New price order?

[Todd Thompson]

How do I unsiscribe? You idiots are killing my inbox.
Thanks

 

[hhmoore]

We idiots?
Unsubscribe via your User CP

 

[shrap]

How do I unsiscribe? You idiots are killing my inbox.
Thanks

So do you make it a habit to insult people while you are asking them for help?

 

[deborahbroadus]

Totally agree, and this is the point I was crudely trying to make earlier. I do also want to apologize for my aforementioned post, it was totally inappropriate for this forum. I forgot where I was and wouldn't have spoken so strongly otherwise.

I would have given you karma for that apology..unfortunately, I can't put out anymore for a while. I'll get back to you!

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

How do I unsiscribe? You idiots are killing my inbox.
Thanks

You must read your email well. There is generally an unsubscribe link provided.

 

[Todd Thompson]

You must read your email well. There is generally an unsubscribe link provided.

Thank you, that did it.

 

[deborahbroadus]

How do I unsiscribe? You idiots are killing my inbox.
Thanks

Actually, there is a way to prevent this. All you needed to do is reroute specific emails to go into the folder of your choice where you could have then read them at your leisure (I think most email servers have this capacity).

 

[Southern Wolf]

you can also set it up in your CP to do daily or weekly emails... instead of instant.

 

[Cat_72]

I have thought the same as you..when it comes to selectively breeding, you can buy a "top of the line" Morph and breed it to a very pretty normal with all the desired traits (blushing, color, temperament) and still throw some "pet" quality animals. From my experience even having two top quality morphs will also not always guarantee quality hatchlings (although my pieds and mojaves were spectacular if i do say so myself).

So simply saying we shouldn't put two "butt-ugly" animals together isn't explaining a lot, because what could be "butt-ugly" to one is not necessarily "butt-ugly" to someone else.

But this is all old news to these "older heads" and nothing new. Humor us as we try and wrestle our way though what we are learning, please?

*sigh*

I used the whole "butt-ugly" term in an attempt to "dumb down" (not calling anyone in particular dumb) the concepts that were already explained in more um, technical type terms before that weren't seeming to be grasped.

One would assume that it is obvious common sense that although even breeding two top-quality specimens together doesn't necessarily guarantee a whole clutch of the same, it gives much better odds than purposely breeding with lesser specimens.

The whole idea of selective breeding is to try to produce animals with the best chance of not only being "pretty", but genetically sound and healthy as well. Purposely introducing lesser quality genes into the gene pool, whether it be a "butt-ugly" (not looking as the morph should look, there are obviously generally accepted standards of what each morph is supposed to look like) animal, or one that has some sort of genetic defect, defeats the entire purpose of selective breeding.

 

[WingedWolf]

I actually do agree with a lot of what you are saying. Part of the problem (as I see it) is we tend to personalize our experiences and state them as fact (they are facts in our experiences).

Stick it out, you'll be fine.

Now about selectively breeding...I do it all the time!! I select and then I breed! I am JOKING fellas.

I have thought the same as you..when it comes to selectively breeding, you can buy a "top of the line" Morph and breed it to a very pretty normal with all the desired traits (blushing, color, temperament) and still throw some "pet" quality animals. From my experience even having two top quality morphs will also not always guarantee quality hatchlings (although my pieds and mojaves were spectacular if i do say so myself).

So simply saying we shouldn't put two "butt-ugly" animals together isn't explaining a lot, because what could be "butt-ugly" to one is not necessarily "butt-ugly" to someone else.

But this is all old news to these "older heads" and nothing new. Humor us as we try and wrestle our way though what we are learning, please?

I know, I know, but I don't think I'm tempermentally suited to deal with the stuff going on here...when I think 'let's talk reptiles', 'knock-down-drag-out' flame war just isn't what I had in mind. Nor people bashing my animals.

This is one of my pastel hatchlings, by the way:

I don't think he turned out all that bad. Too bad he's a boy. He's sure not 'ugly'.

I just don't need this much stress here, you know? I haven't done any of the things I've been accused of doing. If my opinions turn out to be wrong, I'll learn that down the road at some point--but honestly, I haven't said anything radical, and there are plenty of other people who have the same opinions. That's the part that really confuses me about all the attacks here. I could understand it if I had some radical new idea I was throwing out without having tested it, but geeze...there are some folks around who just aren't happy unless you agree with THEM.

Why SHOULD I put up with it? I don't think I'm going to stick it out, not this time. I CAN play rough, too...but I just don't think I WANT to right now. lol

 

[shrap]

Imagine that, Donna once again twists everything that everyone says into a nice neat package to further propagate her own delusional world.

Again, maybe one day Donna will be able to look into that mirror I was talking about earlier and be honest with herself.

 

[BryonsBoas]

Since you are the only one who has posted a pic.

That is typical of what pastels have become. Orange = brown in most cases. The pastels of today leave a lot to be desired , and while your boy is pretty as a BP , he is not what I would define as a pastel.

Take that pastel and add in morph mills and you get pastels and other morphs that no longer resemble the original morph. Those , I believe , are the two biggest reasons that the prices dropped so drastically so quickly. When breeders are pumping out 200+ clutches and the hobbiest breeders are pumping out 5 - 20 clutches and 99% of the visual morphs are sub par in definition to the morph itself and what the gene can do , then the market declines in price just to move them.

Selective breeding isn't that hard. When ever possible look at the sibs of the animal your looking to buy. If you are able to see pics from the past few clutches / litters then you can get a really good idea of what expect from using any critters from those parents.

Using the Clown morph as an example .....

If you want really pattern reduced clowns or hets that throw reduced pattern clowns , look at the breeder's founding stock , then look at the litters he produces. If the breeder has produced 10 clowns but only 1 is truly reduced pattern , most likely it will be a shot in the dark that working his hets or visuals will be what you want. If he produced 10 clowns , all reduced pattern, then his stock is definitely what you are looking for.

Selective breeding really isn't as hard as described by some in this thread nor is it as time consuming. Start by asking the questions of the breeder , get pics , do a little research on the breeders site and don't be afraid to go elsewhere to get what you want if that breeder doesn't have it. Pick the best stock you can. Let the morph mills race against each other and bide your time picking the best to work with. True selective breeding pays in the end.

If the boy you posted was the cream of your crop , then you have a very long road ahead to bring your pastels back up to what they should be. You can try to claim , as you have on other things but back peddled , that breeders have not defined the morphs or how they should look , but in reality , quite a few have. You either haven't looked hard enough or haven't looked at all.

What you call an attack 99% is nothing more than those with the knowledge from hands on experience or research calling you out on a minimally researched argument. Its honest and generally straight forward. If you can't take it for what it is , then stick to your rocks and get out of reptiles. While some may be more diplomatic , I have a full appreciation for blunt honesty and use it quite often.

 

[deborahbroadus]

*sigh*

I used the whole "butt-ugly" term in an attempt to "dumb down" (not calling anyone in particular dumb) the concepts that were already explained in more um, technical type terms before that weren't seeming to be grasped.

One would assume that it is obvious common sense that although even breeding two top-quality specimens together doesn't necessarily guarantee a whole clutch of the same, it gives much better odds than purposely breeding with lesser specimens.

The whole idea of selective breeding is to try to produce animals with the best chance of not only being "pretty", but genetically sound and healthy as well. Purposely introducing lesser quality genes into the gene pool, whether it be a "butt-ugly" (not looking as the morph should look, there are obviously generally accepted standards of what each morph is supposed to look like) animal, or one that has some sort of genetic defect, defeats the entire purpose of selective breeding.

I understand what you are saying.

Actually even though you used the term..my repeating the term wasn't a spin off of anything you said or even directed at anything you said, because almost everyone is using the term. I, too, simply used the term most often used.

The first time I came across the term was on Bob Clark's forum.

 

[johns6068]

I have a full appreciation for blunt honesty and use it quite often.

It is so much nicer to have it that way then sugar coating things. I much rather know ones brute honest opinion. Then have someoone make up something to tell me so I feel good. This doesn't mean I have to agree with them each time either, but I perfer an honest opinion over a fake one anyday.

 

[Cat_72]

Since you are the only one who has posted a pic.

That is typical of what pastels have become. Orange = brown in most cases. The pastels of today leave a lot to be desired , and while your boy is pretty as a BP , he is not what I would define as a pastel.



Selective breeding isn't that hard. When ever possible look at the sibs of the animal your looking to buy. If you are able to see pics from the past few clutches / litters then you can get a really good idea of what expect from using any critters from those parents.

Great post, Bry.

That's one thing I neglected to mention - while that boy is a pretty baby now, even if not a great example of what a pastel should be - you have to remember that the majority of pastels will brown out at least to some degree, and lose that great baby color they have as they mature. If it's "so-so" and orangey instead of bright yellow as a baby, chances are it's not going to make a nice adult pastel. Add that together with the fact that apparently there are some pretty brown siblings already....and it's not an animal I'd add into my gene pool.

Breeding for quantity, or not taking the time to pick stock selectively, has seemed to lower the standards newer folks coming into the hobby seem to have....but just as Bryon said, taking the time to only buy, breed, and sell the best quality WILL bring its own rewards. Top quality demands top price, even when the market is "saturated" with a certain morph....as well as the pride in producing some of the most beautiful kids out there.

I don't just look at the pastels, though they are probably about the most noticeable example....look at the spiders (man, there are some "butt-ugly spiders out there now too, lol), the mojaves, the clowns, many of the morphs that you see being advertised today, and then compare those animals with the way they looked the first couple of years they were on the market. A big change, for certain....usually brought about by those who didn't think about the quality, only being one of the folks to hurry up and produce a bunch of them before the price dropped.

I understand what you are saying.

Actually even though you used the term..my repeating the term wasn't a spin off of anything you said or even directed at anything you said, because almost everyone is using the term. I, too, simply used the term most often used.

The first time I came across the term was on Bob Clark's forum.

Thank you, Deb.

Again, maybe one day Donna will be able to look into that mirror I was talking about earlier and be honest with herself.

One must have a reflection to see it in the mirror, no?

 

[Seamus Haley]

A handful of snakes this year--my babies were all still growing up! Actually, we produced 26 hatchlings, from one male and 3 females.

One male...

A bunch of yelling about inbreeding... apparantly because she was under the misimpression that selecting quality stock as the basis for a project demanded it.

Take a normal female with this girl for $210 + shipping!
Take a pastel male with her for $250 + shipping, or take BOTH a pastel male and a normal female with her for $270 + shipping!!

In an ad she posted here, on this very site.

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=620988#post620988

Why would someone adamantly against breeding related animals be selling siblings in pairs?

 

[KelliH]

.....

 

[deborahbroadus]

It is sad that we do contradict ourselves, sometimes without even realizing it. I know that I have one of the most contradictory personas around! One minute I can be "pro" a thing, the next "anti" as I learn more.

at one point, I adamantly insisted that I would not breed my Spiders..LMAO..but as new information came ....the "maybes" took root..and the curiousity just flourished and...I DID IT. So you could probably find information on me stating that I was for or against a thing and then later find out that I did it. I don't think that makes one a hyprocrite because one of the things that makes us human is our perogative to change our minds...switch horses in the middle of the stream..or simply change sexes!

Simply imo, because she sold siblings in a batch does not mean that she was a hyprocrite (please don't bite too hard!!). She may not be trying to control what someone else does with their animals. I don't know..how much control are we supposed to have over what someone else does with the animals we sell them? They could put the females with completely unrelated males that they may have.

 

[deborahbroadus]

It is so much nicer to have it that way then sugar coating things. I much rather know ones brute honest opinion. Then have someoone make up something to tell me so I feel good. This doesn't mean I have to agree with them each time either, but I perfer an honest opinion over a fake one anyday.

Wait till YOU fall on the wrong side and it's aimed at you. It is quite different to be on the receiving end of a lot of "brute" talking.

(here's a tissue......to wipe that smudge of brown off your nose)

 

[shrap]

I agree with where you are coming from Deb.

But changing your stance due to further education, personal experiences, etc, is not being a hypocrite. That is called learning and having an open mind.

As far as Donna is concerned I dont know how anyone can label her a hypocrite when Donna cant even keep to the same story or set of beliefs for more than a post or two. Nutjob is the word that comes to mind.