healthy breeding.

[Battery]

leatherbacks and silkbacks are pretty cool looking, i don't know anything about them though, other than the ruff scales and spikes not being there on the silkbacks and the leatherbacks having some ruff scales.

 

[Rosebud]

I really do think kirby has a point Rosebud *ducks* We don't KNOW that they're not being produced in the wilds, they just might be smarter then the scaled ones and know to stay out of sight.

Show me proof, and I will grant him a point, but I highly doubt there will ever be proof because it defies common sense. It is unlikely that a mutation like that would occur in the wild for all of the reasons i have already stated, but I promise to eat crow if it does. :wink:

Yeah, the point is mute except that Kirby asked for this debate because he seems to want to justify his own change of heart. So I will ask again, why do you, Paul, and why do others want to mutate any critter? What is the point? You asked if breeding mutations like leathers and silks is ethical, and you clearly want it to be, so why do you HONESTLY want this to be ethical?

 

[Lizardrc]

Hi Paul, rosebud, others.

Wow, so this will be my first post on this board. and with all these fireworks going off!
I picture each of you with a roman candle in your hands..
Here is my opinion.
I bred bearded dragons way back in the 90s stopping near 2000. My first female was from germany, a big round girl I raised from a baby. My other adults I purchased from the most unrelated dragons I could find in several different States. For me, in breeding was to be avoided. The colors and patterns that came out of the pairings were striking, reds, oranges, yellows, different hues and patterns. I let the male choose the female in a huge enclosure, I never put two, "I thought" would make a nice baby, together in a small cage. I let the dragon choose it's will and whatever happened, happened. This was the least invasive breeding I thought. This was before the internet so I couldn't name the colors/patterns after myself but I was not concerned with that. I bred these dragons and sold them as I found they were a remarkable lizard very suitable for a captive pet. The most attractive part about these lizards to me is their skin and associated natural scale formations.

Obviously, times have changed since I and other old school breeders were doing this. Today, the "hot" thing to do is to "create" designer morphs.
Just yesterday, I got a PM from a breeder who told me they wanted one of their morphs to become a household name. What is that movie with Al Pacino and Kianu Reeves?....
Well that is what sells and commands a higher price, a pretty uniquely colored dragon cooked up by crossing inbred dragons.
Well I suppose it is no different than what humans did and do with (wolves) dogs and cats. Who likes pushed in dog faces? ugghhhh! Well some people do...
So we humans cater to what other humans like and produce more of them as "mad scientists" manipulating genes to our liking.
As soon as the animal leaves the Wild, it's life is forever changed, you cannot argue against that so any breeding that occurs is human manipulated, hence the term, captive born.

The question is how we conduct ourselves with our breeding projects. If you are seriously ok with mating with your sister or brother or Aunt or Uncle then knock yourself out and inbreed your dragons, just be up front with it and inform people that, that is what you did to create your "special" morph. I understand when there are only a few of a species left in the Wild, we have no choice there but since we caused the destruction, somehow, we must fix it.
The reality of all this is really a moot point. We shouldn't be focusing on this stuff. We have a greater problem with natural occuring species perishing in their native habitats due to human impact on the native environments. Some species, we have lost forever. If you want to breed something, breed something to reduce the strain on wild popluations and to create a better captive adapted animal for others to enjoy, Research husbandry to inform others so they can prolong and better their animals life and help out with conservation as much as possible.
Lastly, I'd recommend reading some books on lizard ecology. You would remarkedly improve your understanding of your pet lizards and associated the traits it has....
~Cheers

 

[Rosebud]

Great post, Tim! and welcome!

 

[kirby]

again im late for work, so ill be quick and come back later and post deeper.

Rosebud, one point i want to emphasize. is it is ludicrous to assume there isn't any leathers in the wild. with over six examples of leathers produced in captive environment. two of which i know are totally unrelated. the other would have originally been line bred for colour. this trait seems random. if you honestly believe in this case 15 years of captivity (knowing at least 6 of which weren't inbred) that this trait is unlike anything possible in the wild. i think thats just silly.

if you expect me, or any other person in australia to know the genetics and scale formation of every single dragon in the wild, this too is ludicrous. do you think that we know of every single species of fish in the ocean? no. we don't. there are possibly billions of species we haven't even seen yet. thousands upon thousands of wild dragons who haven't had a chance to stop by a knowledgeable person on a herping trip. and thousands upon thousands more who haven't lived to adult hood due to predators, who 'could' have had this freak genetic trait.

anyway gotta run. :S lol.

 

[vickson420]

Here is what I want to know.Is there any positive to the mutations for the animal?I am being serious here.When a genetic anomoly happens the best way to consider if its a random event or an evolutionary advance is to ask yourself could it lead to something that would aid that specific species in the future?

I think the truth to if it should be done rests completely on the answer to the question above.

 

[kirby]

i stand by my personal veiws. as above on evoltution.

would a hole in the whales head have been an initial positive or negetive?

i dont beleive having no tubercles is a positive for the animal. but i dont think it has a high negetivity in a captive environment. same as curly hair on a dog.

 

[Rosebud]

Vickie, that is a very good point. Also, a leather back could occur as an anomaly in the wild, but scientists aren't looking for needles in hay stacks. They look for trends when trying to determine if a true evolutionary mutation is occurring. Paul, yes, the blowhole was a positive from the beginning as it corrected a problem for whales, and it was a trend and not a freak occurrence.

I agree that reduced scales might not be a problem for beardies in captivity if the scale reduction doesn't come with other hidden weaknesses that will cause the animal suffering, but I will not agree that producing silk backs is okay. I still do not understand why anyone would want to produce freakish beardies, whether that freakishness be reduced or absent scales, and you still haven't suggested or explained a reason. Is Tim on to the truth of it with his contact that wants his name on a morph, that it comes down to ego, putting your name on a morph? or is it something else. I agree with Tim that this pursuit seems like a waste of time when there are so many breeding projects that could be pursued that might actually help preserve a dieing or threatened species, or be pursued to alleviate suffering like providing cb alternatives to wc, but if you aren't making animals suffer to get that trait, then do what you will.

I'm afraid that you and I have found a subject on which we disagree, my friend. :lol: But I still love you. :wink:

 

[kirby]

Tim, as ive told you and im sure you know. in our country there is very little to nothing i can do to preserve native fauna, except donate money to those in the rare opportunity to do it legally.

in your country, its perfectly legal for you to pilage fauna from the bush, and breed hybrids and 'save a species'. here it isnt. i would get a $200, 000 fine for 'presereving the species' of the thorny devil and such. the legalities here, i beleive are far better then your laws and veiws on preservation. simply plucking spiny igs from the jungle isnt doing ANYTHING to preserve the species. sanctuaries and poaching free areas do. your simply lowering an already dismal population to put your name on a preservation quest (which isnt really what it is IMO) how does this help the wild and natural population. its ludicris to think that your going to breed and release these animals to a natural environment.

as for your comments on reduced scales an act of evolution in process. this isnt what i mean. im not saying dragons are rapidly evolving to have no scales. its simply a freak reduction. one that doesnt have a positive, but is a passable and dominant trait.

if for say, a wild dragon laid a clutch with one leather, this leather (could) grow up, breed and have a clutch of half leathers. BUT, the chances of this leather surviving (as any other hatchling) is dismal.

 

[vickson420]

So lets say that we agree to some extent that it is ok for arguments sake then my next question would be where to draw the line in the sand?There comes a point where someone has to say this has gone too far dont you think?

There is currently a handful of people trying to breed a sustainable albino however the lack of pigment then inhibits the ability to be exposed to uvb which of course leads to animals inevitable demise.This is the problem I have it seems that if we say yes this is ok then who gets to say enough.

 

[kirby]

lack of pigment then inhibits the ability to be exposed to uvb which of course leads to animals inevitable demise.

not true.

the animals are perfectly capable and comfortable in natural sunlight. its the artificial globes that emit low amounts of visible light. the problem is poor eyesight, and catching prey. they are tweeser fed.

i didnt know there was anyone outside of Aus producing Albino beardies. but i wouldnt want to assume for them, that there situation is the same to here in Aus.

where to draw the line in the sand?

Personally, before the animals are inbred, sickly and unable to live a healthy happy life. previouse to this, its acceptable in the eyes of the beholder. the aim of this thread, was to see if they would be accpetable or favoured if they were not inbred. the answer seems to be Yes, although our fears and dislike toward silks is the same.

did i sum it up right, or have we got more to say? lets keep the discussion going, ill try string a few other people into the convo.

 

[Rosebud]

How exactly do you figure its yes, my friend? We have all expressed reservations and downright opposition to the idea. I suppose the general consensus is also in the eye of the beholder? :wink:

Paul, you have already made up your mind. Because of that, I am not going to continue with this argument. I have spoken my mind on the subject, and it now feels like the discussion is starting to go in circles. As your friend, I am disappointed that you seem to want to pursue this and I cannot support your change of heart, but I am still your friend. If you start producing silk backs, I might have to question that! :lol:

 

[vickson420]

I dont know that Kirby has necessarily changed his opinion althoug maybe I am reading it wrong.I think he is just trying to explore the varying opinions on this.I would be willing to bet your not going to see Kirby breeding silkbacks anytime soon.Am I wrong to assume this Kirby?

Kirby
Yes the "albino" project is currently being done here by a gentleman who I will not name as he isnt a member of this forum.I have spoken to him once or twice and have expressed my feelings on this matter to him.I do believe he is finally coming to the realization on his own that its not a viable project to follow.I can tell you his attempts have shown problems with uvb absorption and his closest attempt that survived was only under a reptisun 2.0 and even under that it failed to thrive.I was aware of the eye issues as well which is why I wish they would just let it go.Its just not meant to be.

 

[Lizardrc]

Tim, as ive told you and im sure you know. in our country there is very little to nothing i can do to preserve native fauna, except donate money to those in the rare opportunity to do it legally.

in your country, its perfectly legal for you to pilage fauna from the bush, and breed hybrids and 'save a species'. here it isnt. i would get a $200, 000 fine for 'presereving the species' of the thorny devil and such. the legalities here, i beleive are far better then your laws and veiws on preservation. simply plucking spiny igs from the jungle isnt doing ANYTHING to preserve the species. sanctuaries and poaching free areas do. your simply lowering an already dismal population to put your name on a preservation quest (which isnt really what it is IMO) how does this help the wild and natural population. its ludicris to think that your going to breed and release these animals to a natural environment.

Hey Paul, no offense but I invite you to research the preservation and re-population of Cyclura species as well as what happened to extinct species. There are some breeders in the States who were directly involved with the Cyclura re-population projects so what you say is incorrect. It is not the animals going extinct by themselves or by collecting for food, trade, etc., it is the humans killing off their habitat. Think about fishing, you can go and catch as much as you want of a species (up to the permit limit), kill them all and eat them. Hopefully with limits in check, there will be more for the next guy. But if you go and dump a barrel of toxic waste or oil in the lake destorying the natural balance of the water and kill all the fish off, you better hope there are some of that species in another lake.
Same thing happened on some Island in the Philipenes, I know there are some sub-species still alive in captivity and being progagated by private breeders but they are extinct on those Islands as they were developed which wiped them out. You may want to look at Tiger species as well, I've heard there are more species in captivity than in the Wild. It is all a sad state of affairs and will only get worse. Research deforestation as well.

I think the laws are ok, in Oz but if it is legal to kill and eat the species there, then it should be legal to captive breed them. And why is it legal to run them over with your car tires, smushing them into oblivion but it is illegal to breed them.

 

[kirby]

you will find i did mention conservation and protected areas.

and this very comment holds my opinion on conservation. we SHOULD leave these places alone, let the natural balance re-populate. it does happen by its self.