# Are we creating weaker animals through the hobby?



## Jeffa (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

JungleManSam said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

that is what makes the wild so great


----------



## Ramsayi (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

girdheinz said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

Reptilefreak95 said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

girdheinz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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. 



girdheinz said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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.


----------



## SouthSydney (Dec 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

Shambulah said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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. 



Shambulah said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

Dipcdame said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

Renenet said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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


----------



## Reptilefreak95 (Dec 18, 2011)

zulu said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

saximus said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2011)

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 (Dec 18, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> 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.



Herpaderpa said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2011)

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 (Dec 19, 2011)

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 (Dec 19, 2011)

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 (Dec 19, 2011)

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.


----------



## gillsy (Dec 19, 2011)

girdheinz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




Graig and Gab Latta, release Mary River turtles back into the wild... took alot of hoops to jump through.


----------



## Poggle (Dec 19, 2011)

I have a similar comparison... how many of the people on here could go back to living in the wild? we breed traits for looks, we ger morphs, snakes and reptiles evolve to blend in to attack to feed and to stay safe. We breed them as centrepieces. We have to be having some effect?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Dec 19, 2011)

The question was raised as to whether temperament and non-feeding are inherited characteristics. A couple of points worth thinking about... Snakes have both innate behaviour and learned behaviour. Innate must originate in their genetic makeup. Whether it is influenced during development in the egg is highly unlikely. However, once born, learned behaviours can take the place or at least modify certain innate behaviours. Where you have a clutch of snakes raised under identical conditions, it is reasonable to assume that any observable differences in their characteristics, including behaviour, are genetically based.

I think you really need to look at things on genetic level. We are selecting for particular genes when we choose a breeding pair. What we are hoping to get are animals that display the characteristic controlled by those genes. Where you are breeding individuals that are not related, you are making no difference to the phenotypes expressed for all the other characteristics. These are the same characteristics that have been selected over eons to suit an animal to its environment. It is only when we start altering the phenotypes of some of these other characteristics that we potentially affecting an organisms overall ability to survive in its environment. This occurs when you in-breed and get double recessives for otherwise extremely rare mutations. Responsible breeders will outcross their breeding lines in an attempt to get rid of these double recessives. The success of this is very much dependent on whether the gene is carried on the same chromosome as a desired characteristic and the distance between the gene loci if that is the case. If on separate chromes, then independent assortment of chromatids will see an approx. 50-50 split. If on the same chromosome, separation is dependent on crossing-over, which becomes increasingly less likely to occur, the closer the loci. So while responsible, knowledgeable breeders will do their best to maintain genetic vigour in a breeding line, they cannot always be guaranteed of success.

Blue 



JungleManSam said:


> 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?


 Concerned about using bush litter as substrate... why? Plenty of captive snakes get out and are recovered some length of time later in places far from sterile, including bush litter on occasions. I reckon the essential difference with captive snakes it they cannot move away from things they normally would in the wild. Ants are a classic. They can spell disaster in an enclosure. A snake that wanders through the middle of an ants nest in nature is going to step on the gas and get out of there in a hurry.

There also seems to be a misconception that we need to keep snakes in a sterile environment. This comes from being told you need to remove faeces ASAP. The reason for cleaning up ASAP is that there is a variety of pathogenic bacteria in low concentrations in the gut. Some of these are capable of reaching high concentrations when expelled in the faeces, due to the environmental conditions of an enclosure (warm and humid). Should the snakes protective layer of skin be broken anywhere, it could contract a serious infection. This is not an issue in the wild as it will simply poop and move on. It is interesting to note that given the occasions where snakes have been neglected and there were multiple defecations in cage, none of the captives had developed infections from gut bacteria.

With bush litter, you are not going to pick up mites parasitic to snakes. You might be extremely unlucky and pick up a tick. If left in the sun to get warm, the tick will soon vacate. Even if it did attach that is no big deal – it happens all the time in nature with zero consequences. There are no other parasites that can be transferred in this way – only the odd unwanted house guest with 6, 8 or more legs. A bit of raking and spreading out on a warm brick paved area will get rid of those.

Blue


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 19, 2011)

Poggle said:


> I have a similar comparison... how many of the people on here could go back to living in the wild? we breed traits for looks, we ger morphs, snakes and reptiles evolve to blend in to attack to feed and to stay safe. We breed them as centrepieces. We have to be having some effect?



That's a sweeping statement Pog, not all breeders do that. Ask Jack if he is trying to "improve" his Broad-headed snakes or myself with native GTPs.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Dec 19, 2011)

Sorry, 
Wrote this not knowing it had been answered...

Humans have around 10,000 genes that are present in every single cell. Together, they form the blueprint for our entire body. If you are a builder and you have various tradies working for you, you don’t start tearing up the blueprint and giving different people bits. You give each one whole copy. They then use only what they need of it. The cells of the body work the same way. Every cell gets a full copy of the blueprint. 

Now, if you have 10,000 pairs of genes floating around separately in a cell and you have to make a copy of each and make sure that one copy goes to each half when the cell divides... too hard. So the genes are organised into specific groups called *chromosomes*. The easiest way to visualise them is like beads on a necklace. Let’s say Chromosome 1 contain 485 genes. Gene No.1 will be first, attached to Gene No. 2, attached to Gene No.3... on so on, with Gene No.485 at the end of Chromosome 1. Chromosome 2 will start with Gene No. 486, attached to Gene No. 487 and so on. As was mentioned, there are 23 different chromosomes. It does not matter which cell you look at or from which human being, they will all have 23 chromosomes and Chromosome 2 for example, will always start with Gene No. 486.

Genes are made up of DNA. DNA is an interesting molecule because it shaped like a twisted ladder. Each rung on the ladder is made of a particular pair of chemicals that fit together. There are only two differ pairs, which means four different chemicals. The order in which these four chemical occur is the code for making proteins. Structural proteins are what build cells and enzyme proteins are what operate cells. The other import thing about the DNA ladder is that the rungs can split down the middle like a zipper and new bits of chemicals can be added to each half, to make two identical copies of the original DNA strand. Under normal circumstances, the DNA strands of chromosomes are really long and thin like an unwound reel of fishing line. Before the chromosomes divide in a dividing cell, the DNA strand winds up, Like line on a hand cork or a slinky spring when pushed together, so they can separate properly.

Because you have one copy of each parent’s chromosomes, you will have 2 of Chromosome1, 2 of Chromosome 2, 2 of Chromosome 3 etc. This means you will have two genes for every inherited characteristic.

The degree of blending apparent in a characteristic controlled by two co-dominant genes can vary. In cases where the effects of each gene cannot be seen separately, they are sometimes referred to as incompletely dominant. For example, if you crossed a red lower and a white flower and got pink flowers.

EDIT (Additional info):

The above provides a basic overview and the examples given are made up and not from nature. In reality, most inherited characteristics we see, such as length, are controlled by more than just one gene (i.e. by more than one matching pair). Several genes (several matching pairs) are involved. This is referred to as being *polygenic*.

*Proteins* can be thought of as the basic chemicals of life. They form the basic structural components of cells – walls and membranes etc. They also control all the chemical activities of cells in the form of *enzymes*. And they act as messengers that can control activities of body parts, called *hormones*. DNA contains a chemical code for the formulae of proteins. So when a gene is active in a cell, it will make that particular protein. In this way, DNA determiness the structure and function of a living thing.

Blue


----------



## junglepython2 (Dec 19, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> 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*.
> Blue



Just for the record a single gene can control numerous characteristics and length like most traits is polygenetic.


----------



## benjamind2010 (Dec 19, 2011)

Simple way to reduce these problems - weeding out non-feeders is a good place to start - selecting breeding will get you 90% of the way there. Breeding only the best feeders, the healthiest animals, will ensure that future generations will be healthier. Genetics plays a big role in this, and there is plenty of proof in other classes of animals, and reptiles are no exception.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 19, 2011)

benjamind2010 said:


> Simple way to reduce these problems - weeding out non-feeders is a good place to start - selecting breeding will get you 90% of the way there. Breeding only the best feeders, the healthiest animals, will ensure that future generations will be healthier. Genetics plays a big role in this, and there is plenty of proof in other classes of animals, and reptiles are no exception.




I see the opposite. Selective breeding will eventually lead to demise, particularly if inbreeding is involved or the genetic pool is small. To add vigor and fitness to captive populations will requite out-breeding with wild individuals. That's my opinion.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Dec 19, 2011)

junglepython2 said:


> Just for the record a single gene can control numerous characteristics and length like most traits is polygenetic.



Genes are also interactive in different ways to those mentioned dependening upon the what part of any given biochemical pathway they code for and whether these are funtional or strutural. Sex-linked genes are not paired, therefore not donated one from each parent etc There are many technical shortcomings in the information provided but it was only ever meant to be a simplistic introduction to assist the discussion. One has to learn to walk before one can run.

Nonetheless I will add a bit. Thanks,

Blue


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

imo yes we are. for starters we have done a fair bit to eliminate natural selection with piping eggs, assist feeding etc etc. also look at morphs being created/bred, there is a very good reason why there are not alot of albinos (for example) in the wild. when we breed something for colour or pattern we are changing the animals ability to blend into their environment. does anyone really believe a jag would survive long in the wild? albinos? oh sure maybe 1 or 2 would survive but the majority wouldn't. do you think a bumblebeepoosoulsuckerkuflumina ball python would survive for long in the wild?


----------



## D3pro (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> do you think a bumblebeepoosoulsuckerkuflumina ball python would survive for long in the wild?



Not with reptile people walking around LOL


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

Hrafna, i really don't think that jags and most other colour variants of carpets would do that badly in most of the carpet range. I have seen some huuuuuuge variation in colour and pattern in darwin carpets along with escapee exotic carpets that were living quite happily in the bush.


----------



## matt74 (Dec 19, 2011)

gillsy said:


> Graig and Gab Latta, release Mary River turtles back into the wild... took alot of hoops to jump through.




Ive never thought to ask Craig anything about the Mary river turtle release program on the turtle forum but there's some interesting questions that need answering. Do Craig and gab choose certain turtles for release? Or are all the offspring released regardless of feeding habits, survival potential etc etc. in the off chance that predators will feed on the weakest giving the strongest better odds at survival. 

Bit like when I went surfing and I'd look around at the pack of surfers out in the water and think that if a shark surfaced who would be the last person to make it to shore in the mad dash to get out of the water. Beleive me, surfing on the west coast of South Australia, these thoughts enter your mind!

Back to the subject though, it would be interesting if one of the herps that is commonly kept by people in Australia was to become extinct in the wild, what would the government and authorities do?. If breed and release programs occurred could the state authority demand that hobbyists hand over their animals for breeding?. How would they judge which were the most suitable specimens?. 
Would they even bother if the situation that caused the extinction, ie habitat loss, still posted a problem?

So many questions, and I'm certainly no expert, and this is straying along way from the original question posed at the start of the thread


----------



## junglepython2 (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Hrafna, i really don't think that jags and most other colour variants of carpets would do that badly in most of the carpet range. I have seen some huuuuuuge variation in colour and pattern in darwin carpets along with escapee exotic carpets that were living quite happily in the bush.



Having a neuro attack while under stress from a predator wouldn't go down too well, unless it freaked the predator out and it buggered off


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Hrafna, i really don't think that jags and most other colour variants of carpets would do that badly in most of the carpet range. I have seen some huuuuuuge variation in colour and pattern in darwin carpets along with escapee exotic carpets that were living quite happily in the bush.


 so a jungle that has been line bred for high bright yellows could just as easily fit into a habitat like it duller wild counterpart? can i have some of what you are drinking? as stated a jag having a neuro attack would easily outlive any other carpet out there. come on!


----------



## junglepython2 (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> so a jungle that has been line bred for high bright yellows could just as easily fit into a habitat like it duller wild counterpart? can i have some of what you are drinking? as stated a jag having a neuro attack would easily outlive any other carpet out there. come on!



To be fair, some of the best and brightest jungles and I imagine other forms are wild and would leave a lot of the better captives for dead in terms of appearance.


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

Ok ok ok a jag with neuro issues would have a rougher time of it but i really doubt that the colour would be that big of an issue. But yes Hrfana i have no doubt that a bright yellow and black jungle would go just as well in dull grey coastal territory. Infact i'm pretty sure i have a paper somewhere that shows cheynei and mcdowelli being found in the same locations.


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Ok ok ok a jag with neuro issues would have a rougher time of it but i really doubt that the colour would be that big of an issue. But yes Hrfana i have no doubt that a bright yellow and black jungle would go just as well in dull grey coastal territory. Infact i'm pretty sure i have a paper somewhere that shows cheynei and mcdowelli being found in the same locations.


 no, i am meaning a jungle that has been line bred for a high yellow, a brighter yellow compared to a natural occuring dull jungle. or do you believe that some of the almost fluro jungles in collections today that some breeders who have spent years and years putting in hard work to breed generation after generation of jungles, to get that high yellow have been doing it for nothing because they are already naturally occuring? man whoever took the first jungles from the wild sure did pick the butt ugly ones for breeders to start working with!


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

Then you need to talk to some of the long time jungle breeders. The best you have seen in captivity has its wild counterpart. 

I had this conversation years ago with one fella and he produced pictures of wild jungles that would slam your jaw to hard on the ground. Striped, 50/50, high yellows they all exist in the wild. 



hrafna said:


> no, i am meaning a jungle that has been line bred for a high yellow, a brighter yellow compared to a natural occuring dull jungle. or do you believe that some of the almost fluro jungles in collections today that some breeders who have spent years and years putting in hard work to breed generation after generation of jungles, to get that high yellow have been doing it for nothing because they are already naturally occuring? man whoever took the first jungles from the wild sure did pick the butt ugly ones for breeders to start working with!


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

junglepython2 said:


> To be fair, some of the best and brightest jungles and I imagine other forms are wild and would leave a lot of the better captives for dead in terms of appearance.


 what about (leaving jungles as the basis for my example) black and white jungles that have been bred for a reduction in pattern? (let's leave rpm out of the discussion) just a genuine non-jag animal that has been bred for the pattern loss, thus leaving the animal with more white in it than what is typically found in the wild? i am not trying to say that every animal would die in the wild, but i believe that more of the "designer" animals would have a harder time in the wild than their more "normal" counterparts. hell i could be wrong but i guess the only way to find out for sure would be with radio tracking released animals.


----------



## junglepython2 (Dec 19, 2011)

Don't forget most predators probably with the exception of birds don't have colour vision or if they do it is limited, so bright colours wouldn't necessarily make them stand out all that much more then drab colours.


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Then you need to talk to some of the long time jungle breeders. The best you have seen in captivity has its wild counterpart.
> 
> I had this conversation years ago with one fella and he produced pictures of wild jungles that would slam your jaw to hard on the ground. Striped, 50/50, high yellows they all exist in the wild.


 well send me the evidence and i will take more note of your way of thinking, i am not going to listen to some "i spoke with a man who has no name who knew a guy who had a dog, who bought said dog off of a guy who knew some pretty snakes in the wild" and take that as gospel. i know you like the last laugh so say what you want after this, at the end of the day it is all rather moot as there is no way anyone is going to spend the money and time to scientifically prove this out one way or another.



junglepython2 said:


> Don't forget most predators probably with the exception of birds don't have colour vision or if they do it is limited, so bright colours wouldn't necessarily make them stand out all that much more then drab colours.


 this is the type of info that is great for this type of conversation. 
what then would be the basis for animals to adapt camoflage to suit their environment? from predators or prey?


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> what about (leaving jungles as the basis for my example) black and white jungles that have been bred for a reduction in pattern? (let's leave rpm out of the discussion) just a genuine non-jag animal that has been bred for the pattern loss, thus leaving the animal with more white in it than what is typically found in the wild? i am not trying to say that every animal would die in the wild, but i believe that more of the "designer" animals would have a harder time in the wild than their more "normal" counterparts. hell i could be wrong but i guess the only way to find out for sure would be with radio tracking released animals.



I can only speculate because i have only been to qld once which was 16years ago but i have no doubt that an otherwise healthy snake with more or less pattern as you described would have just as high of a chance at surviving as any other. It is essentially still the same pattern and it is still the same colour. 

But try this on for size. This was a wild snake.


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

yeah a wild snake that has obviously been attacked! not exactly great evidence to prove your point! like i said, i am not denying that there are some amazing animals out there, but i bet those ones have more odds against them and from a population of say 1000 how many are your bright wonderful critters?


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> well send me the evidence and i will take more note of your way of thinking, i am not going to listen to some "i spoke with a man who has no name who knew a guy who had a dog, who bought said dog off of a guy who knew some pretty snakes in the wild" and take that as gospel. i know you like the last laugh so say what you want after this, at the end of the day it is all rather moot as there is no way anyone is going to spend the money and time to scientifically prove this out one way or another.
> 
> 
> this is the type of info that is great for this type of conversation.
> what then would be the basis for animals to adapt camoflage to suit their environment? from predators or prey?



I just looked over the paper and it doesn't show the pictures that i recalled it having. But it did show jungles and coastals living in the same habitat... so i think that says something. I think one of the pictures is published in Richard Shine's book 'AUstralian Snakes, a Natural History' it is s fully striped black and yellow jungle. So go figure.

I think one of the reasons we see people working so hard and long on their projects is because they are trying to refine their lines so they a) hold their colour longer and b) make the occurences of these patterns and colours more predictable.



hrafna said:


> yeah a wild snake that has obviously been attacked! not exactly great evidence to prove your point! like i said, i am not denying that there are some amazing animals out there, but i bet those ones have more odds against them and from a population of say 1000 how many are your bright wonderful critters?



How much time have you spent in the feild? Serious question... Are you arguing that that snakes is not alive and wild (it isn't anymore but that is another story)? That injury was from me pulling it out of a door frame. 

So you are not denying that i am right? I'm getting a little lost here in your argument. It doesn't matter out of how many there are xxx amount that we think are brighter than others, the fact is that there are some and they do just fine in the wild. The fact that i have pictures like the one i just posted and the fact that we find living exotic carpets that are obvious escapees makes that point.


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> I just looked over the paper and it doesn't show the pictures that i recalled it having. But it did show jungles and coastals living in the same habitat... so i think that says something. I think one of the pictures is published in Richard Shine's book 'AUstralian Snakes, a Natural History' it is s fully striped black and yellow jungle. So go figure.
> 
> I think one of the reasons we see people working so hard and long on their projects is because they are trying to refine their lines so they a) hold their colour longer and b) make the occurences of these patterns and colours more predictable.


 so really no solid evidence to prove your claim. i can just as easily take a pic of a captive animal, put it in natural settings and sell said photo to someone for their book.


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> so really no solid evidence to prove your claim. i can just as easily take a pic of a captive animal, put it in natural settings and sell said photo to someone for their book.



Are you serious? Where is the evidence for your claims that they don't survive in the wild? All you can point to is people line breeding for certain traits. And you are accusing me of making up evidence.


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

and i am sure that is exactly why people line breed their animals.


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

Here's some more evidence for you! Wild adult albino olive! Albino Olive Pythons and those carrying the gene


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

no as i stated, it is my opinion. i am in no way stating this as fact like you are. as i also stated the only way we can prove any of this is by doing an actual scientific study. i am stating opinion and pointing out your flaws, you are trying to pass of heresay as fact!


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

Here you go more evidence of wild types with brighter colours! Is white bright enough?!?!?! http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-snakes-37/albino-spotted-python-46498/page/6 last picture on that page!


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Here's some more evidence for you! Wild adult albino olive! Albino Olive Pythons and those carrying the gene



yep and did you not see my post about albinos in the wild? or do you have to google that too?


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

FACT IS SUNSHINE that these snakes exist in the wild. Just because we see them as being something different doesn't mean the wild does!



hrafna said:


> no as i stated, it is my opinion. i am in no way stating this as fact like you are. as i also stated the only way we can prove any of this is by doing an actual scientific study. i am stating opinion and pointing out your flaws, you are trying to pass of heresay as fact!


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Here you go more evidence of wild types with brighter colours! Is white bright enough?!?!?! http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-snakes-37/albino-spotted-python-46498/page/6 last picture on that page!


 did your mother drop you on your head as a baby? or does your overwelming need to be right on everything make you so blind with rage that you are unable to read?


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> yep and did you not see my post about albinos in the wild? or do you have to google that too?



Did i not just post one of my own pictures? Of a snake that i found? If i bothered to take more photos i could show you more. 

I'll ask you again, how much feild experience do you have?



hrafna said:


> did your mother drop you on your head as a baby? or does your overwelming need to be right on everything make you so blind with rage that you are unable to read?



Well i'm stating FACTS and the flaws in your opinion! And i'm getting wild cause you are accusing me of making this up!


----------



## hrafna (Dec 19, 2011)

when did you ask me in the first place? did you not see my reply to your photo? let me restate everything i have said so that even you can clearly understand it. 
a. yes these animals do occur in the wild, but they are incredibly rare.
b. out of a certain number of animals found, just how many are really spectacular in colour or pattern? not just snakes.
c. how many albinos are spotted in the wild? the fact that seeing albinos in the wild is such a rare occurance just goes to prove my point.

at the end of the day it doesn't matter about field experience, master google skills, who is the better debater, you still can't provide any solid evidence other than a pic of 1 animal, a few articles on albinos that provided more evidence for me than you and the words of some nameless guy who spoke to you several years ago about (surprisingly) this very topic!

none of this can be backed up with any real SCIENTIFIC evidence. so my OPINION stands until you get a thousand jags or albinos and release them into the wild with radio tracking and then do the exact same with "normal" looking animals.


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 19, 2011)

hrafna said:


> when did you ask me in the first place? Post number 65! did you not see my reply to your photo? Yes i did, you made the assumption that it had been attacked, aaccused me of staging the shot and discounted it as no evidence at all! let me restate everything i have said so that even you can clearly understand it.
> a. yes these animals do occur in the wild, but they are incredibly rare.
> b. out of a certain number of animals found, just how many are really spectacular in colour or pattern? That is a question not a statement genius! not just snakes.
> c. how many albinos are spotted in the wild? Another question! the fact that seeing albinos in the wild is such a rare occurance just goes to prove my point. No it doesn't!
> ...



Seriously, where do you think the gentics for all the things you croon over come from?


----------



## Hoyle00cdn (Dec 20, 2011)

Too much arguing going on in here.

For starters recessive doesn't necessarily mean the gene is weaker. It just means you need two of them to be visible in the animal.

Aesthetics doesn't play THAT much of a role in the survival chances of a reptile (or any animal). It might however play a heavier role in social hierarchy and breeding in the wild. In some species, females judge their mates based on various characteristics, and males fight each other over characteristics they perceive to be dominant or inferior. It doesn't mean that those traits are weaker, but if that animal gets into more fights because of it, the abuse will wear on it. If the albino trait is considered undesirable in the group, females will reject it, and other males will stand off more aggressively. As a result, the recessive genes rarely get passed on.

In captivity the breeding selection is more controlled, that same morph that would have gotten into dozens of fights in the wild is kept in isolation with a female who makes due with what she has available.


----------



## longqi (Dec 30, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> I see the opposite. Selective breeding will eventually lead to demise, particularly if inbreeding is involved or the genetic pool is small. To add vigor and fitness to captive populations will requite out-breeding with wild individuals. That's my opinion.



With the thousands of bloodlines for carpets out there I would think we need no more wild genes for those
Probably the same could be said for most species
I completely agree that a limited number of species have come from a very few wild captures but surely these would be in a minority
Breeding for colour will definitely use a much smaller genetic group and eventually this may cause problems


----------



## aussie-albino (Dec 30, 2011)

Sorry I'm a bit late with this but the brightest and best jungles are still in the bush thats just a fact, and coastals and jungles are found in the same areas in I have found coastals here in the heart of jungle territory. If there are brighter coloured jungles in captivity to those in the wild I am yet to see one.Wild Jungles have a wide variation in colour and patterning in small areas as do coastal carpets. The brightest yellow jungle and the brightest white jungles I have seen have been wild ones. 

cheers
Scott





waruikazi said:


> I can only speculate because i have only been to qld once which was 16years ago but i have no doubt that an otherwise healthy snake with more or less pattern as you described would have just as high of a chance at surviving as any other. It is essentially still the same pattern and it is still the same colour.
> 
> But try this on for size. This was a wild snake.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2011)

longqi said:


> With the thousands of bloodlines for carpets out there I would think we need no more wild genes for those
> Probably the same could be said for most species
> I completely agree that a limited number of species have come from a very few wild captures but surely these would be in a minority



I would think RSPs and native GTPs could be at risk of inbreeding over period of time. They may be in a minority but they are very popular species.


----------



## Jeffa (Dec 30, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> I would think RSPs and native GTPs could be at risk of inbreeding over period of time. They may be in a minority but they are very popular species.


And of course the ooenpeli when it kicks off.
Any Idea Michael of how many Natives were brought into captivity from Hemmens and others? And how many would be a good/safe control stock to keep these guys pure and strong in for the long term forseable future?
With RSPs, were there like a dozen original animals from John Weigel?

Thanks mate.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2011)

Jeffa said:


> And of course the ooenpeli when it kicks off.
> Any Idea Michael of how many Natives were brought into captivity from Hemmens and others? And how many would be a good/safe control stock to keep these guys pure and strong in for the long term forseable future?
> With RSPs, were there like a dozen original animals from John Weigel?
> 
> Thanks mate.



I don't think John collected that many but I am not sure. 
I don't want to comment on greens, it's a Pandora's box. One thing I know for sure, there were more wild ones brought onto collections after the amnesty than before. The gene pool is probably OK, what isn't OK; (some) people are out-breeding them with non-natives, some even passing the progeny on as pure natives. It's an ocean of murky water and we are swimming in it.


----------



## longqi (Dec 30, 2011)

Can agree with the Oenpellis and RSPs and possibly with the chondros
But thats only a few species out of many that are kept

International sellers always use genetic diversity as an excuse to pillage areas
Would hate to even think of that happening in Aus
So if collection was permitted it would have to be under the tightest reins imaginable

Nicest jungle I have ever seen is hopefully still cruising around
black and gold bands with each band about 2 inches wide
absolutely stunning animal that I have never seen anything to compare
I know there are some beauties being bred now but this one looked like a coral snake the bands were so clear
On the old Palmerston rd found a dead fully striped b/g too
Saw a b/w that looked like a chess board near Mt Molloy 
So they are out there
Memory serves me a photo in APS a few months ago of a pretty big near full stripe wild carpet in or near Brisbane too??


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2011)

longqi said:


> Can agree with the Oenpellis and RSPs and possibly with the chondros
> But thats only a few species out of many that are kept
> 
> International sellers always use genetic diversity as an excuse to pillage areas
> ...



Sshhhhhhhh don't tell Hrafna...

:lol:


----------



## hrafna (Dec 31, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> Sshhhhhhhh don't tell Hrafna...
> 
> :lol:


you really are a moron! i never denied that they are not out there but for every amazing one how many butt ugly ones are out there. but i bet you will go google some more articles and then claim that you MUST know everything. i really couldn't be bothered continuing the same old rubbish with you but your smartass comment is abit much. esp since it was done with awhile ago.


----------



## D3pro (Dec 31, 2011)

well that was interesting. :/


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 31, 2011)

hrafna said:


> you really are a moron! i never denied that they are not out there but for every amazing one how many butt ugly ones are out there. but i bet you will go google some more articles and then claim that you MUST know everything. i really couldn't be bothered continuing the same old rubbish with you but your smartass comment is abit much. esp since it was done with awhile ago.



Hahahaha why are you so twisted about this? You really appeared to have a beef as soon as i commented in this thread. It was just a joke champ, hence the smiley, lighten up a little. 

If you choose to ignore the experience of the other feild herpers in this thread then that is your perogative and more power to you. I disagreed with what you said, i explained why and i offered some evidence to support my claim. You got your knickers in a twist, i'm not sure why because i was pretty mild mannered until you began accusing me of making things up and without any evidence ignored what i said. Now others have come into the thread saying similar things and you are still upset. 

Your claim was that what you see as an amazing animal will not survive in the wild. I claimed that they will probably do just fine.

If you read through our posts in this thread i don't think you'll find me as the instigator of the smartass comments.


----------



## Wrightpython (Dec 31, 2011)

*hrafna* 

how can you say for every nice one how many butt ugly ones are there there is no such thing as a butt ugly reptile if you are a genuine reptile enthusiast. if you only want the prettiest and the best then you are not a hobbyist you are just a show off


----------



## Jungletrans (Dec 31, 2011)

We are doing the same thing [ breeding in weakness ] with humans . How many of our laws are in place to stop stupid people killing themselves off . This is meant to happen , when a person dies due to their own stupidity the gene pool is improved . I say " Live and let Die " .


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 31, 2011)

Jungletrans said:


> We are doing the same thing [ breeding in weakness ] with humans . How many of our laws are in place to stop stupid people killing themselves off . This is meant to happen , when a person dies due to their own stupidity the gene pool is improved . I say " Live and let Die " .



Wow, this is getting serious. I just wish to point out to those of you who have seen the movie Deliverance - the folks in that village looked bit like designer morph carpets laced with the jag gene  but the banjo sounded goooood.

Happy new year!


----------



## hrafna (Dec 31, 2011)

Wrightpython said:


> *hrafna*
> 
> how can you say for every nice one how many butt ugly ones are there there is no such thing as a butt ugly reptile if you are a genuine reptile enthusiast. if you only want the prettiest and the best then you are not a hobbyist you are just a show off


 no i don't want the prettiest and the best, my fave snake is the md, considered by many within the hobby as a dull snake. infact i don't like the look of b+y jungles or jags and as such will probably never keep them, but this is a topic of wild animals vs captive bred animals. which is why it is being discussed. would you rather i said dull or plain patterned/coloured animals?


----------



## Darlyn (Dec 31, 2011)

I don't see why we are discussing a snakes colour?
Sure some are being bred that are brighter, stripier, whiter but at the end of the day
they are still colours that exist in the wild. To our eyes they may seem totally different but
a snakes ability to blend in with it's surroundings isn't going to be significantly altered at all. Unless someone 
breeds a bright purple or hot pink one which doen't seem very likely.

We are however breeding snakes that require no ability to hunt as they are fed constantly whereas 
in the wild a snake who can't hunt wont last long. So maybe we are breeding weaker animals but it's irrelevant as they will not be released.


----------

