Reptile Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Anyone seen to be swearing at or slating someone for their opinion/thoughts/methods, will be reported as will suggestions of inhumane methods of PTS without first consulting a vet.

This is a highly interesting subject for me, and thought others would too find it so.

After a discussion with Crestie Chris last night joking how one of my eggs are so huge, there could be twins in there, we realised it's rare, but not unheard of so did a search and came up with some disturbing, yet interesting occurences. Before I ask how far would you take it before you would consider PTS, please consider the following. I will not add pictures due to copyright, and some are quite disturbing. What we found was conjoined twins, usually with some organs still out, this one lasted 30 minutes according to the breeder. We found one with a deformed jaw, which passed away due to mouth rot, and mouldy CGD in it's mouth, but I have seen plenty of what we all tend to refer to as "special lizards" and they manage with blindness, lacking a leg or two, no tail, MBD, no hearing..

Now, I will put my opinion as this:

I have a hatchling that arrives with less limbs, twins (not conjoined)/blind or missing an eye for example, you could call these minor disabilities maybe, depending on how you feel about the subject. First thing I would do is call my vet, ask some advice and try to book an appointmen to get the hatchling checked the moment I noticed something was different. IF all organs were there and functioning, the gecko could eat and breathe alone, shed well enough without too much aid, and the vet was happy with the well being of the gecko, I would let nature choose. So, basically, he would get the same treatment as other hatchlings and I would keep this one if it was a one off.

I WOULD ONLY KEEP IT IF THE VET COULD GIVE ME A HEADS UP IT WAS NOT GENETIC OR LIKELY TO BE A COMMON OCCURENCE.

If anything worse was to happen than the above stated, I would not hesitate to have it PTS. I believe a badly deformed jaw will cause big problems for example, conjoined twins, this has obviously gone wrong, again, PTS for me.

I have to add though, if it seemed any hatchling was under the weather and not likely to last I would prefer to PTS via a vets opinion rather than make that gecko suffer because I want to make it live and play god. That is not what it is about, it is about the well being of the animal.

One other thing I will add, is I would retire both parents, as I would not want to risk it again, if it was a severe deformity especially. This begs the question as to what do you do with other hatchlings?

Would you sell them on and allow them to be bred? I like to believe, a lot of the time, these things "just" happen, and it's usually a "one off" occurence, but am I naive to assume that? What if it's a sign of things in a genetic way? Without going down that route too much, I still think I would sell the other hatchlings dependant on the deformity of their sibling, and if it was only one out of say 12. If there was more than one, I think I'd be stuck as to what to do?

This is my opinion, still a little staggered but I would not think twice about PTS if the hatchling looked terribly mishapen, deformed, or in pain.

I would love to hear yours. :)

Thanks for reading,

Jac
 

·
I am here to annoy you :)
Joined
·
6,588 Posts
I agree about the slating etc, shame half posters here dont allow others their opinions.

Anyhow this is my opinion, if I had a deformed pet, dependant on the deformity if it cant be fixed or just be a nuicence to the animal I would have to put it down, there is no life for a badly deformed pet, it doesnt justify a nice life for them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I agree about the slating etc, shame half posters here dont allow others their opinions.
Well I like to learn, and to discuss, and there are some amazingly knowledgeable people on here. Nevertheless, slating and rudeness will be reported.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. A blatantly inhumane and horribly painful PTS, un-advised by a vet though, will be reported.

Cocky Royals said:
Anyhow this is my opinion, if I had a deformed pet, dependant on the deformity if it cant be fixed or just be a nuicence to the animal I would have to put it down, there is no life for a badly deformed pet, it doesnt justify a nice life for them.
That's a good point, if it is a pet, and a lizard is born with no legs, I would actually have it PTS. I think there has to be a line, but it's a large grey area.
 

·
I am here to annoy you :)
Joined
·
6,588 Posts
I suppose it would actually be up to the owner of the pet, if they could justify to themselves about said deformity and they could live with it then I suppose that would be fine, but having said that, there is a fact that the pet would have to be hand reared, dependant (again) on said deformity.
I myself cant justify hand rearing a pet for the rest of its life. Cant be much fun.
 
G

·
It is a very interesting subject thanks for taking the time to post it. For me the quality of life is my first thought, for example if the hatchling has a deformed leg which slightly impaired its ability to climb then I would most likely do everything I could for it to help it live a happy healthy life but I would never sell it on to anyone else. But on the other hand if it was a severe deformity where it had to be force fed etc then I would most likely PTS as it would just be causing unnecessary stress to the animal. One of the most interesting points you raised was about having one hatchling deformed and unsure what to do with the rest, I don't know about the genetics of this, as far as I know deformities can be caused by a random mutation which could mean that the deformity is isolated to the deformed individual. Personally I would keep the deformed individual and hold back the clutchmates for a reasonable amount of time to see if it affected them.

Very good thread, thanks for sharing and I look forward to reading others responses :)

Chris

For those interested here are some threads we looked at: (Warning some of these pictures/videos may upset some people)
http://www.pangeareptile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31257
http://www.pangeareptile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28761
http://ciliatus.com/forums/index.php?topic=4707.0;prev_next=prev
http://www.pangeareptile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28878
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-8CW8KBoY0
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It is a very interesting subject thanks for taking the time to post it. For me the quality of life is my first thought, for example if the hatchling has a deformed leg which slightly impaired its ability to climb then I would most likely do everything I could for it to help it live a happy healthy life but I would never sell it on to anyone else. But on the other hand if it was a severe deformity where it had to be force fed etc then I would most likely PTS as it would just be causing unnecessary stress to the animal. One of the most interesting points you raised was about having one hatchling deformed and unsure what to do with the rest, I don't know about the genetics of this, as far as I know deformities can be caused by a random mutation which could mean that the deformity is isolated to the deformed individual. Personally I would keep the deformed individual and hold back the clutchmates for a reasonable amount of time to see if it affected them.

Very good thread, thanks for sharing and I look forward to reading others responses :)

Chris
Some very valid points there. As for the genetics side, you know how much it interests me and how I like to keep my knowledge fresh. Thanks to a few people on here mainly, I understand some of the genetics, and have some theories as to why some genetic mutations or disabilities may occur, but I think your point about holding onto the hatchlings and monitoring their growth, their limbs and behaviour etc, is highly valid. It is good practice. I just wouldn't forgive myself for selling juveniles that possibly could pass on a gene that may well have caused the deformity in the first place, as it is up to us as responsible breeders/keepers to try to look after the crested gecko in captivity.

This then brings me to the quote in my signature. I do strongly believe that breeding for example a crested gecko with FTS, which has not been proved to be genetic, but many ideas point towards it possibly being hereditary, is a very bad idea as it boils down to bone density.

So, if you were to breed a gecko that had been born only with three legs, but did not exhibit any other reduced fitness, would you breed it? I wouldn't.

There is no way of knowing if it is genetic. But this thread is about PTS of the hatchling being born with reduced physical ability.. It all comes under the same discussion for me.

Crestie Chris said:
Thanks for that Chris! Great idea to post them, but I agree, some quite disturbing, yet very interesting pictures.
 
G

·
Some very valid points there. As for the genetics side, you know how much it interests me and how I like to keep my knowledge fresh. Thanks to a few people on here mainly, I understand some of the genetics, and have some theories as to why some genetic mutations or disabilities may occur, but I think your point about holding onto the hatchlings and monitoring their growth, their limbs and behaviour etc, is highly valid. It is good practice. I just wouldn't forgive myself for selling juveniles that possibly could pass on a gene that may well have caused the deformity in the first place, as it is up to us as responsible breeders/keepers to try to look after the crested gecko in captivity.

This then brings me to the quote in my signature. I do strongly believe that breeding for example a crested gecko with FTS, which has not been proved to be genetic, but many ideas point towards it possibly being hereditary, is a very bad idea as it boils down to bone density.

So, if you were to breed a gecko that had been born only with three legs, but did not exhibit any other reduced fitness, would you breed it? I wouldn't.

I am with you 100% any sign of it being either physically or genetically unfit then they would remain a pet only, the same reason why I would never sell such an animal. You can try your hardest to sell it as a pet but who is to say the buyer will listen to you, or worse still the crestie could be sold on and on to the point where the end owner has no idea of its reduced genetic fitness

There is no way of knowing if it is genetic. But this thread is about PTS of the hatchling being born with reduced physical ability.. It all comes under the same discussion for me.



Thanks for that Chris! Great idea to post them, but I agree, some quite disturbing, yet very interesting pictures.
This thread raises some very good points and I am very interested to hear if anybody knows of the genetic side of the argument

Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,830 Posts
Great post, as you know from previous threads i too have a thirst for knowledge.

I feel this is a decision that can only be made by the breeder and we may have different reactions when put in that possition ourselves.

My personal thoughts would be deformed hatchlings would go to the vet and quality of future life looked at, disability i would nurture, deformity i would PTS.

The genetic side of it with siblings/parents i would ofc look into and if it wasnt a 1 off within a certain line i as working on retire the parents as you say without a second thought.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
In a quite general point to answer the question you have posed, I consider any reduced fitness trait to be negative and as such the animal becomes a genetic and reproductive 'dead end'. For this reason it is my sincere belief that all reduced fitness animals, regardless of condition, produced by me will be PTS. I see no reason to keep them. Quality of life in this sense (this is the important bit), is a concept which I don't fully agree with. How do you quantify 'quality of life' in a reduced fitness animal without anthropomorphising the situation?

Interestingly there 'could' be some caveats to that, for example: Do you consider albinism a reduced fitness character? In E. macularius alone we have three distinct forms of albinism, each with differing tolerance to UVB (and daylight), both of which are realistically essential for body function (calcium metabolism in particular). Is this really reduced fitness? The answer has to be yes. Is sensitivity to UVB a heritable trait? The answer is unknown but very likely to be yes. Would I breed an individual with this type of sensitivity? NO.

This exact situation probably presents itself to many members on here daily, and is something that is really not well understood. The fact that these animals without intervention would either not synthesize calcium OR would suffer from damage to the eyes as a direct consequence of doing so, means that their survival would be seriously impaired. Food for thought.

On a similar note, I do not consider colour and pattern variation a reduced fitness character in captivity. It is clearly arguable that in the 'wild' this would not be the case.

In terms of the causes of deformity, I think this is much more interesting, and certainly goes some way towards appeasing the problem of what to do with seemingly unaffected siblings. There are a great many causes of deformities in an organism, and these include (in no particular order):

- Reduced fitness traits due to inbreeding.
- Vitamin deficiency in the parents.
- Non-heritable developmental mutations.
- Damage to the egg.

There are of course others, but these are likely those you will hear most about. The types of conditions the links show, and you refer to in the original post fall squarely into two categories for me:

- Vitamin deficiencies: Certain compounds are clearly required in the developing embryo, and a deficit of these compounds will result in either embryo termination, or sub-standard development. A common case often seen in Eublepharids is sub-standard eye, and eye lid development. Often leading to blindness.
In situations like this, there are two ways to look at other offspring:
1) All offspring which hatch phenotypically unaffected, are likely unaffected (I say likely as these types of problems can often be difficult to spot)
2) All other EGGS are at equal risk, assuming supplementation regime did not change significantly between clutches.

- Should the parents be retired? Tough choice, but likely husbandry is the cause, and NOT a major problem with the animals reproductive strategy. Opinions will vary however.

- Non-heritable developmental mutations: Most people assume that when they see an animal with limbs missing (or similar) that this is an "inbred animal", however this is not really what I consider a reduced fitness trait (in honesty, it is a NO fitness trait). These types of conditions are likely caused by an error (mutation or otherwise) in the development of the animal, where vital parts of the process are interrupted or not performed correctly.
What are the implications for the siblings? Well unaffected sibling (which show no associated phenotypes) are likely unaffected genetically due to the process by which these things occur.

There is of course a shadow over both of these factors, and that is of course that the parents may be suffering from reduced fitness (due in part to becoming homozygous for detrimental recessive alleles) which effectively mediate vitamin utilization or key developmental processes in the next generation...
Is it possible to address this question on a broad scale? Probably not. The risk we run in small captive populations is one of fixing negative traits. IF you remove ALL animals which are either non-phenotypic heterozygotes or phenotypic homozygotes for any negative character, then the number of 'breeders' will reduce exponentially...


Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,581 Posts
In a quite general point to answer the question you have posed, I consider any reduced fitness trait to be negative and as such the animal becomes a genetic and reproductive 'dead end'. For this reason it is my sincere belief that all reduced fitness animals, regardless of condition, produced by me will be PTS.
I agree with this theory, and have always found it a bit worrying and distasteful that there seems to be a kind of 'kudos' on this forum (and possibly others, I do not use them so don't know) given to people who keep deformed animals, regardless of what the quality of life is likely to be.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Great post, as you know from previous threads i too have a thirst for knowledge.

I feel this is a decision that can only be made by the breeder and we may have different reactions when put in that possition ourselves.

My personal thoughts would be deformed hatchlings would go to the vet and quality of future life looked at, disability i would nurture, deformity i would PTS.

The genetic side of it with siblings/parents i would ofc look into and if it wasnt a 1 off within a certain line i as working on retire the parents as you say without a second thought.
See I was stuck between the "it's got a deformity, PTS" is a good thing and fair to the species because it wouldn't happen in the wild, and it's not fair to give an animal a chance when it is going to struggle it's whole life, and the argument that well if mother nature chooses it to live, it should live, you bred it, your responsibility.

To be blatantly honest, I really do think that I would consider PTS on a deformed animal, or reduced fitness purely because there are enough healthy specimens out there that need re-homing etc. It's a difficult one, and until I am in that position, I struggle to say what I would do, but I hope I would do the right thing for the animal, and unfortunately to a lot of peoples beliefs and thoughts, it would most probably be PTS.

I too have had twins
they would never ever of survived for long though, by the time they had try to hatch they died.

disturbing photo you do NOT HAVE to look at it

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc71/freekygeeky/crested geckos/CRESTIE.jpg
That is sad, but it wasn't meant to be. TBH I can't see twins surviving in such a small egg.

Thanks for the picture, was informative.

I agree with this theory, and have always found it a bit worrying and distasteful that there seems to be a kind of 'kudos' on this forum (and possibly others, I do not use them so don't know) given to people who keep deformed animals, regardless of what the quality of life is likely to be.
See, now I am very against keeping an animal alive and playing god. For example, if an animal suffers horrendous MBD, twisted spine, deformed jaw and FTS, and struggles to eat for itself, I honestly would get it PTS. It's not fair., but this is my opinion.

But, if it has had a mild case of MBD, and it's your pet for life and it can breathe, feed, move about fine by itself with a vets approval, I see no harm in this. I have two animals I will not breed from, they are pets. Both have been given the go ahead to breed, but why would I when I am a big believer that certain issues raised with MBD, FTS and others may possibly be hereditary, they are pets and are fine.

Like I said above, I am currently stuck in a position as to whether it would be humane of me to PTS a gecko if it hatches deformed, but exhibits no other problems.

We do not just keep these animals to breed, ok, some people keep them to study, and breed, but mine are pets, so this is where two opinions will differ I think.

I do however agree, that by "rescuing" a gecko that is emaciated, heavily MBD, or badly going downhill, I would not think twice about PTS.

That is one thing that annoys me the most, "rescuing" is used in the wrong way by some, and an emaciated gecko that will not eat and has to be force fed for the rest of it's life, what sort of a life is that? Again, no offence, this is just my opinion.

Jac
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,536 Posts
I'm not sure on this one how I would react, I think severe disability/deformity I would take to a vets and have pts. for example had I had the following hatch I would of probably took to vets and had it pts
YouTube - My two-headed dragon eating!

yet it states that the lizard is about 3 mth old. After watching this video last week I was shocked to see it. I don't think it's a very good life even watching the poor little thing one wants to go after one bug the other wants to go another way. In my opinion this is cruel and should have been pts as a hatcling.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
In a quite general point to answer the question you have posed, I consider any reduced fitness trait to be negative and as such the animal becomes a genetic and reproductive 'dead end'. For this reason it is my sincere belief that all reduced fitness animals, regardless of condition, produced by me will be PTS. I see no reason to keep them. Quality of life in this sense (this is the important bit), is a concept which I don't fully agree with. How do you quantify 'quality of life' in a reduced fitness animal without anthropomorphising the situation?
This is a very valid point. But I will state that in my previous post, I mentioned some keep certain species for research, and for breeding. In this instance, I am 100% in agreement with you. And the pairs I have bred, if any of the offspring exhibit reduced fitness, or deformity, then, again as stated above, I am slowly coming to the idea that there is no point if it so bad, I would have to keep intervening, to "force it to have life". The pairs would also be retired and kept as pets.

Some people though purely keep them as pets, and a lot "rescue". I use speech marks, as I have varied opinions on this and although I respect some people for doing a great job, so many abuse the term, and make me wonder, why don't they just get them PTS, they have no clue.

I am talking about hatchlings though, if born like it (i.e. Deformed, MBD, twisted, twins) It IS a reduced fitness trait and I notice below you describe good reason to not necessarily resort to PTS on everything, as it CAN be a "one off".

GlasgowGecko said:
Interestingly there 'could' be some caveats to that, for example: Do you consider albinism a reduced fitness character? In E. macularius alone we have three distinct forms of albinism, each with differing tolerance to UVB (and daylight), both of which are realistically essential for body function (calcium metabolism in particular). Is this really reduced fitness? The answer has to be yes. Is sensitivity to UVB a heritable trait? The answer is unknown but very likely to be yes. Would I breed an individual with this type of sensitivity? NO.
Now this is interesting. I have always been cautious of breeding albino "anything". I personally wouldn't. For example you explain that it causes risks when UV and sunlight are involved. For example, this may be a naive statement, but would you honestly find an albino Royal Python in the wild? Maybe you might as they live in caves and underground dwellings, but surely natural selection means that in some cases, the albino does not survive.

This brings me onto a scaleless corn snake, a leather back bearded dragon. I may be swinging off the course here, but why would this be different, these are desired traits to appeal to the public and admit it, to make money in some cases. Again, no offence, this is my opinion. I personally don't find them attractive. Yet am I a hypocrite because I breed certain morphs of Crested Geckos for their traits, strong head, good bone strucure, healthy weight and also colours? I am sure that respective breeders do pick the strongest, healthiest to breed these new traits, but I'm just not sure about it. Would it, or could it happen in the wild?

GlasgowGecko said:
This exact situation probably presents itself to many members on here daily, and is something that is really not well understood. The fact that these animals without intervention would either not synthesize calcium OR would suffer from damage to the eyes as a direct consequence of doing so, means that their survival would be seriously impaired. Food for thought.

On a similar note, I do not consider colour and pattern variation a reduced fitness character in captivity. It is clearly arguable that in the 'wild' this would not be the case.
Ok the above kind of highlights some of my points aboce, but some interesting information. I am sure Albino is a reduced fitness, as is a scaleless corn snake. Again, I am happy to be proven wrong, as that is what this discussion is about, but again, it's just my opinion.

GlasgowGecko said:
In terms of the causes of deformity, I think this is much more interesting, and certainly goes some way towards appeasing the problem of what to do with seemingly unaffected siblings. There are a great many causes of deformities in an organism, and these include (in no particular order):

- Reduced fitness traits due to inbreeding.
- Vitamin deficiency in the parents.
- Non-heritable developmental mutations.
- Damage to the egg.

There are of course others, but these are likely those you will hear most about. The types of conditions the links show, and you refer to in the original post fall squarely into two categories for me:

- Vitamin deficiencies: Certain compounds are clearly required in the developing embryo, and a deficit of these compounds will result in either embryo termination, or sub-standard development. A common case often seen in Eublepharids is sub-standard eye, and eye lid development. Often leading to blindness.
In situations like this, there are two ways to look at other offspring:
1) All offspring which hatch phenotypically unaffected, are likely unaffected (I say likely as these types of problems can often be difficult to spot)
2) All other EGGS are at equal risk, assuming supplementation regime did not change significantly between clutches.

- Should the parents be retired? Tough choice, but likely husbandry is the cause, and NOT a major problem with the animals reproductive strategy. Opinions will vary however.

- Non-heritable developmental mutations: Most people assume that when they see an animal with limbs missing (or similar) that this is an "inbred animal", however this is not really what I consider a reduced fitness trait (in honesty, it is a NO fitness trait). These types of conditions are likely caused by an error (mutation or otherwise) in the development of the animal, where vital parts of the process are interrupted or not performed correctly.
What are the implications for the siblings? Well unaffected sibling (which show no associated phenotypes) are likely unaffected genetically due to the process by which these things occur.

There is of course a shadow over both of these factors, and that is of course that the parents may be suffering from reduced fitness (due in part to becoming homozygous for detrimental recessive alleles) which effectively mediate vitamin utilization or key developmental processes in the next generation...
Is it possible to address this question on a broad scale? Probably not. The risk we run in small captive populations is one of fixing negative traits. IF you remove ALL animals which are either non-phenotypic heterozygotes or phenotypic homozygotes for any negative character, then the number of 'breeders' will reduce exponentially...


Andy
That last paragraph really helped me to understand on how I would choose to have a hatchling PTS or not, and whether to have its siblings PTS, retire its parents etc. I will be reading that with more to say later on.

Thanks very much for the input Andy.

Jac
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
This is a very valid point. But I will state that in my previous post, I mentioned some keep certain species for research, and for breeding. In this instance, I am 100% in agreement with you. And the pairs I have bred, if any of the offspring exhibit reduced fitness, or deformity, then, again as stated above, I am slowly coming to the idea that there is no point if it so bad, I would have to keep intervening, to "force it to have life". The pairs would also be retired and kept as pets.
My stance on what I consider fair practice when dealing with reduced fitness animals, really has no bearings on breeding. It all stems from the fact that, as I mentioned: How do you quantify "quality of life" without humanizing both the condition, and the animal?

We see daily adverts saying "special gecko for rehoming", why? Surely If the animals traits prevent it from feeding itself or for that matter performing all tasks equally as well as an unaffected animal, then why save it? I suspect you know that my 'moral' stance is a little different to others on these types of matters, but I have never heard a particularly convincing argument which would persuade me otherwise.

Furthermore, it is inevitable that reduced fitness animals will be bred when they are rehomed. This is unlikely to be deliberate, but more likely to due to the absence of valid information. We have to consider the future of each species in captivity, and keeping animals that pose risk to future generations seems odd.



Now this is interesting. I have always been cautious of breeding albino "anything". I personally wouldn't. For example you explain that it causes risks when UV and sunlight are involved. For example, this may be a naive statement, but would you honestly find an albino Royal Python in the wild? Maybe you might as they live in caves and underground dwellings, but surely natural selection means that in some cases, the albino does not survive.
It is important to note that NOT all albino individuals (or strains) have issues with UV light. Furthermore it is also important to make a distinction between 'fitness' in the 'wild' and captive 'fitness'. Cryptic camouflage in the 'wild' is important to all individuals, and not having it constitutes reduced fitness. In captivity this pressure is removed, and so the animal is no longer less able to survive. All 'fitness' characters are environment specific.

This brings me onto a scaleless corn snake, a leather back bearded dragon. I may be swinging off the course here, but why would this be different, these are desired traits to appeal to the public and admit it, to make money in some cases. Again, no offence, this is my opinion. I personally don't find them attractive. Yet am I a hypocrite because I breed certain morphs of Crested Geckos for their traits, strong head, good bone strucure, healthy weight and also colours? I am sure that respective breeders do pick the strongest, healthiest to breed these new traits, but I'm just not sure about it. Would it, or could it happen in the wild?



Ok the above kind of highlights some of my points aboce, but some interesting information. I am sure Albino is a reduced fitness, as is a scaleless corn snake. Again, I am happy to be proven wrong, as that is what this discussion is about, but again, it's just my opinion.
Well up to this point I have seen no evidence to suggest that the reduced scale animals have any associated reduced fitness. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction for this. I think it is VERY important to really delimit exactly WHAT you consider to be reduced fitness, and how you measure it.

For example, some 'Enigma' leopard geckos showed severe reduction in fitness, with a possible link to calcium metabolism. This fully affected their ability to eat, and in the long run, the way they utilize calcium. This condition IS serious. However, a reduced scale snake has an odd phenotype, but still eats, evacuates, sheds and reproduces normally (as far as I am aware), is this reduced fitness?


Again, the point has to be: How do you measure reduced fitness? And this directly relates to the environment it is living in. In reality (or mine at least) this excludes most common morphs, regardless of the fact they would not survive in the 'wild'.

Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,196 Posts
Now this is interesting. I have always been cautious of breeding albino "anything". I personally wouldn't. For example you explain that it causes risks when UV and sunlight are involved. For example, this may be a naive statement, but would you honestly find an albino Royal Python in the wild? Maybe you might as they live in caves and underground dwellings, but surely natural selection means that in some cases, the albino does not survive.

This brings me onto a scaleless corn snake, a leather back bearded dragon. I may be swinging off the course here, but why would this be different, these are desired traits to appeal to the public and admit it, to make money in some cases. Again, no offence, this is my opinion. I personally don't find them attractive. Yet am I a hypocrite because I breed certain morphs of Crested Geckos for their traits, strong head, good bone strucure, healthy weight and also colours? I am sure that respective breeders do pick the strongest, healthiest to breed these new traits, but I'm just not sure about it. Would it, or could it happen in the wild?
Your points are interesting. In respect to albino animals though can it be seen as reduced fitness in captivity? If these albino royals were being released into the wild then it would be a serious problem with UV exposure and lack of camouflage but in captivity husbandry can be altered slightly and said snake/reptile will still lead the same life as a reptile of the same species.

Your points on breeding for money is, in my opinion, a moot point though as ALL of the pet industry is for money. Even your animals designated as pets have made someone a profit down the line and the whole pet industry is there for a profit (supply and demand etc). I also believe that the 'god' argument seems a bit of a moot point aswell, since surely taking animals from the wild and keeping them, breeding them etc, is also a form of playing god?

My overall point though is ''What is reduced fitness?''. How do we draw the line on when an animal should be PTS? You can take it to alot of extremes(Hitler comes to mind with his views on a perfect aryan race).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,196 Posts
Glasgow gecko has beaten me to the point.... damn you! :bash:

I Guess I must graciously leave now as the faster typer has shown himself :notworthy::Na_Na_Na_Na:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,203 Posts
this has always been a difficult question to answer, i suspect most people dont offer thier opinions becuase as soon they as they do they get jumped on by rabid caresheet keyboard warriors who disagree with thier decisions, re albinism etc i dont see that has a place in this question, thier captive, everything from the animals birth to its death is artificial and artificially maintained, if food wasnt offered under thier nose, water at thier toe tips who knows what other unseen issues would cause the animal to fail, you wouldnt, we dont, thier captive, artificially maintained and i suppose it comes down to how far will you extend this maintenance to keep an animal going whatever its issues, be it pigment or otherwise.

a normal leo which needs no extra attention is not necessarily a leo that is as healthy as its wild counterpart, it doesnt have to hunt or seek water or survive the stresses or being chased as food becuase it is artificially maintained at a level thier keeper is ok with, another keeper may feel equally ok with a higher level of maintenance that a deformed jaw leo requires. once captive the idea of "would it survive in the wild" is irrelevant, what is relevant is solely the opinions of the carer, and what that carer believes is right for them and thier captives, i have put animals down because in my opinion it was best for the animal, in another keepers hands they may have made a different decision and some of those animals may still be alive today.

i had a cornsnake that had no eyes, some keepers would have pts instantly upon hatching, that is thier choice and thier right as the owner and carer and thier choice would not have been wrong becuase only thier opinions is what matters, i choose to keep that animal going, i was comfortable with the maintenance level it required, would it have survived in the wild?, no, but it wasnt born in the wild and so that played no part in my decision to keep it alive, this animal continued to refuse food and had to be constantly force feed, it was at this point i choose to end its life, did i consult a vet, no, i saw no point, all he would have done is noted is was eyeless and thefore deformed, not normal, i already knew that. another keeper may have been ok with force feeding blinky (i called it blinky) to the point where it could very well have started on its own and could have survived to this day, i as blinkys owner choose a different path, both mine and this other possible keepers choices were correct, ultimately the carer has say over their charges life and death and u should not feel guilty because another keeper would have chosen differently. you are your animals carer what u decide is what's important, what you decide is correct, if joe bloggs on joe blogg.net says he wouldnt have done so and so, well thats fine, let joe decide on his animals not urs, you make ur decisions on what you feel and believe is the right thing to do, after all you are the one holding blinky in ur hand and u are the one that has to live with ur choices, it easy for joe bloggs to judge because mr bloggs isn't in ur shoes.

rgds
ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,196 Posts
Sorry Loxocemus but could you please paragraph your post?

I dont mean to sound demeaning but I would like to read your post and its just a bit of an eye sore right now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,203 Posts
hope thats a little better on ur eyes :)

Sorry Loxocemus but could you please paragraph your post?

I dont mean to sound demeaning but I would like to read your post and its just a bit of an eye sore right now!
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top