I responded on this thread not to any individual or post, but instead simply shared my opinion. Also, if you reread the post you will see it is not a condemnation but a way I choose for myself to react to it. I never stated that others are wrong to do so. Simply it is not for me nor would I encourage it. Most of it is posed as questions to provoke thought, not elicit responses. Nevertheless, the result of this has been a number of responses directed at me, pointing out that my opinion is wrong. First, it’s an opinion so it can’t be wrong. It may be contrary to other opinions or unpopular but it is valid for me. I thought that this forum was supposed to be a place to share ideas, opinions, and promote open dialogue. I didn’t know only popular opinion is permitted courtesy. So as long as we are taking shots across the bow, I may want to send a couple volleys back.
Anthropomorphizing? This entire debate is anthropomorphic. It is all man’s opinion that the animals are fine and fine is subjective because what it really means is “good enough to continue breeding for our own needs”. The animal has never been asked, hadn’y any choice in it, nor have they been able to provide any input. There isn’t any actual medical or scientific data to support the argument that they are fine, since all of the data would be based on observation and not anatomical dissection, trial and research, and medical analysis. The industry has determined they are fine so the industry can continue breeding and selling to recoup their investment. Nothing more. Let’s face it, the only thing that deters people from breeding Spider to Spider is they can’t produce a viable organism. That said, you still hear from time to time of someone trying to produce super spiders or super champagnes when it is well documented the combinations are lethal. Panda Pieds are another morph that people are willing to sacrifice a higher percentage of offspring for the opportunity to hit 1.
Certainly a geneticist can recognize the difference between a 1 in 700 chance and a 1 in 2 chance. The Spider gene is 1 in 2 odds. The result of the 1 in 2 odd goes further in that every animal that isn’t Spider, doesn’t have the defect. So you can only achieve the goal of producing Spider, by producing the defect. That means the defect is 1 in 1 or 100% odds for every Spider produced. Whether or not they have a little wobble or sever wobble is irrelevant.
The analogy that Wobble is like inner ear issues seems to ignore the idea that inner ear issues are mostly temporary and not genetic. But it does permit the OP to the luxury of minimizing the situation to a level they’re comfortable with. Spider wobble is neither temporary or avoidable. If it is Spider, it has wobble. The degree of measurability doesn’t change the fact.
The idea that proper husbandry can reduce the severity is so far out there I couldn’t begin to respond.
I’ll pose the “hypothetical” question once again but in a way that is not to be taken literally but instead is in the spirit of and parallel to the subject at hand. There seems to be some difficulty with my analogies being taken literally. If there is a couple that only wants a boy, and if down syndrome were attached to males and their odds are 1 in 2 of producing a male or female, and it is 100% certain that the offspring that will not carry the extra chromosome will also not be male, would they choose to try to produce a male child?
My use of such examples as vertigo and Parkinson’s is to try and use afflictions in which the result is either involuntary muscle movement or a disorientation which may be what the snake is experiencing. Again I say “may” which is open ended and allows for contrary opinion. I am comfortable with being honest in that I am only “presuming” these conditions for the animal based on observations with no medical or scientific data to support it. The same which can be said for the argument that the animals are fine. Wobble is not the problem, it is a symptom or manifestation of the problem just as tremors are a symptom associated with Parkinson’s. The “symptoms” associated with the afflictions, I am using as examples, not the afflictions themselves, have some parallels to the “symptoms” associated with the Spider gene, not the defect. I feel it is a safe argument to say that symptoms are undesirable and uncomfortable to those who have the afflictions. That doesn’t mean they aren’t managing, coping with it, or able to maintain some quality of life. It is simply saying that, given a choice, they would probably prefer not to have those symptoms. If they prefer to have them, why would those with the afflictions seek medical attention and pharmacology to alter their circumstance? The reality is they didn’t and don’t have a choice. Biology/Genetics have selected them to have the conditions. The Spider ball python does not have a choice either. The difference is a breeder has decided for them, they will have the affliction. That is more power than I am comfortable wielding.