feed or freeze???

[Mason]

Originally Posted by ian14

What were the parents, out of interest?

With regards to them being from an area where the two would never naturally meet, why the fuss?? I haven't seen anyone raising this issue with, say, pueblacorns - pueblan milks and corns will never meet naturally yet are intentionally produced and sold in the UK.

I read once that eventually, with all the cross breeding, inbreeding and selective breeding that describing and breeding a natural wild type corn will be as impossible as describing and breeding a natural wild type cat!

Given the hundreds of breeders of all different morphs of different species, many of which are hybrids, creamsicle corns and albino grey banded kings a prime example, I just cannot see why this should be an issue, providing the breeder of any of these hybrids is honest and says exactly what they are.

People do make a fuss, there is a large percentage of herpers that feel very strongly about crosses like that. it's just not worth the grief you get mentioning it all the time at the minute in the UK where breeding for the sake of breeding seems to be the current trend.

People see no harm in crossing various colubris and boas etc but don't be fooled into thinking that there aren't large numbers of herpers out there who care deeply that things should be kept as pure as possible in captivity.

[bothrops]

Glad to see some members of this forum are prepared to see the bigger picture. My faith is restored. I am all for emotional responses to animal welfare, but I also have to have my 'sensible hat' on as many things in animal conservation and protection (both captive and wild) are just not that black and white. Terms such as 'fascists' 'nazi's' and revenge freezing have no place in a discussion such as this.

I would argue that people trying to preserve giant panda's could be considered ecological fascists - who are we to decide that animal should be saved? It only feeds on one type of plant, that only grows at a certain altitude in a certain area of the planet. The female only comes into season for a few days every two years and it's milk is so nutritionally poor ('cos it only eats certain bamboo) that most infants die anyway. I would argue that the panda is an absolute evolutionary dead end. Adapt or die - that's the way of the world. Be preserving the frankly useless giant panda (ahh yes but it's sooo cute - ) we are stopping the niche being available for a new, better adapted or more adaptable animal taking it's place.



Just waffling now, but my point is simple - sometimes ecologists, conservationist's, animal lovers, herpetolgists, environmentalists etc, have to put the good of the many ahead of the lives of a few. (organised animal hunts providing food for locals and money to preserve populations and manage the poaching - culling elephants - deer culls - preserving pandas - all are a toss up between human emotional input and the right decision for the populations as a whole)



I am an animal lover and massively pro-animal welfare, but as an educated ecologist I am no 'bunny-hugger',after all I kill animals to eat myself (and they were 'perfect' before I killed them) and I kill perfectly healthy animals to feed my snakes. It would be hypocritical of me to think it is wrong for people to suggest the the intergrades would be very useful for feeding animals that are ophiophagus rather than risk the gene pool. That does not make me a heartless nazi or a fascist, it makes me a realist.



Cheers

Andy

p.s. don't get me started on 'playing God' -Darwin, Wallace, Dawkins and Attenborough are the only real dieties! (IMO - no flaming please)

[VikkiGT4]

Personally I don't know how anyone could harm a living creature! I don't particularly like spiders but I won't kill them! Just scream til the other half comes running to the rescue

[woodsy]

keep them i personly like some hybrids and find them another branch of variation to the hobby!

[Rob6899]

it is a bit offensive to people of different faith and colour than ours to compare the people on that thread to "Nazi"'s and the "KKK"....
i don't think you can compare whats happening to a brood of snakes to what happened to the race's affected by the above.

Must be end of school time.

i do wish people would think before they type....

[TianRunty]

Originally Posted by Rob6899

it is a bit offensive to people of different faith and colour than ours to compare the people on that thread to "Nazi"'s and the "KKK"....
i don't think you can compare whats happening to a brood of snakes to what happened to the race's affected by the above.

Must be end of school time.

i do wish people would think before they type....

my point in referring to the KKK was because of the elitist attitude some seem to have taken on the other forum. some people came across like it was only because they were hybrids that they should be put to death, not because of the bigger ecological picture.
things like the KKK start with people who are narrow minded and then go on to bigger and more ignorant and deadly things, brood of snakes today, what next?

[fuzzielady]

Quite a hard topic this.

I agree with things like the panda's. If they were supposed to flourish they would naturally. Fair enough saving a species threatened with extinction (sp?) due to poachers but when the nature starts to wipe them out, or keep the numbers down, then that's just the way of the world. If they were meant to survive they would evolve or whatever lol.

With the snakes though. Seemingly if they were in the wild they could never have met. Fair enough I see that point. They are obviously passionate about this so why do they even have them. Should they not still be in the wild. Ok they might have CB but somewhere they had to come from WC. Don't we all have pets that started of in the wild though. Even taking them from their natural enviroment messes with what they would be in a million years. Our dogs apparently started as wolves if they ended up in the wild and "if" they survived that would surely mess up the gene pool, even if they ended up exactly where they were when they discovered humans were a free meal ticket, yet that would be where they came from. As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) no one bred 2 different species to get dogs. Yeah now we have lots of different breeds but I'm sure they all started from wolves. Back to the snakes though. If these 2 parent snakes belonged to different people that live reasonable close to each other. Both escaped, even 1yr apart, and met up. Same result and that would "dirty" the gene pool, surely snakes have escaped in areas they are not native to. At least the keeper is aware what has happened and can let any potential owners know. Don't think you could ever guarantee that they would never be bred from though. I would never cross breed dogs but if somehow my rottweiler bitch had pups to my springer would it be ok to cull the pups? (my dogs are all neutered but if they were entire) I don't think so. I would abviously rehome the pups as rottie springer crosses even if they somehow looked like they were pure rottie's, I know it would be obviously but if it wasn't. Again I could never guarantee they were never bred from.

At the end of the day though nature has a way of deciding what should live and what shouldn't. Like the panda's

So basically.

It may not be right that it happened but they are here now let them live. If they mess with natures plan then nature will deal with it along the line somewhere.


Oh and more importantly freezing is barbaric "if" for whatever reason they had to be euthanised surely there is a better way. Saying that I have heard of vets freezing reps

[Thrasops]

Originally Posted by bothrops

Glad to see some members of this forum are prepared to see the bigger picture. My faith is restored. I am all for emotional responses to animal welfare, but I also have to have my 'sensible hat' on as many things in animal conservation and protection (both captive and wild) are just not that black and white. Terms such as 'fascists' 'nazi's' and revenge freezing have no place in a discussion such as this.

I would argue that people trying to preserve giant panda's could be considered ecological fascists - who are we to decide that animal should be saved? It only feeds on one type of plant, that only grows at a certain altitude in a certain area of the planet. The female only comes into season for a few days every two years and it's milk is so nutritionally poor ('cos it only eats certain bamboo) that most infants die anyway. I would argue that the panda is an absolute evolutionary dead end. Adapt or die - that's the way of the world. Be preserving the frankly useless giant panda (ahh yes but it's sooo cute - ) we are stopping the niche being available for a new, better adapted or more adaptable animal taking it's place.



Just waffling now, but my point is simple - sometimes ecologists, conservationist's, animal lovers, herpetolgists, environmentalists etc, have to put the good of the many ahead of the lives of a few. (organised animal hunts providing food for locals and money to preserve populations and manage the poaching - culling elephants - deer culls - preserving pandas - all are a toss up between human emotional input and the right decision for the populations as a whole)

I am an animal lover and massively pro-animal welfare, but as an educated ecologist I am no 'bunny-hugger',after all I kill animals to eat myself (and they were 'perfect' before I killed them) and I kill perfectly healthy animals to feed my snakes. It would be hypocritical of me to think it is wrong for people to suggest the the intergrades would be very useful for feeding animals that are ophiophagus rather than risk the gene pool. That does not make me a heartless nazi or a fascist, it makes me a realist.

Okay, I accept your opinion and agree with most of what you posted (I'll overlook the God comment - religious beliefs have no place in this forum. Although you forgot to add Durrell to your iconoclastic list, who has at least as much right to be there as Attenborough IMO).


You make some perfectly valid points - as I posted earlier, I accept both sides of the argument, it is only the eventual fate of the snakes in question that concerns me...

But frankly as a qualified Zoologist I find that little rant about giant pandas a bit ridiculous... or at best only half the truth. Yes, pandas are habitat specialists. Yes, they rely on a few species of bamboo, around 20-30 of them in fact with less than 5 being preferred. And on top of that particular bamboo species all tend to die off at the same time in a given region.

Unfortunately in this case it is not just nature that has a hand in the (admittedly probably inevitable) extinction of this species... but us. Were it not for the rampant habitat destruction that has gone on in China, there would be more of the specific habitat pandas need. If all the bamboo dies out in one area, the pandas move to another, more bountiful area - they are semi-nomadic. So of course if there are no more places to feed because of OUR condominum and farming projects cluttering up the landscape to house the billion+ people now living in China, then the species will be affected because it cannot go on doing what it evolved to do - in this case roam much larger "home ranges" that take this particular trait of bamboo into consideration.

So yes, evolution has a way of getting rid of "dead ends"... but if it wasn't for us humans the giant panda wouldn't be quite as badly off as it is - it's time wasn't quite up yet.

In essence what you are saying is that we should ignore all habitat-specific species put under pressure by our actions? Why is that? Because the habitat isn't going to be there any more (usually, but not always, due to us?) I doubt many people would accept that idea (I certainly don't!). Then why stop there? Why bother caring for the environment at all? Why not make the whole world a tarmac and concrete trailer park with a huge shopping complex next to it?

We should hold at least a degree of responsibility for the world around us that we have already damaged so much and affect more and more every day. (I could add "for the future generations to enjoy" but frankly I think that view is also stupid - nature has got nothing to do with "human" wishes or enjoyment).

Anyway, if pandas were common as muck and running around everywhere, people would find some excuse to reduce their numbers. People forget that the animals we see as pests are the ones that are the best adapted to live adventitiously alongside us - rats, cockroaches, foxes, pigeons, etc. They are the best evolved to deal with the changes we impose on the environment, and (many) view them as vermin. So it doesn't work either way - people only care about the animals in danger, animals that are not in danger, however amazing and well-adapted they may be, are generally viewed in a bad light...

I realize that the topic has been taken off track a bit. And don't get me wrong, I'm not some ranting animal activist waving pamphlets in the street every day, far from it... I'm sitting on my backside in front of my computer at this moment... and I didn't mean to get so long-winded or antagonistic, as I said, I agree with the majority of your views but that particular comment got my goat a bit... although the rest of your post(s) are exemplary.

P.S. Remember that over here live feeding of vertebrates is viewed in a different light to in the U.S.

[bothrops]

Originally Posted by Thrasops

Okay, I accept your opinion and agree with most of what you posted (I'll overlook the God comment - religious beliefs have no place in this forum. Although you forgot to add Durrell to your iconoclastic list, who has at least as much right to be there as Attenborough IMO).


You make some perfectly valid points - as I posted earlier, I accept both sides of the argument, it is only the eventual fate of the snakes in question that concerns me...

But frankly as a qualified Zoologist I find that little rant about giant pandas a bit ridiculous... or at best only half the truth. Yes, pandas are habitat specialists. Yes, they rely on a few species of bamboo, around 20-30 of them in fact with less than 5 being preferred. And on top of that particular bamboo species all tend to die off at the same time in a given region.

Unfortunately in this case it is not just nature that has a hand in the (admittedly probably inevitable) extinction of this species... but us. Were it not for the rampant habitat destruction that has gone on in China, there would be more of the specific habitat pandas need. If all the bamboo dies out in one area, the pandas move to another, more bountiful area - they are semi-nomadic. So of course if there are no more places to feed because of OUR condominum and farming projects cluttering up the landscape to house the billion+ people now living in China, then the species will be affected because it cannot go on doing what it evolved to do - in this case roam much larger "home ranges" that take this particular trait of bamboo into consideration.

So yes, evolution has a way of getting rid of "dead ends"... but if it wasn't for us humans the giant panda wouldn't be quite as badly off as it is - it's time wasn't quite up yet.

In essence what you are saying is that we should ignore all habitat-specific species put under pressure by our actions? Why is that? Because the habitat isn't going to be there any more (usually, but not always, due to us?) I doubt many people would accept that idea (I certainly don't!). Then why stop there? Why bother caring for the environment at all? Why not make the whole world a tarmac and concrete trailer park with a huge shopping complex next to it?

We should hold at least a degree of responsibility for the world around us that we have already damaged so much and affect more and more every day. (I could add "for the future generations to enjoy" but frankly I think that view is also stupid - nature has got nothing to do with "human" wishes or enjoyment).

Anyway, if pandas were common as muck and running around everywhere, people would find some excuse to reduce their numbers. People forget that the animals we see as pests are the ones that are the best adapted to live adventitiously alongside us - rats, cockroaches, foxes, pigeons, etc. They are the best evolved to deal with the changes we impose on the environment, and (many) view them as vermin. So it doesn't work either way - people only care about the animals in danger, animals that are not in danger, however amazing and well-adapted they may be, are generally viewed in a bad light...

I realize that the topic has been taken off track a bit. And don't get me wrong, I'm not some ranting animal activist waving pamphlets in the street every day, far from it... I'm sitting on my backside in front of my computer at this moment... and I didn't mean to get so long-winded or antagonistic, as I said, I agree with the majority of your views but that particular comment got my goat a bit... although the rest of your post(s) are exemplary.

P.S. Remember that over here live feeding of vertebrates is viewed in a different light to in the U.S.

Couldn't agree more! I'm just the sort of guy who loves sticking wires into plug sockets just to see what happens (metaphorically of course!). I often use the panda as an example of many human's emotive response to conservation - I mean everyone wants to save pandas and tigers but very very few care about the massively endangered snails that London zoo do so much work with. I also would also like to clarify that I don't really hate panda's!

Of course the other arguement that we could add to the table (and yeah- I'm aware we are well off topic now but heyho). The arguement that humans are 'speeding things up' doesn't mean that is in anyway 'unnatural'. As (i believe) we are all products of millions and millions of years of natural selection, where only the fittest survive and those that don't become extinct, then nothing (and I mean nothing) can be considered 'unnatural'. Buildings, cars, powerstations, complete destruction of the habitats of others in order to support our own populations are all merely natural products of evolution. Other species must adapt or die. If this didn't happen and previous species in millenia past hadn't failed and died then the wonderful world we live i would be nothing like as diverse and phenomenal as it is. If the autotrophs hadn't arrived and wiped out 2/3 of life on earth (as at that time all organisms were obligate anaerobes and as such were poisoned by the oxygen produced by the first 'plants') then multicellular life wouldn't have had a chance. If the dinosaurs were not taken down a peg or two by whatever meteor or climatic 'disaster' befell them then the mammals wouldn't have had a chance to shine.


I don't for a second actually believe that the earth is ours to destroy and I fully appreciate that we have evolved conciousness and morals that mean we are doing what we are doing 'intentionally' and therefore it is absolutely wrong to continue to do it - but then you have to move on to controlling human populations and no matter how you play that one you will always end up as 'Hitler' due to the fact that someone would have to decide who lives and who dies (or doesn't get to reproduce).


As I said, please don't think I seriously think the world should be fully tarmaced and left for the roaches whilst we fly off and ruin another planet, but I can't help but wander what organisms we are denying the chance of existance by saving the bamboo noshing black eyed fur balls!

Cheers

Andy

p.s. - 1 - I didn't start the religion thing (and promise not to bring it up ever again and 2 - I completely agree I missed Durell off my list (and a few others besides!)

[Snake_Pliskin]

Originally Posted by Rob6899

it is a bit offensive to people of different faith and colour than ours to compare the people on that thread to "Nazi"'s and the "KKK"....
i don't think you can compare whats happening to a brood of snakes to what happened to the race's affected by the above.

Must be end of school time.

i do wish people would think before they type....

school was over and done with years ago.. as for offence.. lol.. i find your man utd avatar offensive. lmao.. law states we have freedom of thought and opinions/ expressions.. i see the views on these cross breed snakes as radical. and if you dont like my opinions.. well they are my opinions so tough i guess.