Are we creating weaker animals through the hobby?

[SouthSydney]

I am well aware of the concept and the constraints with releasing captive bred animals into the wild. However, in time, the gov agencies will have to consider this option and the Oenpelli is probably going to be the first case.

Why do you believe the Oenpelli will be the first case? Reason I ask is that I was under the impression that they are by no means rare in their range and also their habitat is mostly national park or protected indigenous land. Or is this simply not true? I would have thought the broad head would have a much stronger case for captive breeding and re-release?

 

[Ricochet]

Everyone winging about problem feeders - just breed your snakes with my Darwin - wouldn't be problems after that. He's a full on food pig and would probably eat scrambled dog 5h!t on toast if you gave him half a chance...:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Waterrat]

Why do you believe the Oenpelli will be the first case? Reason I ask is that I was under the impression that they are by no means rare in their range and also their habitat is mostly national park or protected indigenous land. Or is this simply not true? I would have thought the broad head would have a much stronger case for captive breeding and re-release?

I will answer you question tomorrow. Sunday dinner is on now.

cheers

 

[PilbaraPythons]

What must be remembered is that there are heaps of different natural stimuli in the wild, be it natural prey, substrate scents etc, etc. Difficult feeders may very well need these triggers which they are not exposed to in most captive environments.
Perhaps of interest, over the years I have caught many newly dispersed wild hatchlings and overall haven’t found any difference in feeding difficulty than I would with any captive breed specimen I have ever raised, most are good feeders, and some are not. What this means or if it even has any relevance to this topic what so ever, I have no idea.

 

[Renenet]

Another interesting thread - there's a few of them about this weekend.

I think this is actually a very important question. In cases of animals that are doing well in the wild, it probably doesn't matter that much - except for the welfare of the animal itself. Even if we could sustain a "weak" animal in captivity, isn't it better to have strong ones instead? Does a weak animal get sick more often or have painful or uncomfortable conditions that we have no inkling of? I haven't had enough experience in keeping reptiles to be able to answer these questions, but more experienced keepers and breeders probably have their own observations. Already someone has mentioned that weak animals seem to die younger.

It could be unethical of us to sustain "weak" animals, but as Gird has pointed out, what consists of weakness? I think this thread has established that poor feeding as a hatchie is not a conclusive sign, so exactly how do we tell what is a weak animal? Sometimes it's obvious, such as when a snake hatches with deformities, but I'd assume there are different degrees of weakness and some wouldn't be so obvious.

So if we accept that we are breeding weaker animals, what exactly are the signs of a weak animal? I think this is a good question to answer because I think it would be vital when considering a breeding program for a threatened species - especially if the aim is to release one day. I don't know the details of how a breeding program works, but I assume the goal would be to breed healthy animals and enough of them to preserve genetic diversity.

Another short point: not all animals meet their end in the wild because they are weak. Sometimes it's a case of foul luck.

There are a couple of things I'm curious about. In the last few days I've suddenly seen mention of the fragility of albinos, particularly Darwins. Blondie herself was a wild adult, I understand, so presumably she was strong enough to survive despite sticking out like a fire engine at a funeral. So why are her offspring weak, if being weak is the answer to the problems that have been observed? I'd like to hear some more opinions and observations about this.

The second thing I'm curious about is the potential Oenpelli python captive conservation project. It's a little bit off topic so I won't discuss it too much, but if anyone can point me in the direction of some reading material by PM, I'd be much obliged.

Renenet

 

[Jeffa]

A main question would be: Does anyone know wether heredicts come into play with say two problem feeders bred together?
Does this produce more of the later?
Trigger points in the wild seems logical. In captivity does this produce more non feeders due to lack of triggers if both parents require these needs?
Good point Dave.

Cheers

 

[waruikazi]

They definately aren't common and all the current research points to them being vulnerable. But we will know more in the next couple of years.

Why do you believe the Oenpelli will be the first case? Reason I ask is that I was under the impression that they are by no means rare in their range and also their habitat is mostly national park or protected indigenous land. Or is this simply not true? I would have thought the broad head would have a much stronger case for captive breeding and re-release?

 

[Dipcdame]

People speak on here about "mutations" I believe they aren't so much mutations, but an evolutionary step forwards for the breed.

People speak on here about "mutations" I believe they aren't so much mutations, but an evolutionary step forwards for the breed. Unless they don't survive, of course, but the ones that succeed and go on .............. evolution!!

 

[Jeffa]

People speak on here about "mutations" I believe they aren't so much mutations, but an evolutionary step forwards for the breed.

People speak on here about "mutations" I believe they aren't so much mutations, but an evolutionary step forwards for the breed. Unless they don't survive, of course, but the ones that succeed and go on .............. evolution!!

But this only comes when bred in captivity, no predators, regular feeding, hygenie, line breeding.

 

[waruikazi]

There are a couple of things I'm curious about. In the last few days I've suddenly seen mention of the fragility of albinos, particularly Darwins. Blondie herself was a wild adult, I understand, so presumably she was strong enough to survive despite sticking out like a fire engine at a funeral. So why are her offspring weak, if being weak is the answer to the problems that have been observed? I'd like to hear some more opinions and observations about this.

The second thing I'm curious about is the potential Oenpelli python captive conservation project. It's a little bit off topic so I won't discuss it too much, but if anyone can point me in the direction of some reading material by PM, I'd be much obliged.

Renenet

Blondie was a little pink worm when she was found, Spliff the albino olive was and adult though.

For more info on that other stuff keep an eye on Gavin Bedfords website and you could also look into the project the Greg Miles is trying to get off the ground (conservation keeping).

But very good point about the reason for getting killed in the wild. It may not necesarily have anything to do with being the weak, it could all be down to luck.

 

[saximus]

I don't want to drive this off topic too much more but what are people's reasons for conservation breeding? Unless an animal is threatened due to a direct action from humans, why are we trying to disrupt the natural order by keeping animals around that may no longer be suited to these environments? I'm happy to start a new thread if people consider it an interesting enough topic...

 

[Herpaderpa]

yes, we are creating weaker everything... including people.

 

[Reptilefreak95]

Albinos in most cases came from the wild where there is genetic diversity,some such as albino burmese,blondie the carpet etc have extremely sound genetics.
Some albinos are less virile and seem to have fatal flaws like the albino beardies and possibly even the albino macs unless they show up soon.

yes, that is true, but there was only ever one albino individual found on most cases, then selectively bred out (and ofte in-bred). The albino is there in the first place due to a genetic "flaw" (mutation) resulting in the individual to express a phenotype lacking melain, its rare, because natural selection has chosen against it, and therefore, it is a recessive trait, only being expressed in select individuals.

 

[Jeffa]

I don't want to drive this off topic too much more but what are people's reasons for conservation breeding? Unless an animal is threatened due to a direct action from humans, why are we trying to disrupt the natural order by keeping animals around that may no longer be suited to these environments? I'm happy to start a new thread if people consider it an interesting enough topic...

Natural exctinctions not due to humans? Start the thread by all means Saximus but I am sure the whole global warming debacle will unfold. Can you name any species that would be extinct in Aus if we did not have a role to play for our benefit of raping the land and bending natural habitats to suit our needs?

 

[Reptilefreak95]

i agree with that^^ humans are parasites (no offence intended) lol, and we are to blame for nearly all recent extinctions, quite sad really

 

[Renenet]

Blondie was a little pink worm when she was found, Spliff the albino olive was and adult though.

For more info on that other stuff keep an eye on Gavin Bedfords website and you could also look into the project the Greg Miles is trying to get off the ground (conservation keeping).

But very good point about the reason for getting killed in the wild. It may not necesarily have anything to do with being the weak, it could all be down to luck.

Thanks for the correction and the information. The Blondie find was even more of an extraordinary case of good luck than I thought. I wonder, then, how robust Spliff's offspring are and if there's any difference between his and Blondie's.

Will check out Gavin Bedford's site and google Greg Miles.

yes, we are creating weaker everything... including people.

I wasn't going to bring it up, but that's a good point. With all our medical advances, babies and children who wouldn't otherwise have made it are now surviving to reproductive age. Without being a eugenicist, I do wonder if that leads to less desirable traits spreading through the gene pool. It's a very emotive issue, and one with no easy answers. I'd be interested to see if there's been any research done in this area. But probably one of those topics for another thread.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Here is a bit of background that might help the discussion...

“Weaker” is meant to apply in a very general sense to an individual’s relative capacity to survive in its environment. Stronger individuals are more likely to survive than weaker ones. What it actually means is how well an individual is adapted to surviving in its environment.

What an animal ends up like is the result of its genes PLUS its environment. The genes set the potential limits and the environment determines where, within those limits, it ends up. So while a snake may have the genetic potential to reach 2m being starved as a youngster due to drought it may only ever grow to 1m.

Each gene controls a single inherited characteristic. We get two copies of each gene – one from mum and one from dad. We all have the same set of paired genes, one pair for each inherited characteristic that makes up the human genome. It’s the same for snakes. What can vary is the specific information within each gene. So for the pair of genes controlling maximum length, one might be for 2.2m and the other might be for 1.8m. Different forms of the same gene are referred to as alleles.

So if it is well fed, how long will this snake grow? That depends if one allele is dominant to the other or whether they are co-dominant to each other. A dominant allele completely masks the effects of its pair, which is to be recessive. So if the 1.8m gene is dominant, that is as long as the snake will grow. If both alleles have an effect at the same time, they are said to be co-dominant. If both genes for legth are co-dominant, the snake has the potential to grow to 2m.

Mutations are a sudden, permanent and inheritable change in gene structure. You are probably aware that mutations can be caused by large or accumulated exposure to radiation or exposure to certain chemicals. These are rarities. What is much more common but a lot less well known is mutations often occur when genetic information is being copied/duplicated each time a cell divides. Given the immense amount of information in coding just one gene, it is not surprising that a simple physical problem where the wrong molecule gets in the way can totally alter information the gene now codes for. Only mutations in sex cells are passed on.

Due to how they happen, most mutations are recessive and harmful, as they would adversely affect development of the characteristic they code for. Some mutations are neutral in their effects and very rarely, they can be advantageous. Pretty much all organisms contain a range of recessive mutations specific to their heritage. As these mutations do not pair up with similar mutations when unrelated individuals mate, the offspring also carry the mutations but do not show their effects. However, when closely related individuals are mated (in breeding) then the chance of a double recessive of the same mutation occurring are hugely increased.

Blue

 

[CodeRed]

An animal's fitness must be considered in the context of its environment. Sure we are most likely making snakes less fit to survive in the wild, but we are producing snakes that are more fit to survive in captivity. Features such as temperament (dont want to get into that argument ), acceptance of mice and rats as food, colour etc etc are selected for in captivity in place of characteristics that make an animal better suited to living in the wild. So long as we understand and accept the limitations of this process then I dont really see a problem with it.

 

[Renenet]

Thanks, Blue. I wish you'd been my science teacher in high school; that's about as clear an explanation as I've ever read. I hope you don't mind if I cut and paste it into a document for my own personal use.

Where do chromosomes fit into this? And if you have a co-dominant trait for eye colour, let's say two different shades of brown, does the individual end up with a shade somewhere in between?

 

[saximus]

Chromosomes are the structures that DNA is formed into. Humans have 23 pairs (46 total) of chromosomes so we get 23 from each parent which is how we inherit genetic characteristics from both parents. Each chromosome has as specific partner that is pairs with so, for example, chromosome 5 from your father paired with chromosome 5 from your mother and then the genetic information combined between the two to create whatever parts of you that those genes control. The ones that people mostly refer to are the sex chromosomes which carry all of the information that determines whether you get a boy or girl. Most people know that for girls this is XX and for boys it's XY. The X and Y refer to the shape of the actual chromosome.
As for the co-dominant question, it's my understanding that co-dominance means that either gene can be displayed (neither is more dominant than the other). It doesn't mean that you get a combination of the two. So with eye colour you would have one shade or the other. Having said this though, eye colour is polygenic so it isn't controlled by only one gene which is why you could have many shades of many colours.
I hope that helps until someone more knowledgeable answers.