I know it’s been over a year, but I would really, really like some clarification from Corey on how exactly this gene was managed prior to it being released to the public. Corey’s original post states that any combos that were not used were culled, and while the ethics conversation was split from this one, I still think it’s reasonable to expect some clarification from Corey. We all benefit from transparency.
4 Likes
I kinda hate to assume, and I’d love to be proven wrong, but based on this gene only existing in his group of animals and the desire to be the first/only for something being so strong in the hobby, I absolutely did read cull as cull, as in the gene animals not used in projects were disposed of.
It makes me feel icky and when the thread started so long ago I was hopeful he would disprove that but…
4 Likes
I don’t think anyone can or should assume anything on this topic. Obviously in this case he felt attacked and decided not to engage at all. As a huge influence and one of the original people to bring out new morphs and help educate everyone who showed interest in the ball python and reptile world, I think he made the right decision.
3 Likes
And that’s the reason that I originally asked for clarification, but it was never provided. His own listed evidence (use of the word ‘cull’ which is generally accepted to mean death for the animal in question, as well as his insistence that no one else in the hobby has this gene, which would not be the case if he had wholesaled them) indicates that the animals were likely culled as in death. I believe in giving credit to the big breeders who helped people get into ball pythons, but that doesn’t mean that those breeders should never be questioned. If Corey is asking the hobby as a whole to accept this new morph (which was the original reason for this), we as that hobby have a right to know what measures were taken so that the gene could come to be. If he did not in fact cull healthy hatchlings for the sake of this project, I’m sure we’d all be really happy to hear it! If he did, then we have a right to transparency about that, especially because the implication was originally in his own words. Clarification and transparency aren’t unreasonable to ask for.
4 Likes
You’re absolutely right and I’m sorry if what I said came across as acusatory, I was just sharing how I interpreted the information we were given. Not trying to start any fires here
3 Likes