Are we creating weaker animals through the hobby?

[Jeffa]

Just wondering peoples thoughts on as the title suggests?

If we have a stubborn problem feeder that would not last long in the wild, eventually get it going (remains smaller compared to other sibs), breed it even with another past problem feeder, would this make more weaker snakes down the track in captivity? Basically is this a hereditary thing?
Also noticed the thread Piping eggs by waterrat. (good thread by the way) If we are giving these snakes a helping hand especially the weaker ones, then breeding them down the track are we not creating weaker bloodlines?
I know that in captivity vs the wild is a different kettle of fish, and that heredicts come to play, just interested in peoples thoughts. No right or wrong answers just hopfully a civilised thread.
If anyone has any info please post away.

cheers

 

[JungleManSam]

I have thought this a few times also, I would have thought if we just grabbed a bag of substrate out of the wild too they would be ok living with it? They would have to in the wild so I dont see the difference?

 

[longqi]

I think we most definitely do encourage weaker lines as hobbyists
As a simple example look at the feeding threads
Although there has probably never been a real study done far too many of the problem feeder threads are about albino Darwins for it to be coincidence
After all there are only a thousand, if that, in existence; so the number of problem feeders is disproportionally large for such a numerically rare snake

When you add the number of threads about problem feeders, of any species, that required assist or force feeding for very extended periods and knowing full well that if they reach breeding age many of those will be bred, there is a distinct possibility that those lines may be genetically weaker

This is only my opinion and I have zero scientific data to back it up, but it seems as though very poor feeders often tend to die younger for no apparent reason

 

[Trench]

I have thought this a few times also, I would have thought if we just grabbed a bag of substrate out of the wild too they would be ok living with it? They would have to in the wild so I dont see the difference?

the reason that it is not advisable to take substrate from the wild is because there could be ticks, mites or some other parisite in it and unless you treat it for these they will still be there when the substrate goes into your snake enclosure and will then go onto your snake. in the wild snakes get ticks and mites because of this.

and yes we are creating weaker animals because of this which is way I am not going to pip my eggs when I breed snakes or any reptile for that matter.

 

[Matt74]

I'd have to agree with your assumptions Jeffa. But hey, what are you going to do, these are captive breed animals more often than not kept indoors in sterile, controlled environments. They are fed regularly, handled by humans, have their heat and light controlled so there's really nothing 'wild' about them. So I guess if the controlled environments of their enclosures are the homes they and their offspring are going to inhabit then there really shouldn't be to many issues.

I guess what im trying to say is that 'Weaknesses in the bloodlines' could possibly occur but, unless of course it ends in severe deformity, because these animals don't have to fend for themselves in the wild it doesn't matter.

Its the same with domesticated dogs, some breeds have hip problems etc. but these animals don't have to hunt and chase down their food in order to survive so it doesn't have a massive impact on their life expectancy. Whereas the same dog in the wild wouldn't last long at all.

The biggest problem I could see occurring due to this is if a species of reptile commonly kept by the punters here became extinct in the wild, and it was up to our captive breed populations to reproduce for a release program, then weaknesses in the bloodlines might jeopardize such a program.

Anyways, just my thoughts....

 

[junglepython2]

Of course we are creating weaker animals. In the wild only a very select few out of any given clutch will ever reach maturity and breed ensuring the weak are weeded out and don't contribute to future generations. In captivity many keepers bend over backwards to ensure every poor feeder, deformed animal, runt, and otherwise less robust animal survives, many then go on to breed.

 

[Red-Ink]

Are we creating weaker animals?

compared to wild comterparts.... yeah probably

in captivity... does it really matter when everything is provided for them in a box, they will never be back in the wild so in reality what difference would it make.

 

[Reptilefreak95]

I believe yes. we are creating weaker animals, however it is in a completely different situation compared tp the wild, in the wild, mutations that are anything but better are phased out (example being albino) and "better" mutations survive, but in captivity we have a bunch of these otherwise "weaker" mutations in out bloodlines, so i believe yes, we are creating weaker animals, but that doesnt have any effect on the wild though. and i think this is why wild bloodlines are so highly sought after.

 

[Waterrat]

I wonder if a lack of appetite or non-feeding as we call it is a heritable trait. I think not, it's like temperament; individuals differ one from another. Or doesn't it really matter because we are talking about non-feeders being generally week individuals that wouldn't survive in the wild? What makes me think that way is - there is a strong possibility that many of those captive bred non-feeders would have start feeding had they been released to the wild straight after birth.

 

[Reptilefreak95]

that is what makes the wild so great

 

[Ramsayi]

On the subject of non or finicky feeders don't forget that we are getting them to feed on prey items that would be unnatural to them in the first place.

 

[girdheinz]

It's a moot point really, we are talking about captive pets with no conservation value at all. These animals are for the humans enjoyment for the duration of their life in captivity and that's it.

 

[Waterrat]

It's a moot point really, we are talking about captive pets with no conservation value at all. These animals are for the humans enjoyment for the duration of their life in captivity and that's it.

That goes for the majority but some of us consider ourselves being conservation breeders. If the Oenpelli python comes onto the seen, it would have fall into that category, if not, it'll be very disappointing.

 

[girdheinz]

Wouldn't a conservation breeder be someone who is breeding animals for the specific purpose of re-release? I'm not sure i know anybody on a private licence who is allowed to do that. If your talking about breeding so future generations can see these animals in captivity in case they one day go extinct, then i still believe they are just captive pets.

The risk of potential diseases in captivity would make it a very risky proposition to allow any captive population from private collections to be re-released into the wild (threats to other species). Unless of course that breeder is closely monitored and that is the only species they breed and keep or come into contact with.

Can anyone point to a case where a private keeper is allowed to do this currently? I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers Gird

 

[zulu]

I believe yes. we are creating weaker animals, however it is in a completely different situation compared tp the wild, in the wild, mutations that are anything but better are phased out (example being albino) and "better" mutations survive, but in captivity we have a bunch of these otherwise "weaker" mutations in out bloodlines, so i believe yes, we are creating weaker animals, but that doesnt have any effect on the wild though. and i think this is why wild bloodlines are so highly sought after.

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.

 

[Waterrat]

Wouldn't a conservation breeder be someone who is breeding animals for the specific purpose of re-release? I'm not sure i know anybody on a private licence who is allowed to do that. If your talking about breeding so future generations can see these animals in captivity in case they one day go extinct, then i still believe they are just captive pets.

The risk of potential diseases in captivity would make it a very risky proposition to allow any captive population from private collections to be re-released into the wild (threats to other species). Unless of course that breeder is closely monitored and that is the only species they breed and keep or come into contact with.

Can anyone point to a case where a private keeper is allowed to do this currently? I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers Gird

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. As for my own situation, I won't be commenting on a forum.
Sorry for getting way off the subject.

I would really appreciate your views and comments on post #9.

 

[Fuscus]

We are breeding animals suited for captivity. They will be (are) better adapted to the conditions, for example more likely to feed on mammals early (most Morelia start feeding in skinks first). As for weaker, well I don't think so, a captive python who has had a good balanced and regular diet is more likely to be able to bench-press 20 kilos than a wild one that goes though a boom and bust cycle.

Can anyone point to a case where a private keeper is allowed to do this currently? I'm genuinely interested.

I knew one breeder who breed and released Murray-Darlings in an area where they were considered locally extinct. She had the blessing of the local EPA ( or whatever they were called that week ) and her animals were selected to originate from close to the area. It was weird to go through the old farm houses on her property, each one had six or seven visible MDs in it ( and lots of nervous bats )

 

[Jeffa]

Great points.
If we look outside pythons except ooenpelliensis and maybe Roughies, If you were to say breed broad headed snakes or other species be that snake, gecko, monitor etc that is only endemic and rare to small areas where possible re introduction due to the unthinkable of species decline, would we maybe consider diferent strategies?
At the end of the day we are breeding and caring the majority of fairly and common species and for our own needs and of course the wellbeing of the animal, what about the species as a whole in rare, threatened etc?

Scenario: Michael Cermack gets a phonecall from DERM ? in relation to an outbreak of a disease that has decimated wild populations of GTPs at Iron range and the outlook seems bleak, He is requested with his expertise and other Native gtps holders to organise a breeding and Dna programn in the hope to reintroducing captive poulations eventually in the wild after the threat has been explored and corrected.
Should only the largest healthiest and advance neos be given the oppurtunity? Problem feeders? Slow starters?

I have heard that not long ago owners of broad headed snakes were requested to give blood samples of their stock, roughies too.

A bit heavy and I apologise but it is good to look outside the box especially when conservation could be concerned.

 

[girdheinz]

I wonder if a lack of appetite or non-feeding as we call it is a heritable trait. I think not, it's like temperament; individuals differ one from another. Or doesn't it really matter because we are talking about non-feeders being generally week individuals that wouldn't survive in the wild? What makes me think that way is - there is a strong possibility that many of those captive bred non-feeders would have start feeding had they been released to the wild straight after birth.

I'd agree with that statement, it would be highly unlikely that appetite or reluctance to feed would be heritable in any way. Who can possibly say with any authority that the animals we perceive to be weak in captivity would be in the wild? For many species we couldn't even say with any certainty what they even start or feed on in the wild. This may be the sole reason we perceive animals to be weak because we haven't identified their preferred trigger or conditions.

Whilst in captivity some animals may start feeding on mice on their own, and others may take more effort and are reluctant to feed at all, we couldn't possibly know whether they would all start on their own on their preferred wild starter diet. So is that actually a sign of weakness at all?

Gird

 

[Waterrat]

It's very pleasing to hear that. I agree 100% and I have a project or two in mind for 2012 that related to this issue. Ethics Committee approval and permit may be a stumbling block though.