|
|||
|
I think it's rediculous that he can get away with all this white tiger and lion "conservation" when none of it is true, and also how he can get away with the declawing etc. I just don't think he should be on tv giving this false educational stuff.
__________________
Ash 1.0 Beardy 1.0 Leo 0.2 Spur thighed tortoises 0.1 Royal |
|
|||
|
If these freaks are so useless why is there a small pride of them living in the wild and surviving without our intervention, When you think of a great white lion trying to stalk their prey then you would think it would stick out like a sore thumb, but this pride is proving that it isn't such a major issue.
You never know how a new mutation is going to affect a species but that is what evolution is all about, trial and error, what genetic traits work best. I'm still not sure if breeding them in captivity and then trying to release them into the wild is the right thing to do but I don't think they should be labelled as freaks. |
|
||||
|
The problem is the way people label them. They are just a mutation of the african lion. They are a pale form (leucestic ?) of the african lion. Unfortuently they have already condemed themselves. The whole pride is white. Only inbreeding could have done this, with related animals passing on the trait to one another. This is a problem with lions. Think about the Ngorongoro Crater Lions (look it up if you dont know). These white lions will almost certainly be the death of themselves, but this dosent give them any kind of conservation status. The are not a species, nor a subspecies, yet groups make stupid claims to them being more endangered than the snow leopard! If they can sort themselves out naturally in the wild, then great but they shouldnt be bred in captivity when there genetics are already so knackered. It just isnt correct species management. Yet again though, the publicity and financial gain can outway the ethics.
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
White tigers are very unhealthy they are prone to blindness bone problems and all sorts of other horrible conditions why do we need to keep bringing them into this world? it's not fair on them.
__________________
Doctor: Ryan We have tested you for steriod use and your tesoterone levels are Too high. Me: Well How high was it Doctor: .7 Me: what's normal?? Doctor: .6 Me: One tenth?!?!?! Your telling me i Have One tenth Higher then the average Man RETEST that! You must of caught me on a Low Day! |
|
|||
|
I agree. I also wonder how long it will be before people start to say similar things about a lot of the inbred morphs some of the reptile breeders keep producing?
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you study Conservtion, you'd understand that these comments are actually quite right; the main reason for the continued existance of zoological gardens are to promote conservation (IMO, a flawed concept for Zoos, for various reasons I will not go into here). Genetic abnormalities that are artificially bred to a higher population and genetic frequency are of no real conservation value. Why breed a recessive genotype to such a frequency and neglect the Wild type genome? As for the reptile analogy, it's not really appropriate here: morphs sell for money, often big money. I doubt that anyone who breeds morphs is doing for conservation purposes (wild conservation), because these animals do not occur in significant populations in the wild, nor would they persist under strong selective pressures. Morphs do not represent the wild type, they represent a population bred for a certain morphological character. And since most breeders ignore the advice of people who understand genetics beyond that of mendelian ratios, the build up of negative alleles for other factors besides appearance are often ignored, and keepers are oblivious to them. When you bred morphs, do you allow for genetic linkage drag? How do you know that the gene for "red stripes" is not linked to another allele that increases risk of spinal defeats because of a lack of a certain protein/enzyme, etc? Thats only one of several potentially dangerous issues that arise from such breeding, and it's also why such morphs would not be used for conservation over the wild type species with higher genetic diversity (to form a better standing stock). Don't take this as a personal jab, but it' just from a conervation point of veiw those comments are completely accurate. By conserving those "morphs", they are achiveing nothinbg towards conserving the actual species in it's current wild state, and since the goal of most conservation efforts to eventually release, such animals are hard to justify as a conservational tool. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| anybody know craig lantherson | RICK 13 | Forum Help, Suggestions & News | 7 | 09-09-2008 05:52 PM |