BLUE TONGUE SKINKS

This is related to all reptiles in general, so really belongs in the Off-Topic forum but I thought this might be a better place for it as it might bring out some strong feelings and opinions.

It seems that in the most commonly kept and bred reptile species, those with lots of various designer morphs, there ends up being one morph that is linked to neurological problems - basically, in the process of breeding for selected traits they uncovered or created (through mutation) some kind of genetic problem. Examples include stargazing in sunkissed corn snakes, the wobble or spinning in spider BPs, and star gazing in enigma leos (there are other examples, these are just the ones I'm most familiar with). In some cases, a reptile of those morphs is not affected at all. Others are mildly affected and some are so badly affected that they cannot feed themselves and are completely dependent. For the enigma leos, a grading system was created to determine how badly the individual was affected - it goes from 0 (no noticeable effects) to 6 (animal deceased or euthanized). Anything above 2 requires assisted feeding.

It seems people / breeders have very different reactions to this. In the case of star gazers corns, the people who first bred and discovered this problem are trying to prevent this from spreading and are against the breeding of star gazers. http://cccorns.com/SGinfo.php Many in the BP community take the opposite approach, arguing that spiders tend to be good feeders and it does not have a negative impact on the welfare of the animal (at least in milder cases). In some cases symptoms don't appear until later in life, so animals might be used as breeders and be seemingly fine but later present symptoms (at least that is the case with spiders).

So - for those of you at least somewhat familiar with these issues, what do you think? Is it ethical to sell and breed these animals? Should these neurological disorders be eliminated? Have we gone too far in our attempts to create designer reptiles when these issues start appearing?

Please discuss civilly and respect others opinions.

Edit to add this link - good video:
http://iansvivarium.com/morphs/species/ ... stargazer/
http://www.freewebs.com/grinninggecko/e ... estudy.htm

With enigma leopard geckos I thought it was circling. Because they would walk in circles and trip over themselves.

xxmonitorlizardxx wrote:With enigma leopard geckos I thought it was circling. Because they would walk in circles and trip over themselves.

A google search will answer your questions. I also just added a link with more info on enigmas. But it is a neurological condition that results in anything from star gazing to death roll type behavior. Please remember in the Advanced Discussion Forum that we want posts that contribute to the discussion - basic questions or clarification can usually be answered through a quick search.

It's hard for me to put myself in the position of people who are thinking about breeding such animals because I have no interest in breeding any species that has these issues.

I realize that people have "passions" for certain Genus/species of reptiles. I understand this completely because I am thouroughly addicted and passionate to/about Tiliqua. For me to answer the question, I have to imagine that one of the species of Tiliqua had one of these problems. If that were the case, I am pretty sure that my desire would be to find a way to produce the morph in question without the defect. If I decided to breed them, I would breed the animals, but not sell any of them until they reached whatever age it was that it could be confirmed that they had or didn't have the condition.

At that point, I would try breeding ONLY animals that did not show signs of the disorder. By doing this for a few generations, it is probably possible to get to the point where only healthy animals are being produced. It seems obvious to me that any other practice would be unethical.

This process would of course result in the production of many affected animals. In my opinion, this would be where the real ethics come in. What does the breeder do with all of these animals? In my opinion, the only two ethical options are: 1) keep them and care for them for as long as they live, and 2) euthanize them. Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if knowingly produced animals that would need to be culled, but the truth is, in the long run that would probably be the only way to eliminate the defective genes from the morph.

I don't think it would be worth continuing a "morph" that had health issues like this, but unfortunately, me not breeding a genetically defective morph would not stop others from doing it, especially when there is financial incentive. The question is: How many animals would you be willing to sacrifice in order to eliminate this kind of genetic defect? As far as I am concerned, anyone who is breeding such animals without the goal of eliminating the defect is acting unethically.

Jeff wrote:This process would of course result in the production of many affected animals. In my opinion, this would be where the real ethics come in. What does the breeder do with all of these animals? In my opinion, the only two ethical options are: 1) keep them and care for them for as long as they live, and 2) euthanize them. Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if knowingly produced animals that would need to be culled, but the truth is, in the long run that would probably be the only way to eliminate the defective genes from the morph.

I completely agree with this part - any kind of experimentation / breeding with affected reptiles would result in lots of affected offspring. I know that some of these affected species are being sold / given away as 'pets only', specifically not to be bred, but that involves a lot of trust. Definitely where the ethics come into play.

This whole thing seems a bit more clear cut in the case of the corns - it is a recessive gene, so either they have it or they don't. With the enigmas and spiders, it can appear anytime in life and to varying degrees of severity. Many people claim that all spider BPs have a wobble or at least behave differently from any other BP. This is why many believe that as long as the animal's welfare is not impacted (i.e. they can still eat) then it isn't an issue - just a 'quirk' of the morph.

I don't have time to type up a good response at the moment, but wanted to add this one to the list that Kat started:

http://www.turtlesale.com/home/index.ph ... ion-page-4

These are intentionally-bred two-headed red ear sliders, along with a no-eye slider (I'm fairly sure was also intentionally bred). For $ale!

I really don't understand how someone could do this! Breed this poor creature or buy it!

I think the turtles also present an ethical question, but I think it is a different one than the others. In the case of these turtles, if they are in fact intentionally bred for these traits, it is the genetic flaw that is actually desired, where as in the case of the other animals the flaw is not wanted. The animals are bred in spite of knowing that the flaw is going to occur in a certain percentage of the offspring.

I'm not sure if one practice is worse than the other, but in the case of the turtles, the breeder WANTS the defect, and in the other cases the breeder does NOT want the defect.

I don't think it is quite possible to select for two headedness in the case of those turtles-its likely they are simply picked from the many thousands of hatchlings.


I think that many of the morphs it will be pretty much impossible to eliminate such traits...at least while breeding for the morph. As one of those people with no interest in morphs whatsoever you can guess my stance on ones with neurological problems.

I personally feel that reptiles are not just living art-although I can see the fascination for creating something and playing genetic lottery. I feel reptiles in captivity should resemble their wild brethren enough that people will consider the species real place under the sun. With morphs, this realization seems to be lacking.

im against it,theres a prob with this in australia with carpet pythons,the probs dont always show up at hatching but develop as they grow,its for a morph that costs a bit,problem is some folk breed to make money,so they care more about the profits than the animals in question,and with folk investing money in these animals,to one day hope to breed them and recoup there money we will see more and more of these problems

Try googling information about "Jaguar" morphs in Carpet Pythons . No-one has been able to successfully separate through breeding , the neuro problem from the co-dominant gene that creates the funky patterns .

The biggest ethics issue for these 'Jag" breeders in Australia is what they do with the siblings of the jags they have produced . In all cases they are nothing more than subspecies crosses ( mongrels if you like ) and shouldn't be released into the wider herp keepers gene pool. Most keepers are euthanising these sibs. Not a very nice look for herpers in general ! ( neither is the cork screwing carpets )

As for Blueys , the morph scene is gaining momentum . The only rumour I have heard in relation to any bluey morphs , is that the Albinos suffer a little from lack of libido and fertility .

Cheers

spot on rory,but albino blueys dont like light either,hurts there eyes,but they do fine in lower light conditions,another issue in aus has been albino bearded dragons,they cant see there prey and need to be hand fed,most end up dieing before they are one,the majority long before that,is breeding for this trait ethical

Unfortunately the reptile world is full of salubrious types who simply mill animals for money. I remember years ago a friend responding to an advert we went for a drive to a house that was set up with six caravans out the back - wall to wall, stinking mess of tiny cages full of snakes - they are just treated like growing drugs, except legal. Of course the more inbred and predictable the babies are - the more money you can make. That world is an ethics free zone.

I don't agree with indiscrimate breeding of any animal (including humans). DH wants me to breed blotchies from Barnum & Bailey so 'we' (meaning 'he') can sell blotchies and get 'our' (meaning 'my') money back from the expenses of electricity, food, cages etc. He also suggested I could sell Barnum & Bailey as a breeding pair. Well for a start I wouldn't part with either of them and Barnum has such an interesting personality. She's quite assertive ! Bailey is a sweetie when he's not looking for girl skinks.
Having animals is a responsibility, and to breed just for money is unethical in my view (I think I've just said that )

As a ball python owner, of several morphs including spiders, I think I can contribute here. I've also worked with breeding fancy rats - a fun project if you're able to get into it; what you learn regarding genetics and breeding is invaluable.

In regards to the spider gene in particular, that seems to be a weak neurological gene that was amplified due to inbreeding. When it comes to morphs, you're selectively narrowing the available genes the animal has to work with so that the genes you want are expressed the most. Unfortunately for spiders, this means that along with the spider trait, if they are linebred for too many generations the neurological problems are expressed more and more. There are fewer dominant, healthy genes to override the problem of the weak, neurologically damaged genes.
Does this make sense? It can be hard to explain.

I feel that breeding spiders in and of itself is not "wrong" or unethical - if you have a responsible breeding program and select strong individuals and line/inbreed carefully, you can effectively eliminate the wobble. I have three spiders, and only one has a minor wobble - it expresses only when she is extremely stressed. Interestingly, along with the spider trait seems to come other genetic boons. They grow faster, eat more readily, and in every other way thrive better than a normal ball python. This aspect of their genetic makeup is priceless. I feel that this may be true for many other genetically problematic animals; their problems are likely to be fixed by diversifying their available gene pool.
What does present a problem is when people inbreed too many consecutive generations. When you breed a daughter back to her father, which is also her half brother, you have narrowed the available gene pool to a very small selection, and resulting offspring are likely to be much weaker than if you had bred an unrelated snake that was the exact same morph back to that animal.

I think that unfortunately, far too many people get into breeding, and breeding expensive animals for money, without any grasp of genetics or responsible breeding. I treat my animals like I've seen friends treating their groups of show quality dogs or cats; other breeders with quality animals tend to do the same. It's not as easy as putting the yellow animal with the funky patterned one and hatching out crazy babies, there's a whole underlying aspect of genetics that goes hand in hand with it.

It's a complex question with a complex answer. Good one, though!

Thanks hurricanejen - it is nice to hear from someone who has actually worked with some of these!

It comes down to a simple formula in my opinion...

Breeding + Morphs = $$$$

$$$$ + ethics = who cares about the animals

Not all morph breeders are after the $$$$ there are plenty that are just trying to make pretty specimens. Where it breaks down is the consumer, if there are people out there willing to pay top $$$$ for obviously genetically deficient specimen just cause their "pretty"; then there will be people that are willing to breed these for the $$$$ (regardless of ethics). In the animal trade ethics has a price it always has and always will (sadly).

I think it all comes down to whether or not the trait will be maladaptive to the species. In the case of those albino bearded dragons, that IS maladaptive as they are sight hunters, so not being able to see their prey means they would starve without help. In the case of spider ball pythons, as long as one breeds carefully, as hurricanejen stated, the wobble can be reduced or even eliminated and does not on the long run affect the animal's ability to function.

I owned a spider BP myself, with the intention of breeding for Bees, and made absolutely sure when shopping around that I got one with a good bloodline from a trusted breeder. She had only the tinniest wobble when she got excited as a little one, and actually grew out of it over about a year.

When people actually do the research, and care about the animals, the negative effects are lessened and breeding can be seen to be ethical. When all they care about is the money...which seems to be happening more and more often now...and they ignore serious problems just to get that extra buck, it gets very UNethical.