Are there too many snakes being bred?

[Woma_Wild]

I don't think the number of true breeders has increased. What has increased are all the new owners wanting to breed for whatever reason. Now that the law has changed in NSW, I have seen an increase in reptiles for sale.
IMO, same as with every other animal, breeders should have a special licence to breed and perhaps a governing body to control them.
eg/ DOGS NSW- breeders cannot breed their ******* every season and pups must be registered. Heavy fines have been put in place . Of course, there will always be backyard breeders out to make money.

 

[PDM_Pythons]

There's to many people still around with old views...get with the times

 

[Woma_Wild]

There's toO many people still around with old views...get with the times

Meaning ?

 

[junglepython2]

I don't think the number of true breeders has increased. What has increased are all the new owners wanting to breed for whatever reason. Now that the law has changed in NSW, I have seen an increase in reptiles for sale.
IMO, same as with every other animal, breeders should have a special licence to breed and perhaps a governing body to control them.
eg/ DOGS NSW- breeders cannot breed their ******* every season and pups must be registered. Heavy fines have been put in place . Of course, there will always be backyard breeders out to make money.

Why should breeders need a special license!?!?! The less government interference the better. What possible benefit does it offer, other than encouraging an elitist branch of the hobby and increasing fees.

Plus what is with this stigma associated with "backyard breeders"? If you aren't a backyard breeder you are a commercial operation. I'd buy an animal off a backyard breeder who knows there animal over a commercial breeder more times than not. Most of the most respected members of the hobby are 'backyard breeders' so I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about.

Sounds like most of the fuss is from people who bought animals for top dollar and are peeved they won't make there money back when they breed them. All sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Once the market gets saturated, which has already happened with several species the breedings will slow down. As long as animals aren't getting dumped or mistreated there shouldn't an issue.

 

[Woma_Wild]

o

Why should breeders need a special license!?!?! The less government interference the better. What possible benefit does it offer, other than encouraging an elitist branch of the hobby and increasing fees.
Plus what is with this stigma associated with "backyard breeders"? If you aren't a backyard breeder you are a commercial operation. I'd buy an animal off a backyard breeder who knows there animal over a commercial breeder more times than not. Most of the most respected members of the hobby are 'backyard breeders' so I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about.

Sounds like most of the fuss is from people who bought animals for top dollar and are peeved they won't make there money back when they breed them. All sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Once the market gets saturated, which has already happened with several species the breedings will slow down. As long as animals aren't getting dumped or mistreated there shouldn't an issue.

1. The government has nothing to do with it.
2. You are taking the term back yard breeders literally. Backyard breeders are those that have little to no empathy for animals they over breed. They breed regardless of the animals health and possible hereditary defects.
3. I have no problem paying top dollar for an animal if I know that I am purchasing healthy sound animals from a reputable and ethical breeder.

Flooding the market will decrease prices but what will the quality of the animals be if half of them are bred by people that are only in it for the money and not too concerned about animals.

 

[beastcreature]

It's blanket terminology for irresponsible breeding. I can't say I've seen it applied to reptile breeders all that often but the phrase sure gets plenty of exercise from registered dog breeders.

 

[Wally]

2. You are taking the term back yard breeders literally. Backyard breeders are those that have little to no empathy for animals they over breed. They breed regardless of the animals health and possible hereditary defects.

It's a term open to interpretation. I've only ever considered myself as such but could never accept your terms of definition.

 

[junglepython2]

o

1. The government has nothing to do with it.
2. You are taking the term back yard breeders literally. Backyard breeders are those that have little to no empathy for animals they over breed. They breed regardless of the animals health and possible hereditary defects.
3. I have no problem paying top dollar for an animal if I know that I am purchasing healthy sound animals from a reputable and ethical breeder.

Flooding the market will decrease prices but what will the quality of the animals be if half of them are bred by people that are only in it for the money and not too concerned about animals.

Most "backyard breeders" are only breeding for the experience. Anyone who is pumping out spotteds or average coastals and think they will be making a mint will quickly find they are mistaken and change their ways. I am not sure how you are drawing the line between responsible breeders, commercial breeders and your dreaded backyard breeder. The commercial breeders are in it for the money more than any of them yet no ones seems to have an issue with them.

I'd also like to know how you quantify quality? Most people seem to define quality of an animal purely on its appearance. If that is the case then a poor quality animal is just as healthy and ethical as a top quality one so once again I don't see an issue.

Comparing snake breeding to dog breeding makes about as much sense as comparing hybrid snakes to mongrel dogs. It's like chalk and cheese.

 

[beastcreature]

I'd also like to know how you quantify quality? Most people seem to define quality of an animal purely on its appearance. If that is the case then a poor quality animal is just as healthy and ethical as a top quality one so once again I don't see an issue.

I've wondered the same thing reading this thread, it does seem that quality is equated with desirability.

Comparing snake breeding to dog breeding makes about as much sense as comparing hybrid snakes to mongrel dogs. It's like chalk and cheese.

I'm not sure it's that ridiculous, you can draw a lot of similarities looking at animal breeders in general.

 

[marcus0002]

Could someone put up some comparison photos of high quality coastals etc next to photos of low quality etc?

 

[Woma_Wild]

Sorry, I perhaps I should have used a different term rather than " quality"
What I'm trying to say is breeding healthy sound animals. Breeding for a purpose as opposed to make $.
I fail to see how a comparison between animal species makes a difference because an animal is a living creature that deserves correct care and correct selective breeding to ensure any offspring are free of hereditary disease, are bred to a certain standard, etc.

 

[marcus0002]

I wouldn't imagine unhealthy animals would be as easy to breed as healthy ones. Could you be more specific as to what you are referring to with hereditary disease and what do you mean by 'a certain standard'?
Cheers

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[LittleHiss]

I wouldn't imagine unhealthy animals would be as easy to breed as healthy ones. Could you be more specific as to what you are referring to with hereditary disease and what do you mean by 'a certain standard'?
Cheers

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

They might not be AS easy to breed, and they might take longer to get the job done because they are weak, but you chuck a male and a female together, and they will breed, as is seen in the squalid, disease-ridden, malnourished puppy farms all over this country. Every animal has an instinct to breed. So, unhealthy animals will breed, but they may not carry their young to term, and if they do, as again seen in puppy farms, their young is often weak and has a "failure to thrive". It's the same with all animals really, including humans.

Also, to me, the "quality" of an animal refers to its health. Its eagerness to eat, ability to digest and absorb nutrients affectively, a high amount of muscle compared to fat, its temperament (I realise that this does differ from species to species, but an unhealthy animal will be more reluctant to be handled and possibly sluggish) and its ability to shed cleanly.

 

[junglepython2]

Sorry, I perhaps I should have used a different term rather than " quality"
What I'm trying to say is breeding healthy sound animals. Breeding for a purpose as opposed to make $.
I fail to see how a comparison between animal species makes a difference because an animal is a living creature that deserves correct care and correct selective breeding to ensure any offspring are free of hereditary disease, are bred to a certain standard, etc.

Once again you are trying to use terms from dog breeding that hold little relevance with herps. Just about all Australian captive reptiles are less than 20 generations from wildcaught stock. There hasn't been enough time to develop a 'standard' The only real difference we see is in colour and pattern, there is very little if any structural difference to have a developed standard. Plus even if there was a standard, just about all breeders are aiming to breed something "different" which flies in the face of breeding to a standard anyway.

In terms of hereditary disease the only ones in reptiles that spring to mind are some of the morphs such as Jags and Zebs. These are actively selected FOR by morph breeders not against like in the dog world. Also we don't see the negative results of inbreeding like you do in mammals or at least not yet.

People need to learn to breed to a market, there is no point breeding average run of the mill animals that you can't move on. People doing this will quickly find it doesn't pay and stop doing it. However these average animals are just as healthy if not more so then the $1000 multiple morph animals so once again as long as they aren't getting dumped or mistreated then there isn't an issue.

 

[Woma_Wild]

They might not be AS easy to breed, and they might take longer to get the job done because they are weak, but you chuck a male and a female together, and they will breed, as is seen in the squalid, disease-ridden, malnourished puppy farms all over this country. Every animal has an instinct to breed. So, unhealthy animals will breed, but they may not carry their young to term, and if they do, as again seen in puppy farms, their young is often weak and has a "failure to thrive". It's the same with all animals really, including humans.

Also, to me, the "quality" of an animal refers to its health. Its eagerness to eat, ability to digest and absorb nutrients affectively, a high amount of muscle compared to fat, its temperament (I realise that this does differ from species to species, but an unhealthy animal will be more reluctant to be handled and possibly sluggish) and its ability to shed cleanly.

Thank you. At least you understand what I'm trying to get at.

 

[champagne]

So we shouldn't be breeding ''wild type'' reptiles because they don't sell fast enough, fetch top dollar and take up available space for the high end animals thus flooding the market. But we should breed the latest top fade morphs (most of which have some health issues) because they will sell faster and get a high dollar value? This is all a bit of a joke... All reptiles have a place in the hobby, we are no where near saturation point. The cheaper the reptiles the more people will come into the hobby.

 

[Ramsayi]

What's interesting is the amount of people commenting in this thread who don't breed reptiles.Lot's of assumptions being thrown about without very much first hand experience.

 

[Bushfire]

I don't think there are too many snakes or other reptiles being bred. I think its more a case of todays breeders are expecting returns per hatchling as what they paid per hatchling back when their breeders were hatchlings ie. 3 - 4 years ago I paid x amount each for a hatchling so now I want that same x amount ea for these hatchlings; or they are expecting the same price as that of the well known breeder of their animals is currently getting, and as what is been seen this isn't the case at all. An oldish example I can think of was in Gammon Ranges Carpets, the same year that Southern Cross Reptile were selling their hatchling at $600 ea and getting it, another lesser known keeper with the exact same bloodlines was struggling to sell them at $180ea. But the because of the minor detail of this keeper wasn't Southern Cross meant there was little interest in his young. I imagine there are many examples of this with other keepers and the larger breeders as well. This is something that many of todays keepers turn breeders are struggling to accept.

Another thing is today's so called top shelf animals is tomorrows run of the mill animal. The animals qualities haven't changed its the markets perception or desirability of them that as. All the talk about the market flooded with low quality stock is total BS. So it looks like we have come to an end of wild types fetching high $, it isn't too bad, I for one love having many species within my price range that as a young boy could only dream that these species be kept in captivity at all. If you are wanting to breed run of the mill animals, go ahead it isn't so bad when you are passionate about them, just remember sometimes its better to sell 5 snakes at $50 then only selling 1 at $250 and being unable to move the rest on but holding out thinking things will pick up.

 

[PDM_Pythons]

Arrrr some sensible answers at last

 

[Waterrat]

Why is breeding considered by many, especially newbies, to be the pinnacle of reptile keeping? Sure, it's exciting and interesting but so are other aspects of reptile keeping. In these days breeding seems almost like a graduation into the upper sphere of keeping. Is it all about money? Just thinking loud.