# Classic forms.



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

Does no one prefer the classic forms of reptiles anymore? It seems all I read is people getting excited over 'super, lime, banana-heads' and what not. I get that a lot of breeders make their living off these highly sought after forms and therefore will defend it passionately but is it going too far? How many hatchies suffer and die because a breeder is going after a specific form? How hard will it become to find genuine classic forms in the future because nobody seems to want them or appreciate them anymore? It seems reptiles are becoming a designer hobby rather than for people who genuinely love them for them. It has been shown time and again that even among reptiles inbreeding, especially close relation inbreeding raises the risks of harmful defects. The general rule of thumb even for inbreeding is to leave a 3-5 generation gap between the pair. Yet this is disregarded if there is a chance that a new and rare form may come about. I do not wish to cause fights or put anyone down I am merely stating my concerns and opinions. I realize a lot of replies may be negative and try and put me down but hopefully those people are dealt with accordingly. I'd love to see the animals of those who prefer the classic forms and aren't in it for the big money and notoriety. When I fell in love with Reptiles it wasn't because they were valuable or something to be compared. It was simply because Reptiles are the coolest animals in the World! And Australia is exceptionally blessed with some amazing and unique Reptiles that will hopefully forever remain a big part of our iconic wildlife.


----------



## saximus (Aug 2, 2013)

Your concerns have been voiced on this site over and over and over...
There are still plenty of wild type animals available all the time if that is what you are into. If morphs aren't your cup of tea, don't buy one but I don't see why everyone seems so concerned about what everyone else wants to do. There is plenty of room in the hobby for both.


----------



## Morelia.spilota (Aug 2, 2013)

I agree with you, I to prefer to keep my Species as close too natural colourings as possible... But that said in this day and age where normal is boring to some people there will always be a call for what is weird and strange and sometimes if that means bending the genetic envlope than that is what will happen..


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

saximus said:


> Your concerns have been voiced on this site over and over and over...
> There are still plenty of wild type animals available all the time if that is what you are into. If morphs aren't your cup of tea, don't buy one but I don't see why everyone seems so concerned about what everyone else wants to do. There is plenty of room in the hobby for both.


Agreed.


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

I suppose it is just Human nature to abuse.


----------



## champagne (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> It has been shown time and again that even among reptiles inbreeding, especially close relation inbreeding raises the risks of harmful defects. The general rule of thumb even for inbreeding is to leave a 3-5 generation gap between the pair. Yet this is disregarded if there is a chance that a new and rare form may come about.


 Where are you getting your information from? Inbreeding in reptiles doesn't cause defects and If done correctly can actually improve the line. As for the local and wild type snakes there are many people that keep and breed them, Even people that breed morphs still generally keep a pair or two of pure local snakes.


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

btsmorphs said:


> Where are you getting your information from? Inbreeding in reptiles doesn't cause defects and If done correctly can actually improve the line. As for the local and wild type snakes there are many people that keep and breed them, Even people that breed morphs still generally keep a pair or two of pure local snakes.


It's just his opinion. It's not based on experience or study. I wouldn't worry too much about it. 
He keeps morphs himself. After all unless you have wild caught animals you have a mix if different locals which aren't true to form really as they wouldn't occur naturally in the wild with that mix if genetics.


----------



## Trimeresurus (Aug 2, 2013)

Sax, bts and Snow summed this thread up nicely.

All it needs is the OPs vigilant defence of his opinion and some more made up facts.


----------



## sharky (Aug 2, 2013)

The new morphs and forms are exciting. What makes it exciting is to see how far the reptile hobby is expanding and how hard people have worked to bring a new morph into the hobby. 

I still prefer the classics but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy learning and looking at all the new fancy-pants coloured reptiles


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

I expected the usual lot to jump in and harshly defend such money hungry, abusive actions. There are plenty of reasons not to inbreed Reptiles such as: Doubles up on faults and weaknesses. Progressive loss of immune response. Increased reproductive failures resulting in fewer offspring. Emphasis on appearance means accidental loss of "good" genes for other attributes and genetically impoverished individuals. The pros are merely: They look pretty and they make lots of money. Only those that have lost most of their respect for Reptiles and desire profit and a name for themselves do this. But I suppose that is all it takes most people to convince them. Close relations produce almost certain defects and other issues in hatchlings. When inbred close relations such as siblings or offspring and mother will produce infertile eggs. Some embryos will die during incubation or during hatching and roughly half are likely to hatch at all. But again when there is money to be made from the few that survive then the others are acceptable losses to some. I merely have superior morals and there is no shame in that. The simple fact that health risks are increased would turn any true reptile enthusiast off inbreeding. Flame away.


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> I expected the usual lot to jump in and harshly defend such money hungry, abusive actions. There are plenty of reasons not to inbreed Reptiles such as: Doubles up on faults and weaknesses. Progressive loss of immune response. Increased reproductive failures resulting in fewer offspring. Emphasis on appearance means accidental loss of "good" genes for other attributes and genetically impoverished individuals. The pros are merely: They look pretty and they make lots of money. Only those that have lost most of their respect for Reptiles and desire profit and a name for themselves do this. But I suppose that is all it takes most people to convince them. Close relations produce almost certain defects and other issues in hatchlings. When inbred close relations such as siblings or offspring and mother will produce infertile eggs. Some embryos will die during incubation or during hatching and roughly half are likely to hatch at all. But again when there is money to be made from the few that survive then the others are acceptable losses to some. I merely have superior morals and there is no shame in that. The simple fact that health risks are increased would turn any true reptile enthusiast off inbreeding. Flame away.


You are still making zero sense....
Not even sure what money you mean? Seriously who makes money out of their snakes? I made about $10k last year. Still wouldn't think I've broken even and I breed wild caught animals. 
Your ramblings always reminds me of this:

Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube


----------



## Amberbubula (Aug 2, 2013)

Trimeresurus said:


> Sax, bts and Snow summed this thread up nicely.
> 
> All it needs is the OPs vigilant defence of his opinion and some more made up facts.



nailed it..


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

Amberbubula said:


> nailed it..


Agreed. The made up facts are the most entertaining


----------



## baker (Aug 2, 2013)

There is always going to be a morph side and a wild type side of this hobby no matter what. The most likely reason you seem to think there is more morph people would be that they post more pictures and are more active on forums and other pages. If you are so against morphs then how about you start to keep colubrids and elapids where next to no morph occurs. Even better yet if you want to preserve wild types so much get up and actively start helping conservation of wild populations and stop concentrating on what people do with the animals they have.
Cheers Cameron


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

Hmmmm


----------



## hunterschamps (Aug 2, 2013)

Its personal prefrence really. 

Its like water vs wine, you like water, i like wine.

I myself like pure breds, but how can you really keep a line pure bred without wild catching snakes from that locality and breeding them into your stock? This is illegal anyway unless you have the license to do so.. 

As someone who is relativly new to the herp scene, but has a background is business can see there is no way you can make and liveable amount of money off of breeding snakes, whether it be morphs or not, unless you have a large commercial operation.


----------



## saximus (Aug 2, 2013)

.


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

The thread was turned into a joke when you started posting things that don't make sense and non factual statements....


----------



## Rob (Aug 2, 2013)

Let's all put the brakes on, & take a cruise on over to http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/community-41/reflections-oegooda-forum-member-203569/


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 2, 2013)

Morelia.spilota said:


> I agree with you, I to prefer to keep my Species as close too natural colourings as possible... But that said in this day and age where normal is boring to some people there will always be a call for what is weird and strange and sometimes if that means bending the genetic envlope than that is what will happen..




What an odd statement given your avatar pic....


----------



## thesilverbeast (Aug 2, 2013)

What is your genetics background to be making such claims about inbreeding? And before you start, yes. I have a genetics background at a University level. Are you just personifying snakes because you can't understand that animals are all different? Most mammals are susceptible to negative effects from inbreeding. Snakes are not. Is it that hard to understand? 

Plus you're talking about classic forms, but every python, unless specifically line bred (I.E INBRED!!) to be genetically pure to a locale will be a mix of captive populations.. and that would make them... yep... MORPHS! Classic morph is still a morph if its not a genetically pure locale. 


You haven't made much sense and I don't know why you keep rearing your head in such a naive way that ends in you being banned. 



Can't we just calm down and let everyone like what everyone likes? I may not like the car you drive, you may not like what I drive. But we don't need to argue about each others choices when we're not hurting each other.


----------



## RedFox (Aug 2, 2013)

One of my womas has being line bred. He doesn't seem to have any issues and has the correct amount of toes, fingers and heads. He also came from quite a large clutch. So no fertility or incubation issues.

As for morph breeding, how does it destroy the hobby? Why do you think it should be banned? Our captive animals have absolutely no conservational value. Most 'wild type' as already said come from mixed localities, and so wouldn't actually breed in the wild. 

For morph breeding to be banned would mean to basically start the hobby again (well in the eastern states anyhow), as it can be difficult to trace back our captive animals to their wild caught ancestors. Even those that have a locality attached to them may not necessarily mean they are 100% line breed from that locality (eg wheat belt Stimson, RHD woma) or the 'locality' attached to them may be too broad (eg. QLD bhp).

At the end of the day what people do with their animals has no effect on what I do with mine or our native populations.


----------



## Bushman (Aug 2, 2013)

OK guys, chill out! There's no need for this discussion to get personal. 
Stay on topic from now on please.


----------



## Ramy (Aug 2, 2013)

At the risk of turning this into a serious discussion, this does provoke a few thoughts.

First, I'd like to state that breeding reptiles is rarely going to be profitable. Once you've paid the food and power bills, most people break even.

I've felt for a little while now that there is an increasing number of people who don't understand genetics and morphs have been buying "70% het" or "het for hypo" or whatever other het varieties of pythons that become available, but have little interest in breeding. Some people only want one python, but still say "oh, i've got a 70% het so-and-so" when actually they've got a classic that might throw a couple different babies IF they ever get a partner for it. It don't mind people who're into morphs, I personally prefer classics (apples, oranges...). I just think it's a little bit silly when people who just want a bredli decide to get a het for hypo bredli (Also, I've seen a lot of "hypo" bredli's who look classic).

Also, I noticed a thread a while ago from a guy talking a hypothetical about breeding diamonds with a single albino carpet and hoping that after years of breeding cross-bred diamonds, to get a close-to-pure diamond who's carrying an albino gene... When they're the same species, and the variations are only about locality and colour/pattern then surely if you want an albino morelia spilota you should just get the morelia spilota that's available in albino. It has neither the carpet nor the diamond pattern anymore because ITS ALBINO. Sometimes it feels like people are trying too hard. If a morph happens, then- cool- try to keep it around. Or if you like it, pay extra for an albino or for a breeding project or whatever you're into. But why do you need to go so far out of your way to find a new morph?

Ok... so that turned into a bit of a rant... I'll stop now.


----------



## Troy K. (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> I expected the usual lot to jump in and harshly defend such money hungry, abusive actions. There are plenty of reasons not to inbreed Reptiles such as: Doubles up on faults and weaknesses. Progressive loss of immune response. Increased reproductive failures resulting in fewer offspring. Emphasis on appearance means accidental loss of "good" genes for other attributes and genetically impoverished individuals. The pros are merely: They look pretty and they make lots of money. Only those that have lost most of their respect for Reptiles and desire profit and a name for themselves do this. But I suppose that is all it takes most people to convince them. Close relations produce almost certain defects and other issues in hatchlings. When inbred close relations such as siblings or offspring and mother will produce infertile eggs. Some embryos will die during incubation or during hatching and roughly half are likely to hatch at all. But again when there is money to be made from the few that survive then the others are acceptable losses to some. I merely have superior morals and there is no shame in that. The simple fact that health risks are increased would turn any true reptile enthusiast off inbreeding. Flame away.



I really think someone needs to read a few books and try and get half a clue about what they are talking about before putting up any more B/S info that simply isn't true. This forum is to help out the new comers to the hobby and when crap like this is posted as facts, well it just shows how much you really don't know.


----------



## RedFox (Aug 2, 2013)

A lot of morphs are naturally occurring anyway. The majority of our albinos come for albino wild caught animals. Striped coastals are common in the wild and yet they are counted as a morph. There was a thread on here not that long ago about the wild caught pied childreni that was released. Etc, etc.


----------



## andynic07 (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> I expected the usual lot to jump in and harshly defend such money hungry, abusive actions. There are plenty of reasons not to inbreed Reptiles such as: Doubles up on faults and weaknesses. Progressive loss of immune response. Increased reproductive failures resulting in fewer offspring. Emphasis on appearance means accidental loss of "good" genes for other attributes and genetically impoverished individuals. The pros are merely: They look pretty and they make lots of money. Only those that have lost most of their respect for Reptiles and desire profit and a name for themselves do this. But I suppose that is all it takes most people to convince them. Close relations produce almost certain defects and other issues in hatchlings. When inbred close relations such as siblings or offspring and mother will produce infertile eggs. Some embryos will die during incubation or during hatching and roughly half are likely to hatch at all. But again when there is money to be made from the few that survive then the others are acceptable losses to some. I merely have superior morals and there is no shame in that. The simple fact that health risks are increased would turn any true reptile enthusiast off inbreeding. Flame away.


Just to pick up on one point you have made here about inbreeding doubling up on one fault, this can happen in unrelated breeding as well. Two unrelated snakes can have the same genetic deficiency causing all of the offspring to be guaranteed they carry the deficiency. What happens in the wild is usually this deficiency will decrease the chances that the snake lives and therefore will not pass the gene on but in captivity we keep them alive and pass the gene on to the next generation. That is all the time I wish to spend on showing you that a lot of your points are flawed as I really don't think you listen to what people have to say.


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

Having superior morals does not stop me from defending myself. And Snowman, I have simply started deleting your offensive private messages so don't expect me to bite any more. As for the topic. I've stated my ten cents. The points I made are valid and taken from other keepers who are also against it. I'll be over here appreciating reptiles properly rather than turning them into a designer hobby. I'm sure the breeders that do it will defend their business to the bitter end by insulting and trying to discredit me though. Predictable.


----------



## andynic07 (Aug 2, 2013)

Back on topic now, I love a nice pattern "classic form" but am also blown away from some of the designer snakes coming out. I also know that both classic and morphs can trow an ugly snake as well that I would not buy.


----------



## champagne (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> Having superior morals does not stop me from defending myself. And Snowman, I have simply started deleting your offensive private messages so don't expect me to bite any more. As for the topic. I've stated my ten cents. The points I made are valid and taken from other keepers who are also against it. I'll be over here appreciating reptiles properly rather than turning them into a designer hobby. I'm sure the breeders that do it will defend their business to the bitter end by insulting and trying to discredit me though. Predictable.


 Can you show me one paper on how line breeding reptiles is a problem? I'm afraid the information you have been given on the matter is very wrong, Reptiles are not like mammals and don't have the same issues when line bred correctly.


----------



## Ramy (Aug 2, 2013)

I would argue that plenty of people who breed morphs breed unrelated pairs. That plenty of people who buy classics buy a pair from one breeder. That just because you're breeding a morph doesn't mean you're in-breeding.

Also, the "doubling up on a fault" is flawed logic. Yea, sure, if two siblings are both carrying a recessive flaw, then it'll become more common in their offspring should you choose to breed them. But by the same token, hatchlings in captivity have a higher survival rate than in the wild. Which means we're increasing the prevalance of certain flaws by force-feeding difficult hatchies. I saw one reptile store who were offerring childreniis specifically bred from docile parents to try to make a good first-time python who's less likely to get snappy. By your arguement, that's specifically breeding pythons for a fault. Let's face it, if those hatchlings got released into the wild they've got nearly no chance of surviving (even if you ignore the loss of immune response from generations of living in tanks).

If you're concerned that one day we'll lose the natural forms, then I'd be far more concerned by mongrel carpets bred by people who're inexperienced and in it for curiosity's sake (and then get sold by said people as one or other cause mongrels don't sell) than by the people who've got organised breeding programs and keep track of ancestry in order to breed morphs efficiently.


----------



## thesilverbeast (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> I'll be over here appreciating reptiles properly rather than turning them into a designer hobby. I'm sure the breeders that do it will defend their business to the bitter end by insulting and trying to discredit me though. Predictable.



My favourite snake is a "classic". I own first gen (i.e not inbred) captives from a locale specific population. I also have had morphs. If theres anyone who's right down the middle its likely me. The only difference is that I have a university level education in topics covered in this thread and I'm not stuck trying to personify reptiles before understanding the science behind their genetics and conservational value in the hobby. 

I also haven't started any name calling or anything like that so don't start that on me. You think you're making valid comments but your opinion is naive and you need to do more research on both sides before making such highly strung conclusions.


----------



## saintanger (Aug 2, 2013)

no one can ever discuss morphs and interbreeding with out people getting personal about it. come on we are adult, i think.

unless you are breeding specific localities then its not technically pure bred. and not many keepers breed specific localities as they are hard to find.
all my reptiles are so called pure bred but i doubt many are actually from the one locality. 

these days you buy a diamond for example and not many people even know the locality and breed it to another diamond and they are from 2 different localities but they are still 'pure' diamonds.

if people wanna interbreed or breed with a sub species thats their choice, its not my snake so not my problem, i know people who do it just for the money and some do it to improve the look or keep a certain trait.

each to their own


----------



## champagne (Aug 2, 2013)

They are all pet snakes with no conservation value at all, so what is the big deal? what is the difference between a jungle and coastal? they cant be split by dna testing so the only difference is colour, pattern and size. so if you have a pure coastal in one hand and a 87.5% coastal 12.5% jungle that looks like a coastal in the other, what is the difference? Im not having a go at you nor do I want to start a fight, asking a serious question.


----------



## Troy K. (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> The points I made are valid and taken from other keepers who are also against it.



Just because you and some of your friends don't agree with something does not make it wrong.


----------



## Ramy (Aug 2, 2013)

btsmorphs said:


> They are all pet snakes with no conservation value at all, so what is the big deal? what is the difference between a jungle and coastal? they cant be split by dna testing so the only difference is colour, pattern and size. so if you have a pure coastal in one hand and a 87.5% coastal 12.5% jungle that looks like a coastal in the other, what is the difference? Im not having a go at you nor do I want to start a fight, asking a serious question.



I'm not sure if that's targetted at me, but I am the one who mentioned mongrel carpets. My issue with mongrel carpets is more about the people who sell a python as one sub-species when really it's another, or a cross, or whatever. It creates a lot of mis-information, especially for new herpers. You see it all over, people who buy a "bredli" and everyone on the forum says "coastal", you buy 2 turtles "a sawshell, and a ELN" and yet they both look the same. I don't know if it's wild-catching, or 3rd-hand-mis-information or what... but it happens enough.

My opinion is that we're unlikely to lose "classic" forms, because there's always someone who's interested in keeping them. For every breeder with morphs, there's probably another breeding locality specific forms and another classics. There are a few locality specific lines out there, but there is also a lot of variety even within a given area in the wild. There is no sure way of finding a "pure diamond" or a "pure darwin carpet" or whatever within captive collections. Unless you trust the breeder about the animal's origins and ancestry, you only know what it looks like. (I have seen some photos of mongrel carpets, especially jungle or bredli crosses, that just look dirty... just like I've seen some incredibly ugly things done with green tree pythons in america. Most of the time when you see someone's new python it just looks like a python and there's nothing unusual about it).

I think when you happen apon a naturally occuring morph, there's no harm it trying to keep it around.


----------



## caliherp (Aug 2, 2013)

Ramy said:


> just like I've seen some incredibly ugly things done with green tree pythons in america.



Care to share any pictures?


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

A lot of you don't get it. There are first time and amateur breeders all over the place right now getting ready to inbreed any unusual coloured animals with their parents to get one of these 'pretties' everyone goes on about all the time. The image being planted is that basic forms are worthless and if you want to be a successful breeder you must try for morphs. It's already getting out of hand. Just read through internet forums and you'll at least start supporting that a specially earned license should be required to breed any reptile. Just look at what the other countries are doing to our wildlife when they get their hands on them. The future for reptile keeping looks sad. Never mind what they do in the wild. Look at what Humans are doing to them in captivity. Do you want Reptiles to become like mere dogs?


----------



## MathewB (Aug 2, 2013)

So if a 2nd generation animal bred with a 1st generation animal and the subsequent offspring was 'funny lookin' then how do isolated populations of reptiles exist? By your logic they wouldn't and so any reptiles on islands would be disabled?


----------



## andynic07 (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> A lot of you don't get it. There are first time and amateur breeders all over the place right now getting ready to inbreed any unusual coloured animals with their parents to get one of these 'pretties' everyone goes on about all the time. The image being planted is that basic forms are worthless and if you want to be a successful breeder you must try for morphs. It's already getting out of hand. Just read through internet forums and you'll at least start supporting that a specially earned license should be required to breed any reptile. Just look at what the other countries are doing to our wildlife when they get their hands on them. The future for reptile keeping looks sad. Never mind what they do in the wild. Look at what Humans are doing to them in captivity. Do you want Reptiles to become like mere dogs?


I agree that there a lot of amateur breeders out there trying to get lucky with mixing this with that and probably don't know what they are doing but I think that is due to the popularity in the hobby more than designer snakes. I am sure a lot of these amateur breeders will very quickly find out that there is not a lot of money in breeding snakes and there is a lot more thought to designer snakes and breeding programs than throwing together two snakes for one season.


----------



## CarpetPythons.com.au (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> I expected the usual lot to jump in and harshly defend such money hungry, abusive actions. There are plenty of reasons not to inbreed Reptiles such as: Doubles up on faults and weaknesses. Progressive loss of immune response. Increased reproductive failures resulting in fewer offspring. Emphasis on appearance means accidental loss of "good" genes for other attributes and genetically impoverished individuals. The pros are merely: They look pretty and they make lots of money. Only those that have lost most of their respect for Reptiles and desire profit and a name for themselves do this. But I suppose that is all it takes most people to convince them. Close relations produce almost certain defects and other issues in hatchlings. When inbred close relations such as siblings or offspring and mother will produce infertile eggs. Some embryos will die during incubation or during hatching and roughly half are likely to hatch at all. But again when there is money to be made from the few that survive then the others are acceptable losses to some. I merely have superior morals and there is no shame in that. The simple fact that health risks are increased would turn any true reptile enthusiast off inbreeding. Flame away.



If you had superior morals then you would not be keeping reptiles in boxes.


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

CarpetPythons.com.au said:


> If you had superior morals then you would not be keeping reptiles in boxes.


Try to stay on topic, don't take that claim out of context. Especially just to try and create further hostility.


----------



## solar 17 (Aug 2, 2013)

"BLONDIE" the original albino found in a caravan park in Catherine NT is the "father" of 99% of the albinos going around and this line is now 5-6 generations old, now could you please show us or point to all the deformities "PLEASE" as l am sure with such a strong view you must have heaps of evidence.....solar 17


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

solar 17 said:


> "BLONDIE" the original albino found in a caravan park in Catherine NT is the "father" of 99% of the albinos going around and this line is now 5-6 generations old, now could you please show us or point to all the deformities "PLEASE" as l am sure with such a strong view you must have heaps of evidence.....solar 17



How many hatchlings have died before or while hatching or shortly thereafter? That's the big issue. But they don't matter to the people attacking me on my thread.


----------



## andynic07 (Aug 2, 2013)

I am sure there would be many people who could boast 100% hatch and survive rates from albino darwins.


----------



## lithopian (Aug 2, 2013)

Where are you getting your stats from re- hatchie death? Just curious


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

So you simply refute the cons I listed? Even when they were collected from other breeders? I am sticking to my guns based on what I have read. You lot feel free to do as you please. But try to stop attacking me for my position, it's quite bigoted and the only reason I flare up in the first place, to defend myself.


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> So you simply refute the cons I listed? Even when they were collected from other breeders? I am sticking to my guns based on what I have read. You lot feel free to do as you please. But try to stop attacking me for my position, it's quite bigoted and the only reason I flare up in the first place, to defend myself.


It's great that you have evidence that you have "read". Now you can show us your source as proof and there is no arguing.
Unless there is no proof?


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> How many hatchlings have died before or while hatching or shortly thereafter? That's the big issue. But they don't matter to the people attacking me on my thread.



This could never happen in the wild could it? Surely every egg that is laid hatches a perfectly healthy, live animal


----------



## Ramy (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> How many hatchlings have died before or while hatching or shortly thereafter? That's the big issue. But they don't matter to the people attacking me on my thread.



Umm... most breeders of classics and other varieties wouldn't have 100% survival rates... some eggs are duds, some animals fail to thrive...

Show me statistics that prove that albino hatchlings have a lower survival rate than other clutches.


----------



## orientalis (Aug 2, 2013)

You do realise that even out in the wild...............brother's and sister's from the same parent's come across each other and reproduce successfully and healthy viable offspring result..............and this happens with all WILDLIFE.......not just reptiles..........what do you say to that?


----------



## MathewB (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> So you simply refute the cons I listed? Even when they were collected from other breeders? I am sticking to my guns based on what I have read. You lot feel free to do as you please. But try to stop attacking me for my position, it's quite bigoted and the only reason I flare up in the first place, to defend myself.




The key word here is evidence. You can't just say you've read or seen something, because if you could then no one would be refuting the existence of the Bunyip, Sasquatch etc. If you had some tangible evidence then you would probably find that people wouldn't react so vigorously. 

I don't know why you're so surprised about the reaction, this isn't the first time you've stated your position.


----------



## andynic07 (Aug 2, 2013)

MathewB said:


> The key word here is evidence. You can't just say you've read or seen something, because if you could then no one would be refuting the existence of the Bunyip, Sasquatch etc. If you had some tangible evidence then you would probably find that people wouldn't react so vigorously.
> 
> I don't know why you're so surprised about the reaction, this isn't the first time you've stated your position.


He may be bored on a Friday night and want a night of stirring.


----------



## Snowman (Aug 2, 2013)

MathewB said:


> The key word here is evidence. You can't just say you've read or seen something, because if you could then no one would be refuting the existence of the Bunyip, Sasquatch etc. If you had some tangible evidence then you would probably find that people wouldn't react so vigorously.
> 
> I don't know why you're so surprised about the reaction, this isn't the first time you've stated your position.


That sums it up perfectly. We just want facts and anything that isn't supported with proof is just hearsay and a waste of time. I'm happy for someone to take an opposing stance to me if they have the FACTS to back up what they are saying. From the start of this thread we have asked for supporting evidence and the OP hasn't once given us a single source to back up his statements.


----------



## solar 17 (Aug 2, 2013)

Snowman said:


> That sums it up perfectly. We just want facts and anything that isn't supported with proof is just hearsay and a waste of time. I'm happy for someone to take an opposing stance to me if they have the FACTS to back up what they are saying. From the start of this thread we have asked for supporting evidence and the OP hasn't once given us a single source to back up his statements.


PLUS numerous others, as this is a pretty united front we have here....solar 17 (Baden)


----------



## champagne (Aug 2, 2013)

Ramy said:


> I'm not sure if that's targetted at me, but I am the one who mentioned mongrel carpets. My issue with mongrel carpets is more about the people who sell a python as one sub-species when really it's another, or a cross, or whatever. It creates a lot of mis-information, especially for new herpers. You see it all over, people who buy a "bredli" and everyone on the forum says "coastal", you buy 2 turtles "a sawshell, and a ELN" and yet they both look the same. I don't know if it's wild-catching, or 3rd-hand-mis-information or what... but it happens enough.
> 
> My opinion is that we're unlikely to lose "classic" forms, because there's always someone who's interested in keeping them. For every breeder with morphs, there's probably another breeding locality specific forms and another classics. There are a few locality specific lines out there, but there is also a lot of variety even within a given area in the wild. There is no sure way of finding a "pure diamond" or a "pure darwin carpet" or whatever within captive collections. Unless you trust the breeder about the animal's origins and ancestry, you only know what it looks like. (I have seen some photos of mongrel carpets, especially jungle or bredli crosses, that just look dirty... just like I've seen some incredibly ugly things done with green tree pythons in america. Most of the time when you see someone's new python it just looks like a python and there's nothing unusual about it).
> 
> I think when you happen apon a naturally occuring morph, there's no harm it trying to keep it around.



It was directed at anyone who claims to be "purist". What I'm saying is very few lines are pure sub spices and once a cross has been crossed back 3 or 4 generations it is near impossible to tell if they are "pure" or not and more to the point they are pet snakes if it looks like a coastal and produces offspring that look like a coastal what is the big problem if it has a % of jungle blood in it? I believe that the wild caught locality lines should be kept pure and they are, people use them for outcrossing but most still keep them pure and if you want those animals you can find them... Yes there are dishonest sellers out they, But that's a different subject.


----------



## B_STATS (Aug 2, 2013)

[Link removed] Shows that others agree with me that any inbreeding between close relatives is harmful. [link Removed] - Seems to agree that inbreeding should only be done rarely. The general opinion is that greedy breeders do it for money and it is not preferred by anyone else. My links keep getting deleted too. The fact is there ARE risks involved but the prospect of money outweighs the animals wellbeing to those that do it so they ignore the risks. Honestly I don't know why this turned into a scientific load of junk. I merely stated my opinion and was seeking like-minded individuals and now I get the die-hard inbreeders going ape at me? Crazy.


----------



## Rogue5861 (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> link removed - Shows that others agree with me that any inbreeding between close relatives is harmful. Link removed - Seems to agree that inbreeding should only be done rarely. The general opinion is that greedy breeders do it for money and it is not preferred by anyone else. My links keep getting deleted too. The fact is there ARE risks involved but the prospect of money outweighs the animals wellbeing to those that do it so they ignore the risks. Honestly I don't know why this turned into a scientific load of junk. I merely stated my opinion and was seeking like-minded individuals and now I get the die-hard inbreeders going ape at me? Crazy.



Clearly a very uneducated opinion. 

I know people that have been breeders of different species of animals for generations an inbreeding is something that most breeders do (birds, reptiles, dogs, fish). If an animal isn't broke don't try an fix it, breeding with a genetically defected animal is one thing advanced breeders don't do. Couldn't say the same for the amateur or inexperience breeders though. 

Your opinion is only shared by very few people that can't grasp the concept of wild "locale" animals, these animals clearly inbreed an show little to no problems. 

Hatch rates and survive rates are far lower in the wild then in captivity. And a lot of advanced breeders are getting 100% hatch/survive rates out of albinos, amateur breeders of "classics" would have much lower rates of survival due to inexperience or genetically flawed animals.

The problems that I think you are referring to are ones that most advanced breeders don't have crop up often enough to warrant a panic attack. I've breed chickens that have had splayed foot and a brick was the cure, not wanting to breed this into future generation.

Breeding of dogs has gone on for hundreds of years an there are now species with genetic defects, it is the greedy breeders that have continued to breed these animals for specific traits that have lead to the demise of the species. Pugs and Dachshunds spring to mind with the problems that they get to look forward to in life. 

I don't believe snakes to have anywhere near the same genetic make up of dogs an any breeder that would breed an animal that continually has recurring problems (RI, Tumors ect.) are the unethical ones. 

Inexperience breeders are what pose a threat no the advanced breeders with decades of experience.



Rick


----------



## RedFox (Aug 2, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> A lot of you don't get it. There are first time and amateur breeders all over the place right now getting ready to inbreed any unusual coloured animals with their parents to get one of these 'pretties' everyone goes on about all the time. The image being planted is that basic forms are worthless and if you want to be a successful breeder you must try for morphs. It's already getting out of hand. Just read through internet forums and you'll at least start supporting that a specially earned license should be required to breed any reptile. Just look at what the other countries are doing to our wildlife when they get their hands on them. The future for reptile keeping looks sad. Never mind what they do in the wild. Look at what Humans are doing to them in captivity. Do you want Reptiles to become like mere dogs?



I'm a little confused by this comment. Firstly I am not a breeder and have very little interest in long term breeding. I am not 'pro' morph but neither am I against it. I just simply don't understand what point you are try to make other than you don't like morphs. 

How does what other countries do with their animals affect us in Australia? 

And so you don't care about some of our declining wildlife more about others pets. What are we doing to them in captivity? Providing animals with a higher survival rate? 

As for the amateur breeder bit at the start, I think you may have underestimated the amount of time (years not months) it takes to prove out a morph if it is even genetically inheritable. By the time the morph is proven the amateur would not be an amateur anymore. And if anyone buys an unproven morph from a random breeder with no reputation well they are an idiot. I doubt anyone succeeded with a get rich quick scheme involving breeding.

Oh and the license part, forget about just for breeding maybe it would be more useful and better for the welfare if our animals to have it for keeping in general. A lot of threads have shown on here that even basic knowledge of reptiles is lacking and a lot of people are hell bent on comparing them with dogs.

Out of curiosity, what animals do you own?


----------



## Pitttownboy (Aug 3, 2013)

How many RSP were brought into captivity and how many of these fantastic animals are now around, they don't seem to be suffering from line breeding, they are also to my knowledge still of natural colour and form, I breed diamonds, mine are blaxland ridge locality, very dark as adults bright green as young, mine are true local colouring as one was wild caught wires saved never to be released, so if you look around and even advertise that u are after a certain "normal" looking animal then they are out there and normally fairly well priced. I also breed black childreni known as a morph but these animals now 3rd gen were originally wild caught however that area won't be disclosed out of fear someone will plunder the area. Without the morph breeders ( which I am not, I prefer pure ) then the hobby would be in a lot worse shape, now I can go to any pet shop and buy tanks or frozen rodents as well as the important things like medicine workers etc. Ten yrs ago none of this was possible unless you knew someone who knew someone. The morph breeders made this happen and the hobby is better for it. Vets now know what to do in most cases. If people didn't want the weird and the wonderful then we wouldn't breed them, supply and demand and I am sure if you were the first person to get an albino u would line breed it and sell for profit, any human would


----------



## spud_meister (Aug 3, 2013)

I'm not a fan of albino reptiles. However, I would kill for a chance to grab a hypermelanistic Blue-tongue (I would call it Vader, and build it a enclosure shaped like the Death Star).

From my basic understanding of genetics (I'm probably wrong here), inbreeding is largely a problem only in domesticated animals, where genetic expression is far vaster than non-domesticated animals. Take dogs, they have so many variations because genes unnecessary for survival are activated over countless generations, as reptiles are far from being domesticated in the same sense as dogs or cats, it poses little problem. As an example, I believe genetic variation amongst cheetah's in Africa is low because of a suspected genetic bottleneck of a mere two individuals at some point in history, now, cheetahs aren't all drooling idiots, loping around the savannah and licking trees, they're still pretty top predators. If reptile breeding reaches the point that breeding captive snakes with wild snakes means you'll end up with undesirable traits in the offspring, then there'll be a problem, but I can't really see that happening.


----------



## thesilverbeast (Aug 3, 2013)

B_STATS said:


> Honestly I don't know why this turned into a scientific load of junk. I merely stated my opinion




So you're saying you don't want scientific evidence... just your opinion. I think that sums up the thread here. You've claimed all the "inbreeders" are against you but never once addressed my posts. I am not a breeder. I am not pro morph. I am no against morphs. I simply have bothered to understand the peer reviewed science behind this issue. Yet you're only concerned with your opinion and not the "scientific load of junk". I don't get what you are trying to achieve other than if I were to start a thread asking for like minded individuals who believe the world is flat and then get angry when people try and show me how I'm wrong.


----------



## andynic07 (Aug 3, 2013)

thesilverbeast said:


> So you're saying you don't want scientific evidence... just your opinion. I think that sums up the thread here. You've claimed all the "inbreeders" are against you but never once addressed my posts. I am not a breeder. I am not pro morph. I am no against morphs. I simply have bothered to understand the peer reviewed science behind this issue. Yet you're only concerned with your opinion and not the "scientific load of junk". I don't get what you are trying to achieve other than if I were to start a thread asking for like minded individuals who believe the world is flat and then get angry when people try and show me how I'm wrong.


Pretty sure you are wasting your time quoting and asking him questions for two reasons. Firstly he is suspended and secondly he doesn't tend to listen. Maybe this thread should be closed and if anyone else wishes to discuss it they could start another thread.


----------



## richoman_3 (Aug 3, 2013)

Ew morphs!


----------

