I totally get this.
I have one snake currently in my collection with spider and I’m not looking to pick up any more or any other wobble morphs myself.
I’ve just seen way too many people arguing this in a way that makes it frustratingly selective to spider only. There are people such as you who do specifically mention ALL the morphs involved which is great. But when you look up something like the article put out by some student at Berkley? No mention of any other wobble. Only spider cause it was the hot topic at the time. I can’t tell you how many champagnes I saw at a show yesterday. Thankfully I did hear one vender mention possible wobble in them when someone was asking about one.
Selective information like that is just a pet peeve of mine and that’s why I also bring up the issues in dog or cat breeding. Standard poodles, Aussie shepherds, English bulldogs, pugs and beagles are known to have higher prevalence of seizure disorders. But those are still some of the top breeds people own.
It is a pet peeve of mine as well, which is why I’m such a vocal advocate about all of the genes. I genuinely think a lot of the reason that so many articles/people seem to only mention spider is because there’s so little widespread education about the other genes and that’s just the one that happened to get traction. So I’m bringing up all of the genes, hopefully I and others like me increase the visibility of them. I love breeding ball pythons, but BP breeders are not particularly great about transparency, especially with things that could affect a sale. It’s extremely common practice to sell neuro genes (and other defect morphs) at shows especially without any mention whatsoever of the issues. Therefore, when I vend shows, I have care guides on my table available for anyone to take that also include a page with all of the known defect genes and their affects. I’ve had people get grumpy or outright nasty with me for this, but at the end of the day, it’s nothing but information for a potential buyer, and none of us should be against. If you (general you) have to rely on a buyer’s lack of knowledge to sell an animal, that’s incredibly underhanded.
This is an incredibly illuminating conversation to read as a new keeper. Thank you guys for such a thoughtful and civil discussion.
One of the very first things my partner and I did upon deciding we were going to look into getting a BP was to learn all the morphs with issues. (The number of times one of us went “look at this cool snake! Puma!” only to have the other go “oh that’s another name for champagne” “DAMN!”) My brother had a german shepherd he loved dearly, and watching her slowly lose mobility and be in more and more pain as she aged because of known issues with the breed was devastating. We didn’t want to accidentally go home with a special needs snake that we might not be equipped to manage, and I’m glad we did because neuro morphs were ABSOLUTELY NOT labeled as such at the expo where we bought our girl. As someone new to the community it surprises me that there’s no apparent culture around warning people about special needs morphs. That would seem like a basic quality-of-life thing to ensure the snakes you’re selling will be competently cared for.
I don’t know if we’ll breed down the road, but if we decide to, for our part I think we’ll be staying strictly away from any neuro morphs (possibly including single-genes with bad supers like spotnose and black pastel, which is too bad because albino black pastels are insanely pretty). I’ve been against breeding mammalian pets with known defects for as long as I’ve known people were doing it. This would be a natural extension of that ethos for me.
I do think it’s strange that the hobby does seem to orbit around the question of spider, when there are plenty of other high-profile known neuro morphs. That must be incredibly frustrating for those who love spiders. Why do you guys think things like champ and woma get a pass when spider doesn’t? Is it just a matter of spider having been around the longest, so it’s the most established locus of debate when it comes to the ethicality of breeding neuro morphs?
You can vet potential buyers/people as much as you want, provide great information but unfortunately at the end of the day or sale in this case NO breeder can control or have any type of knowledge of after the sale of what the buyer does with any animal in terms of breeding practices, or even sadly basic care. I think that was some of the position @t_h_wyman was taking. It can’t really be questioned, once out of your possession you can’t control the outcome of the snake. True for everyone.
It’s largely just related to how much visibility spider got primarily with pet keepers - it’s a gorgeous morph and became very well known outside of just the folks that breed them, and because of that a lot more people know about it (and a lot more breeders are forced to acknowledge the issues because people do know that one by name, whereas your average casual keeper isn’t going to recognize a HGW or champagne the same way).
This is absolutely true, and I’m not denying that - just pointing out that there is absolutely a difference severity or intensity between those two things. Ultimately, my own ethical standard is just that I will not intentionally produce animals with defects that can impact their quality of life, and I don’t - and I do everything I can to make sure that educate and advocate as well. Folks can take an all-or-nothing approach to it, but believe me, I’m very accustomed to people disagreeing with me. I just try to be as responsible and ethical of a breeder as I can be, and ultimately we can debate that all day because ethics is inherently an individual moral debate. I feel that intentionally producing defect genes is unethical and that producing harmless versions of those genes and responsibly rehoming them is significantly less unethical, whereas other folks here obviously have different opinions on that, and that’s fine.
But I really did not intend to have this be a whole discussion again, lol. Those who’ve talked to me in the forums are probably well aware that I am vocally against breeding defect morphs. My only intention was to correct a misunderstanding about advocates like myself cherry picking across different morphs and species, and I’ve done that. I just aim to be an example of an “anti-defect” advocate whose ethical and personal standards are consistent across the board, since there are a lot of fallacies and quick-reaction “but x, y, x” arguments that are often used to try to discredit the position that advocates like myself take.
And for the record, I am always open to change. I would absolutely consider removing black pastel and cinnamon from my breeding projects after discussion and enlightenment. I’m already considering the removal of chocolate from my collection for this exact reason, even though I really love its phenotype and have plans based around it. So just trying to say I absolutely, unequivocally practice what I preach. That’s all!
You can manage the defect only as long as it is in your hands, once it is gone then you have exactly zero control. Sure, you say you vet your buyers… But you you vet your buyers buyers? And your buyers buyers buyers? No, you do not. You do not have that level of control. You know that the gene, under certain circumstances, can lead to QoL issues and yet you continue to propagate it and maintain it in the hobby. Like it or not, you are perpetuating the problem. This is in contrast to the ethical dog breeders that will stop breeding any animal that carries the problematic gene so as to stop its maintenance and spread through the gene pool. I will also put out that dog breeders have the luxury of being able to spay/neuter animals that carry the defect genes and sell those as ‘pet only’. The herp hobby has no such practice. Sure, people sell animals as ‘pet quality’ but that means literally nothing in a hobby that measures credibility on whether and how much you breed. The animal that you sold as ‘pet only’ eventually ends up on Craigslist where someone sees it as a cheap animal for their breeding project
.
.
.
This is not even close to accurate.
Remove the breed/species and the argument I am making is the same across the board:
I have an animal that I know carries a gene that I know for a fact can lead to QoL issues. Even though I will not produce QoL issue animals, I am going to continue to breed that animal and spread the gene in the population thereby guaranteeing that others can make animals that suffer from QoL issues
It does not matter is it is German shepherds or munchkin cats or BlkPastel balls
Now contrast that to your analogy which, in the simplest of terms, you are saying that the petty larceny of a inconsequential, low-value item in a manner that has negligible consequences and puts no one at risk of any real harm is exactly the same as the major theft of something significant and high-value in a violent manner that puts the lives of others at risk
You are comparing two things that are not even remotely similar - shoplifting versus bank robbery - whereas I am talking about the exact same thing in all situations - problematic genes being perpetuated in the gene pool
.
.
.
But you are cherry-picking. You say you are against genes that cause QoL issues, but really, you are only against those genes that do it in a heterozygous state. You openly acknowledge that you work with, and are fine with the perpetuation in the hobby of, genes that cause QoL issues under homozygous conditions. That is cherry-picking; some QoL genes are “unacceptable” while others are “acceptable”
Just to clarify in case anyone else is reading this… Puma and champagne aren’t related. Puma is spark + yellowbelly, not another name for Champagne or a champagne combo.
This. This and Travis’s most recent response sum up how i feel about it. You only have direct control of who yours goes to, nothing from there, nor do you have control of where that one ends up once it’s in their hands. At some level if someone is keeping ANY of the morphs that can have a negative QOL (spider complex, 8 ball complex, etc) even if it’s a black pastel, then condemning spider complex animals is to some extend, hypocritical.
I understand the passion and wanting to stand by what you believe in, and I’m glad that others are aware and not just focusing on spiders. But at the end of the day - it’s each persons choice, and we’re all hypocrites about something.
Puma actually was one of the early nicknames for champagne. You can see it reflected in the listing on WOB.
Spark/YB Puma took over the name when it became the more popular snake. If only listed as puma with no other names for the genetics listed, it’s always good to check.
Spider is unique and beautiful and tempting. I have been tempted often. I almost went for them.
The cheaper prices for combination morphs including spider are also tempting.
But for me I decided to avoid it.
The only morph with issues i am willing to go for are super lessers with potential bug eyes as it does not seem to always affect all hatchlings and if it does its not a real problem.
Just my opinion. No judgement on others decisions.
Maybe one day a similar looking morph will be discovered with out the problems. I would go for that.
My point was to clarify that those who choose not to work with these genes do not cherry pick across species or morphs, and I’ve well explained that. I have said many times that I, personally, do not support the breeding of any morphs that cause defects that can affect the negative QOL of an animal. As explained, I live by that. I do not produce any of those morphs, I vet buyers to make sure they are aware of the issues and do not plan to breed them, and I do as much education as I can. To the extent that one can be a responsible breeder in the reptile hobby where spay/neuter is not standard practice or straightforward like with dogs and cats, those of us who don’t work with these morphs are consistent across the board.
You’re trying to make this about the same thing, but in reality it is not. At the end of the day, yes it’s true that I still work with genes that can cause issues in ways that I will never breed them, but that is still significantly less of a perpetuation in the gene pool than folks who breed them in their problematic forms and sell to anyone who wants to buy. If we can’t recognize that there’s a difference in severity there, then there’s no productive conversation to be had.
And as I’ve also explained before, I am always open to having my mind changed. Perhaps down the road I will decide to remove other genes from my collection, and that’s something I’m always open to considering.
I’m very accustomed to people disagreeing with my stance, and I’m also very accustomed to being ridiculed for it. At the end of the day, we all live by our own ethical standards, and I do in fact live by mine. I would love to see a day in the hobby where we stopped producing any morph with issues at all, and I would be happy to remove all of those genes from my collection to make that happen. I sincerely doubt many other breeders would say the same. As it stands, I just do as much education as I can and make sure that my animals are healthy, and I’m happy with that.
I just try to be as responsible and ethical of a breeder as I can be, and ultimately we can debate that all day because ethics is inherently an individual moral debate. I feel that intentionally producing defect genes is unethical and that producing harmless versions of those genes and responsibly rehoming them is significantly less unethical, whereas other folks here obviously have different opinions on that, and that’s fine.
I just aim to be an example of an “anti-defect” advocate whose ethical and personal standards are consistent across the board, since there are a lot of fallacies and quick-reaction “but x, y, x” arguments that are often used to try to discredit the position that advocates like myself take.