Locality / Purity. Why Does It Matter?

[Sdaji]

I've spent most of my time as a reptile keeper being passionate about locality purity, however, I have no idea why I care. I used to like the idea of having an animal which was representative of what you might find in the wild. Something which looked and behaved like a wild animal, a piece of nature I could enjoy and learn from. The ideals of the reptile community have changed since then, and I've changed with it to some extent. It is not a small group of keen reptile enthusiats any more, it's a money-driven industry fueled by people wanting to own reptiles as 'pets'.

Even the locality freaks want abino this, axanthic that, high yellow the other, melanistic something else and triple-blizard-snow-spotted dreamiscle-orange-blazed tornado-swirly nuclear-devastation-red that thing. We want good feeders, good handlers, we don't want something which is like what we find in the wild.

If some kid unexpectedly hatched 12 'pet shop Antaresia' and three of them happened to be Melanistic, the locality origin of the animals would make people no less keen to thrust their dollar-filled fists in the direction of that lucky kid and the snakes would go on to be bred like mad. If those same snakes happened to be locality pure, people would want them to stay locality pure. Why is it so? I would be far more attracted to them if they were pure, but I am the first to admit that their market value and general appeal would be virtually no different.

My appreciation for morphs came when the masses of pet-style keepers flooded our ranks. Poaching is a huge issue presently, but when you're only interested in something if it's homozygous for three mutations, poaching won't matter any more. I now embrace and enjoy the artificial appearance of these animals, but for reasons I have not identified and can't understand, I still have a fondness for locality purety.

So, does anyone have an explanation? Is it nothing more than sentimentality? For many reasons our animals are unsuitable for release into the wild, so don't bother with that one. With Antaresia you'll generally produce the best-looking babies by keeping things pure (crossing a patternless Children's with a high-contrast Stimson's, or Blonde Mac is going to produce crap babies), but this isn't always the case with everything, particularly Carpets, which will probably always be the main species of focus (I'm so glad I don't like them! I won't get so upset to see their gene pools slowly mixed into one big soup :lol: ).

All I can think of it that it's a game. It's cool to have pure animals because we say it is. That's enough for me, but I'd love to know if anyone has a better reason. I'd also like to know if anyone has a moral reason which could be used against those who would like to cross.

There are potentially welfare issues regarding 'hard' hybridising such as between Morelia, Liasis and Aspidites, but that's a different concern, so if you'd like to discuss that, or the legalities, please start your own thread. I'm interested in seeing arguments for (or against if you have them) keeping things pure where there are no health issues involved (Carpets being an obvious example, Antaresia being another).

 

[JungleRob]

Sdaji, I think you answered your own question in your third last paragraph. I for one appreciate the different morphs of carpets available to us as well as the locality pure animals.
The flavour of the month in a decade or so may very well be locality pure animals, because everything else will have been so inbred with this and that we could sit with problems unimaginable, problems relating to feeding, growth, mating, etc. etc. Who knows, only time will tell.

 

[Khagan]

I think it's kinda comparable to cars, you know some people like to keep them classic original (Pure locality) and some people like to customise (Morph etc).

It also seems like a game of who can top each other with the best looking animals, everyone wants something that is better looking or different than the last persons. Unless you're really passionate about a particular species it kinda gets the same old seeing it over and over.

 

[caustichumor]

6 degrees of seperation, Say you Sold a locality pure animal 12 years ago, there could now literally be dozens of decendant breeding animals,How many of those animals are still paired with a locality specific mate? Each person who puts two sexual aged animals together does so for themselves, their own ideological ethics dictate what comes out the back end.
I would always prefer to buy a locality known animal over an unknown source, But as the years of taking from the wild get behind us there will always be animals whose history and bloodlines get lost in the pet trade. (it kind of makes you want to have petshop sold animals desexed.....)

 

[PilbaraPythons]

Sentimentality perhaps sums it up, and this is because I think the majority of Austrian people are generally very proud of all Australia’s wildlife just the way it is and if seeing them in captivity or otherwise, most would appreciate them somewhat representing what they should naturally look like.
Do many reptile purists compromise their own values by the temptation or self indulgence of non pure interesting morphs or mutations? Perhaps, but in my opinion it is at least a lot more positive to have this care in the first place rather than a blatant disregard to what we do with our wildlife.

 

[Sdaji]

JungleRob: I don't expect we'll ever be faced with serious inbreeding issues with our snakes, and lines kept locality pure will become as inbred as anything else anyway. I agree, it seems pure sentimentality.

Khagan: I agree with you too, there are some who just want something 'classic' and some who want something fancy. I see more and more that people are wanting 'fancy' over 'classic'.

Dave: How many people these days do you think would prefer a 'typical' wild animal vs an unusually beautiful one? I'm sure when you're out collecting you'll try to obtain the most beautiful animals you can rather than the most typical ones (and hey, why wouldn't you?). You say it's more positive to keen them pure and to cross them is to blatantly disregard the wellbeing of the wildlife, but why? My gut feeling is to agree with you, I 'feel' the same way, but I can't understand it or put a decent argument forward, so I'm finding myself unable to justify encouraging anyone to share my philosophy. All I can do is say "I like things pure, I hope you do too". If this is all I have, I don't seem to have a leg to stand on if I tell someone they shouldn't cross things.

If sentimentality is all it is, it's still a perfectly valid persuit (just like wanting as much yellow as possible in your Jungles or as little melanin as possible in your whatever). Some of us will continue, but I can't see any ethical platform to stand on, or justification for telling anyone else what they should do, any more than I can tell someone they are 'wrong' for wanting a dull snake; it's just a personal preference.

 

[PeeGee]

after living here in Australia now for almost 9 years, I don't understand why people can't just be happy with the pure breds. I'm Dutch originally, and keep telling everyone who wants to hear it, how lucky they are to be born in such a country as Australia. It's wildlife is gorgeous the way it is, so I personally don't see the point in cross breeding. I hope I made sense, English is not my first language, so if I read this thread in a wrong way, or my post doesn't make any sense at all, I apologize..

 

[JungleRob]

JungleRob: I don't expect we'll ever be faced with serious inbreeding issues with our snakes, and lines kept locality pure will become as inbred as anything else anyway. I agree, it seems pure sentimentality.

Agree with you 100%, what I mean is the cross-breeding of species to get different looking animals, as opposed to inbreeding of like species, ending up with a soup like gene pool of carpets.

 

[wokka]

Why do we have flat sceened teles or name brand jeans.Because we are told they are better? We get sick of the old ones and progess says we have to embrace change.Why do sheep follow one another? I think its easier thanblazing your own path.

 

[Sel]

Interesting topic!

I guess im one of those people who would prefer "pure". But, i really dont have a decent explanation for it!
I think pure breds are special, whether its a snake or a dog or a cat...when they are mixed with something else, they kind of lose that specialness. (hope that makes sense! and this is all MY opinion )

But, its up to the person and its all in the mind really. Its the thought and *knowing* that you have something pure. Like when you buy jewellrey, its just not the same if it isnt "real" gold or "real" silver. But then there are people that love the costume jewellrey , because its cheaper and more colourful.
People think the more expensive things are better , but its not always the case!

I hope i made some kind of sense lol

 

[TrueBlue]

Hmmm interesting thread sdaji.
I cant really explain my,(dare i say), devotion, to locality specific animals except that i just like naturally occurring forms. IMO there are as many naturally occouring locale specific morphs out there that are as, or even better looking, than any crosses. Take jungles for example,im sure Dave will agree with me here as hes seen more wild jungles than most people would ever likely see in a life time. Ive seen some absolute screemers crossing roads, better than 90% of the jungles we have in captivity that are line bred for certain traits.
Nature is a beautiful and amazing thing, we can try and manipulate it all we want to improve it in our eyes, but then mother nature will throw something back at us and blow us out of the water, no matter how much effort we put in to manipulating her.

 

[Sdaji]

I think that's a great comparison! Real vs synthetic jewels. Gold plated steel or solid gold. There's no tangible difference, and there's no real justification for saying that there is any actual value in having 'real' jewelry. I don't wear jewelry, but I fully appreciate where you're coming from, and if I was to wear it I'd only want the genuine article, even though I'd be unable to understand why. There would just be something satisfying about thinking about the diamond being formed by natural distilation processes, followed by extreme pressure, then sitting around for millions of years, rather than having been made by some guy out of lump of carbon in a laboratory last week (although there's something fun about that too I suppose).

A solid gold ring is no 'better' than a gold-plated steel one. Unless you put it on precision scales you can't even tell the difference, but somehow one is so much better.

It's a bit like that 10c coin you saved as a souvenier because it was the change from the first time you bought your spouse a drink. It's not worth anything, it looks the same as every other 10c coin, but in its own way it's priceless.

I'm sure many people feel exactly the same way and are very passionate about it, but is there anything else? Can anyone come up with an ethical issue or an argument to say that people should not make 'soft' crosses? If anyone wanted to tell me that my reasons were stupid all I could do would be shrug my shoulders, agree with them and wish them well.

You might say that hybridisers will turn things to soup and prevent us from having our beloved pure animals, but then again, the counter argument is robbing them of their ability to do what they want, and I can't find a way to justify discouraging them. This argument is especially weak when you consider that unless we keep very careful track of our lines, we won't 'know' that they're pure anyway, and the hybrids will only affect the lines we'd be unsure about anyway.

I'm having quite the ethical crisis! :lol:

Rob: I agree, I think pure animals almost always look better than crosses (other than a very small number of 'extreme' crosses, which are another kettle of fish). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. Breeding Diamonds with Jungles to get more yellow into the lines is one case where people would generally agree that some nice snakes can be made which are nicer than the parents, but you may be right when you say the very, very best Jungles are pure. I still can't put that into an ethical "right or wrong" context though.

 

[Boney]

i like to keep known local animals ,and like sdaji could not work out why i did care about it so much . now i think i know . i just like to collect different ones . you know , lee creek, flinders, broome and so on . i just like that sort of thing . so i would like to think there is going to be known local stuff still out there in years to come. but like i said i like to collect different stuff so i want best of both worlds i want to chase colour and pattern also if that means crossing say jungle with darwin so be it eg only . but tell it how it is . what this does to the hobby who knows .:? this is a shallow point of view i know but its how i feel .i think anyway?

 

[cracksinthepitch]

Man thats some headache your giving yourself sdaji. I dont think there is a simple explanantion for it. i dont think you can compare it to other physical things like cars ( not having a crack) because you dont ask where the car was put together before purchase.
My way of looking at it is probably very simplistic and only from a buyers perspective, but i like to have a more in depth description of my snake.ie an Uluru locale Woma Python rather than a woma python. its no better or different to me really but i like to have that extra info and i suppose it personalizes the snake for me.
So my answer would be that its more personal to have a more specific locale of snake. Man now ive given myself a headache..:?

 

[Sdaji]

cracks: The analogy with the cars is that some people want a classic thing (eg restoring an old vintage vehicle true to its original state) or just having the most suped up hotrod with every modification imaginable. It's being 'true' to something (an original design - nature's or the car designer) rather than tinkering with it yourself to make it 'better'. Analogies usually aren't perfect, they just provide a comparison to demonstrate a point, so of course you'll be able to pick holes in it. Analogies are not supposed to be robust or used in extrapolations.

Once again, you've given a sentimental reason for liking locality. We are all familiar with this sentiment and it doesn't need to be looked at more. I'm just trying to identify a tangible way to say that it actually is a fundamentally beneficial thing (rather than just a preference) or that crossing animals is bad. I'm coming up with a blank and this thread was made to see if that blank could be filled, which it seems it can't.

 

[caustichumor]

I see their being a great divide with reptile owners soon, There will be those who keep the locality pure animals (to the best of their knowledge) those that keep sub-specific pure animals (to the best of their knowledge) and those with the "You Have Sinned Against Nature" (but what a pretty snake group). I think there is no way to stop it from happening, However the keepers who have documented the bloodlines of their animals will be able to provide "papers" to go with their hatchlings...

 

[Simple]

Even with so called locality specific animals how is this proved. Unless you personally took it form the wild you are still putting alot trust in the person who sold it.

 

[Boney]

locality pure is for the sentimentals . colour and pattern will be the way of the future if you want a purebreed all you got to do is standardise mongrels making them a breed which will make them pure again!

 

[Sdaji]

caustic: yes yes, of course, we've all known that for years now, I'm just trying to find a reason for it to matter. We won't be keeping pure lines genetically similar to their wild relatives even if we try (unless we establish massive populations and breed extremely carefully, being careful to maintain 'bad' traits such as preference for skinks as food, etc).

Simple: You're quite right, and a great deal of the 'pure' animals are not actually pure at all. Overseas it is even worse, and in all cases the dishonesty is increasing, as is the number of people who genuinely believe their animals are pure, when in fact they're not. My very first snake was purchased as pure from one of the country's most well respected breeders. I can see now that that snake is certainly not pure! If it had looked pure (as many hybrids do) I might still assume it was. I now know far more than I did then and have tracked down animals I know for sure are locality pure, that's lovely, I adore them, but it's a different topic.

I'm after an answer to why (other than novelty) purity matters. I don't think anyone will be able to provide one.

 

[zobo]

Even with so called locality specific animals how is this proved. Unless you personally took it form the wild you are still putting alot trust in the person who sold it.

I agree to a degree.
How on earth do you know what locale animals are? unless they are heavily linebred (inbred) over many decades from original wild stock back when it was the done thing (1960-1970's??) OR they have been illegally caught?
As someone else stated, even if you buy locale animals, after generations of outcrossing it is going to be very very hard to get locale animals in captivity that are not in-bred.
I think 'pure' animals are the go and don't like hybrids, but I can never understand this locale obsession, as long as you breed the same species together I am happy!
jas