetoculture, from the link I posted previously. I understand it's about geckos but couldn't that be applied here? I've not read where Australia is having a problem with BD's dying off from Adenovirus, so is it because of the inbreeding that everyone keeps bringing up to develop color that has possibly made this virus so strong in captive breds?

I think it's highly possible that we've weakened their systems by inbreeding to the point that they can't fight off the virus, not to mention coccidia, parasites, etc.

 

[Neverland Dragons]

I am really disappointed that the original thread on silkbacks was locked without many of the questions being answered. I do understand why and it was heading in a totally unproductive direction.

I tried to ask questions that I thought were important and remain diplomatic. Many of the questions posed here were posed in the previous thread. I tried to point out that there were differences in husbandry (not better or worse, just different) and I received a reply with a bunch of subtle and not so subtle insults.

My main concern is, how inbred are these animals? And, if they have only been around a year or so, how can anyone possibly state there are no genetic problems with them? The honest answer to many of the questions should probably be, "I don't know." How related were to two leatherbacks that produced the first silkbacks? And for goodness sake, when was the first silkback hatched out? I asked that question at least three times. Was it in 2006, like Dachiu posted on their site? If so, the breeder himself would only have limited knowledge of how a captive environment, breeding and other factors affect this mutation. More importantly, there may be genetic issues that just have not had to time to show up in offspring.

To me, it is irresponsible and self serving ($) to go full speed ahead with this project with so little information known. Now, it is possible that Alessandro knows much more, but he sure has not answered the questions that would help us to understand that. So, either there is a language barrier and he does not understand what we are asking or he knows the people will not like his answers so he is remaining silent. He also just may not want to answer the questions, in which case he should just say he does not want to share that info. He came on that thread basically saying as long as people played nice he would answer questions. People were being respectful and trying to find answers. He then disappeared and people assumed he split and was avoiding the forum to answer the questions being posed. I do not know the truth to that, but I would hope, that if he wanted to help the community understand this mutation, he would have answered more of the questions. He has the right to not share any info, but by doing so, he leaves it open for people to make assumptions, and that is usually always worse than what the actual truth is.

 

[Tere Salazar]

That is a quote from Intense Herpetoculture, from the link I posted previously. I understand it's about geckos but couldn't that be applied here? I've not read where Australia is having a problem with BD's dying off from Adenovirus, so is it because of the inbreeding that everyone keeps bringing up to develop color that has possibly made this virus so strong in captive breds?

I think it's highly possible that we've weakened their systems by inbreeding to the point that they can't fight off the virus, not to mention coccidia, parasites, etc.

That's exactly what I was talking about. We've already weakened them so much that further weakening them just can't be good.

Wait...wasn't what they were telling us was part of the reason our dragons have Adenovirus, is because they're already inbred, to an extent? So now, we're going to make them even more susceptible to things like this? This is all just not making any sort of sense to me.