Culling 'side product' hatchlings

[bv7086]

Well, I've read all the opinions, and I just can't stand it....I have to throw my 2 cents worth in.
It seems several here have a really good grasp of what's going on, while others have decided not to look at the "big picture" of what they are actually doing.

If you think about it, this entire hobby is based on a process that is "not natural". The whole thing is about genetic manipulation to create a creature that is pleasing to the eye...a pet. Most, if not all of these animals wouldn't have a chance of surviving in the wild, so in order for them to even exist at all, we have to raise and kill food for them (or let them kill it themselves).
White mice, genetically selected, (which also wouldn't have a chance without our constant care), are placed in a container with no hope of escape with their mortal enemy, the snake....how sad for the mouse! How does his mother feel? LOL!!

If I care about the mouse, the snake is evil. If I care about the snake, the mouse doesn't really mean that much to me. I will take a baby mouse and cram a toothpick into it's little skull until some brains come out just to try and get a baby snake, born on the same day as the mouse, to eat and survive. If I were to reverse that situation, boy would people scream!

I use the same method to euthanize mice to euthanize a snake. Put it in a plastic bag and stick it in the freezer. To do that to a snake is bad, but to do that to a mouse is a necessity. Hmmmm.....I don't understand how anyone can look at that scenerio and become confused as to what they are actually doing here. How can the snake's life have more worth than the mouse's? Just because I say it does? Because I care about the snake, but not about the mouse?

Give it some thought if you haven't already.

 

[bv7086]

P.S.....These are just my thoughts, and I'm not knocking anyone else's opinions, just asking you to consider mine. I think there is a lot of value in what other people think and feel about any controversial subject like this....It wouldn't be the 1st time I was wrong! LOL!!!

 

[Eremita]

You obviously don't have kids. Every time my kids break something, do something they were told they shouldn't , lose something, etc., the first words out of their mouth is "but I didn't mean to..." And you know what they didn't. Just like the seller who sells hoping his snakes will get a good life. In the end though the glass is broken or a snake is dead. The intentions might have been good but something bad happened and ultimately it is the child or the seller that is responsible or must claim part of the responsibility. It is their actions that are important since they lead to the consequences not their intentions!

Joanna

Quite true (no children here), and it sounds like your job is much easier for having a simple and direct event/punishment table which you can post on your refrigerator. Heck, you can direct the dog to the same list.

However, I'm not sure this analogy works, for a couple of reasons. First, you are talking about children. Children's behavior is only going to be responsible as a result of your efforts - they don't just pop out as perfect little citizens. There is therefore a period of some length when you teach them what is good and right and that they have to use their mental faculties before engaging in activities. Therefore, your standards can and should shift as you give them time to absorb your wisdom. The driving instructor does not weigh right and wrong with the driving student who is not stopping at the sign - he just hits the brakes and tells him where he needs to alter his behavior. Then, at some time the student is deemed to be responsible, and then his culpability increases.

Second, your example seems to be a matter of irresponsibility. They are telling you how they were neglecting their obligations by ignoring potential consequences. This is not sufficient reasoning to assert innocence. You, then, punish them, not because "punishing children is ethical whether they have done something or just because I had a bad day," (the intention-does-not-matter view), but because you want a stable household and do not want them to continue behavior which could easily cause harm to themselves if left unchecked.

Hence, to address the core point of your comparison, all that I get from it is that you might not want to sell corn snakes to children. And I will acquiesce on that point.

-Sean

 

[E.Crassus]

"...I wish I hadnt as, as usual, my comments, through my fault, have not been fully explained, and therefore others have decided my comments as foolish and un thought out..." (E. Crassus)

It can be difficult to be articulate on a forum, and to say exactly what you mean. But it is an ability that improves with practice. I think that you will find it a skill well worth having, and you are young enough to have lots of time to develop it. Although I don't necessarily agree with your opinion, I think it is a very good idea for you to hone your written skills here into a great future asset. Much better to practice here than when you are trying to impress your boss that you need a raise, lol!

Thank you Kathy, this was more like the kind of response I was looking for really.

 

[tyflier]

E.Crassus--

Let me first apologize for being so harsh in my reply. Don't stop trying to piece your words together in the right way. As has been said, this is the perfect place to practice, so use it. You have sufficently explained your previous posts, I understand your point, and all is good with the world. .

Eremita--

...Second, your example seems to be a matter of irresponsibility. They are telling you how they were neglecting their obligations by ignoring potential consequences. This is not sufficient reasoning to assert innocence. You, then, punish them, not because "punishing children is ethical whether they have done something or just because I had a bad day," (the intention-does-not-matter view), but because you want a stable household and do not want them to continue behavior which could easily cause harm to themselves if left unchecked....

Nope. You missed again. In Jodu's example of punishing a child, using an "intentions-do-not-matter view" would NOT be as you described. You are considering two completely different situations, and therefore cannot weigh them equally. Me having a bad day and my child breaking something are in no way related and, therefore, cannot be compared.

What would be a more accurate comparison would be my child breaking a lamp on purpose because she wanted to see what would happen, or my daughter breaking a lamp on accident because she was bouncing a ball in the house. Either way, she gets punished, because both actions are wrong, regardless of her puposeful intention to break the lamp or purely negligence with a ball, she broke the rules, which resulted in a broken lamp...she gets punished.

As I hope you can see, when you use more accurate examples to describe the analogy, it works just fine as one.

My question for you is, why does it seem like you have been starting each of your last several posts with comments which appear to be accusing "us"(the other side of the debate) of not understanding simple things like ethics and morals when "we" have quite clearly, succinctly and accurately proven, cited and shown that we do, and it is, rather, yourself that does not seem to understand what is being discussed?

 

[tyflier]

And you(Eremita) still haven't been able to explain how you can kill mice every week to feed your snake, but that is somehow more right than killing a snake. Further, you haven't addressed a single situation which I posed earlier regarding the difference between morals and ethics andyet you have still insisted that it is "we" who don't understand.

I would like your take on those situations I posted...

 

[Roy Munson]

For the record, I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything except to be careful in passing judgement on others. Personally, I really don't care much about what anyone else does, nor do I care much about what they think about my choices.

 

[SnakeAround]

You obviously don't have kids. Every time my kids break something, do something they were told they shouldn't , lose something, etc., the first words out of their mouth is "but I didn't mean to..." And you know what they didn't. Just like the seller who sells hoping his snakes will get a good life. In the end though the glass is broken or a snake is dead. The intentions might have been good but something bad happened and ultimately it is the child or the seller that is responsible or must claim part of the responsibility. It is their actions that are important since they lead to the consequences not their intentions!

Joanna

So yould punish your kids the same for each action without considering the intentions? So, if a kid put down a very sick mouse it found on the road because it was suffering, it would get the same punishment as when it would have killed a mouse just because he thought it was ugly?!

 

[tyflier]

So yould punish your kids the same for each action without considering the intentions? So, if a kid put down a very sick mouse it found on the road because it was suffering, it would get the same punishment as when it would have killed a mouse just because he thought it was ugly?!

No...but then again, a child is not bound by professional ethics as they regard the culling of animals. It was merely an attempt to show certain correlations...not show that ALL situations would be the same.

When dealing with children, as anyone who has one will tell you, each situation needs to be weighed on it's own merits, as well the history of the child should be considered when deciding on a punishment IF one is deemed necessary. Much like morals, children have no right or wrong answer, and there is no\ever a black and white answer as to how to deal with them. They are a "business" all their own....

Much like Dean, what you do, and why you do it, has little to no impact on me and my choices. I simply fail to see why "we" are not being given the same respect. I don't understand why there is an implication that "we" don't understand what is being discussed, simply because "we" have a different opinion than you and others. Especially when "we" have quoted, cited, and exemplified situations and scenarios that clearly show that we DO understand what is being discussed, both philosophically and definitively...we simply don't agree with your(used collectively) opinion of it...

 

[SnakeAround]

What would be a more accurate comparison would be my child breaking a lamp on purpose because she wanted to see what would happen, or my daughter breaking a lamp on accident because she was bouncing a ball in the house. Either way, she gets punished, because both actions are wrong, regardless of her puposeful intention to break the lamp or purely negligence with a ball, she broke the rules, which resulted in a broken lamp...she gets punished.

In the first case you punish for breaking the lamp on purpose, in the second for breaking the rules of not bouncing a ball in the house... this is not even about the same action being punished.

See my example of a kid that killed a very sick mouse it found on the road because it wanted to end the suffering; I'd compliment the kid on it. By the way, i just realized the other action must be the same without looking at the attention.... mmmm ok, so the other action; killing a sick mouse found on the road to be able to cut it open and see what it looks like inside. Both actions can be described as killing a mouse, hence I would punish for the second, with the intention only to cut it and see what is in it... to complete it'woudl my kid find a dead mouse and then cut it to see what is in it, i would not be angry but woudl only warn for the bacterial dangers and then forbid it... next time my kid woudl cut a mouse found dead on the raod, I would punish for not listening to me.... now does this make sense?

 

[E.Crassus]

Thanks for the apology Tyflier, im a young an sensitive person at heart

 

[SnakeAround]

No...but then again, a child is not bound by professional ethics as they regard the culling of animals. It was merely an attempt to show certain correlations...not show that ALL situations would be the same.

When dealing with children, as anyone who has one will tell you, each situation needs to be weighed on it's own merits, as well the history of the child should be considered when deciding on a punishment IF one is deemed necessary. Much like morals, children have no right or wrong answer, and there is no\ever a black and white answer as to how to deal with them. They are a "business" all their own....

Much like Dean, what you do, and why you do it, has little to no impact on me and my choices. I simply fail to see why "we" are not being given the same respect. I don't understand why there is an implication that "we" don't understand what is being discussed, simply because "we" have a different opinion than you and others. Especially when "we" have quoted, cited, and exemplified situations and scenarios that clearly show that we DO understand what is being discussed, both philosophically and definitively...we simply don't agree with your(used collectively) opinion of it...

So, you do think not every action can be considered the same in any given situation? I really think you have been saying the opposite all the time; killing an animal is killing an animal no matter the intention, so saying it is bad in one situation and good in another, is not possible. If you think kids are a totally different business, you'd better not use the analogy :cheers:

I did never say you do not understand what is being discussed, I even said I used the wrong word... But I do agree with Eremita that this whole ethics/morals discussion can be simply put in one quaestion; Does intention matter when labeling something wrong or right? You feel it does not, me and some others feel it does.

 

[Eremita]

Ah, good morning Chris (can I still call you Chris?)

(...)
Eremita--

Nope. You missed again. In Jodu's example of punishing a child, using an "intentions-do-not-matter view" would NOT be as you described. You are considering two completely different situations, and therefore cannot weigh them equally. Me having a bad day and my child breaking something are in no way related and, therefore, cannot be compared.

What would be a more accurate comparison would be my child breaking a lamp on purpose because she wanted to see what would happen, or my daughter breaking a lamp on accident because she was bouncing a ball in the house. Either way, she gets punished, because both actions are wrong, regardless of her puposeful intention to break the lamp or purely negligence with a ball, she broke the rules, which resulted in a broken lamp...she gets punished.

As I hope you can see, when you use more accurate examples to describe the analogy, it works just fine as one.

No, no, no. The issue was at that point removed from the child. Forget the child as performer-of-actions. I am not suggesting whether it is ethical for a child to be punished. That is a passive role. We need to consider you as provider-of-punishment. The child did not force you to punish them; the law does not proscribe such actions. But somehow you want to say that your reasons for punishing them make a difference, such that in one case your punishing them is Good, and in one way Bad. In your ethical system. Where the reason makes no difference. So, I guess I misundertood your position, but now I'm afraid I'm no better off.

My question for you is, why does it seem like you have been starting each of your last several posts with comments which appear to be accusing "us"(the other side of the debate) of not understanding simple things like ethics and morals when "we" have quite clearly, succinctly and accurately proven, cited and shown that we do, and it is, rather, yourself that does not seem to understand what is being discussed?

Well, I think I was awfully clear, but I'll try again. Enough with hiding behind terms. Let's say we have no words under which to lump these type of decisions and actions. Your reasons are important in considering the validity of your actions. To Barbara, to me, and to a number of other people. To the extent that your ideas of ethics are correct, then to that extent the mere mention of the term is irrelevant to this discussion.

And you(Eremita) still haven't been able to explain how you can kill mice every week to feed your snake, but that is somehow more right than killing a snake. Further, you haven't addressed a single situation which I posed earlier regarding the difference between morals and ethics andyet you have still insisted that it is "we" who don't understand.

I would like your take on those situations I posted...

If only I could believe you. I almost feel like you would rather I just went away and you could summarize the conclusion for the whole thread (as you have tried before) and contentedly graze elsewhere.

But anyway, I'll try, although I covered it in my second post in this thread, and it is sad that this is how far we have not come. When you kill a mouse to feed a snake, you are feeding your snake. This is how your snake eats. You could also throw your snake a live mouse, but there are risks associated with that. The life of your snake depends upon these deaths, and you accepted an obligation when you obtained the snake. If you raised corn snakes in order to feed your kingsnake, then the situation is the same but fill in "corn snake" for "mouse".

Maybe you don't really like killing. Maybe there is no pleasure in it for you (just try to imagine this for the sake of understanding my point). If you had a healthy mouse lying around and no snakes to feed, you would prefer to toss him out in the yard rather than breaking his neck. So, something has come about that leads you to do something you do not especially want to do.

Are you with me so far? All right, here's the thing. That something is your reason. The reason is what makes or permits you to do something distasteful, something opposed to your natural inclination. So, if you kill a hatchling because it is not red enough or whatever, then that is your reason and that for you is more important than your general disinclination to kill - that it is not red enough.

So, I and others are interested in how much value you place on the lives of the creatures you are in the business of breeding and promoting. We can make inferences about this value based on what it takes for you to consider it worthwhile to kill them. But that "what it takes" is your reason, the claim you make concerning why you have done it, or why you would do it.

Now, if you enjoy killing, then all of that goes out the window, because you do not need a reason - killing is an end in itself. However, no one here has yet proposed that as the basis of their actions, so we do not have to go there yet.

As for fine hairs between your definitions, let us compromise. My "ethics" are your "morals". As I stated above, your "ethics" (which do not equate to anything at all for me), are a pointless diversion as far as this topic is concerned, because the poll - go ahead, look at the poll, it's right up top there - is all about reasons. See?

-Sean

 

[SnakeAround]

Ah, good morning Chris (can I still call you Chris?)


No, no, no. The issue was at that point removed from the child. Forget the child as performer-of-actions. I am not suggesting whether it is ethical for a child to be punished. That is a passive role. We need to consider you as provider-of-punishment. The child did not force you to punish them; the law does not proscribe such actions. But somehow you want to say that your reasons for punishing them make a difference, such that in one case your punishing them is Good, and in one way Bad. In your ethical system. Where the reason makes no difference. So, I guess I misundertood your position, but now I'm afraid I'm no better off.


Well, I think I was awfully clear, but I'll try again. Enough with hiding behind terms. Let's say we have no words under which to lump these type of decisions and actions. Your reasons are important in considering the validity of your actions. To Barbara, to me, and to a number of other people. To the extent that your ideas of ethics are correct, then to that extent the mere mention of the term is irrelevant to this discussion.


If only I could believe you. I almost feel like you would rather I just went away and you could summarize the conclusion for the whole thread (as you have tried before) and contentedly graze elsewhere.

But anyway, I'll try, although I covered it in my second post in this thread, and it is sad that this is how far we have not come. When you kill a mouse to feed a snake, you are feeding your snake. This is how your snake eats. You could also throw your snake a live mouse, but there are risks associated with that. The life of your snake depends upon these deaths, and you accepted an obligation when you obtained the snake. If you raised corn snakes in order to feed your kingsnake, then the situation is the same but fill in "corn snake" for "mouse".

Maybe you don't really like killing. Maybe there is no pleasure in it for you (just try to imagine this for the sake of understanding my point). If you had a healthy mouse lying around and no snakes to feed, you would prefer to toss him out in the yard rather than breaking his neck. So, something has come about that leads you to do something you do not especially want to do.

Are you with me so far? All right, here's the thing. That something is your reason. The reason is what makes or permits you do something distasteful, something opposed to your natural inclination. So, if you kill a hatchling because it is not red enough or whatever, then that is your reason and that for you is more important than your general disinclination to kill - that it is not red enough.

So, I and others are interested in how much value you place on the lives of the creatures you are in the business of breeding and promoting. We can make inferences about this value based on what it takes for you to consider it worthwhile to kill them. But that "what it takes" is your reason, the claim you make concerning why you have done it, or why you would do it.

Now, if you enjoy killing, then all of that goes out the window, because you do not need a reason - killing is an end in itself. However, no one here has yet proposed that as the basis of their actions, so we do not have to go there yet.

As for fine hairs between your definitions, let us compromise. My "ethics" are your "morals". As I stated above, your "ethics" (which do not equate to anything at all for me), are a pointless diversion as far as this topic is concerned, because the poll - go ahead, look at the poll, it's right up top there - is all about reasons. See?

-Sean

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

 

[Tula_Montage]

Oh dear, this has gotten a little out of hand and rather fftopic: (in an on topic sort of way).

Sean and Chris, if I could rep you guys I would. It's been a very interesting read.

Now my opinion (for a mere second time) on the killing of rodents vs snakes. I have kept and bred mice as a hobby for a few years. I have only been keeping snakes for a little over a year now. IMO both go hand in hand. What better way to put the excess mice to good use? It also ensures my snakes are being fed the best quality meat I can provide. In regards to my snakes, mice are meat. In regards to my interests, mice are my pets, my breeders, my "babies!".

I can slaughter mice with no problem. I feel no sorrow. Rodents are NATURAL prey for snakes. Heres where I reverse the situation. I would NEVER breed snakes as a food source. I'm sure not many people would. But I know there are people who feed excess hatchlings to hungry kings. I know people who ONLY have a damn kingsnake for that purpose.

My point is, why on earth would you breed to such an excess that destroying the life you have put so much work into to create is necessary (or should I say unnecessary)? If you see no other way out of a situation where you cannot sell the offspring, or cannot cope with the sheer quantity then IMO you don't have the damn right to produce in such a large scale.

If killing 20% of a seasons hatchlings mean theres less $10 normals to "deal with", or making sure theres no mistaken identity hybrids then don't pair up animals you KNOW will produce these offspring!!!! Jeeeez...

Someone hit the nail on the head a few posts ago, this whole industry is based around playing god. Its unnatural in all forms. Large scale breeding seasons are a selfish attempt at producing hatchlings that will sell for a pretty penny, or producing a new morph. And thats the only reason (for large scale breeders) to not frown upon killing unsightly, unsellable hatchlings. You take the good with the bad, the pretty with the ugly, the severely deformed with the perfect hypolavenderbloodredthingymebobs! You commit yourself to bringing up these animals and raising their offspring. THAT means ensuring you have the means to provide them with the best care you can offer, giving them an awesome start in life and from there on after you have sold them on its not your problem. You can have peace of mind that you did EVERYTHING in your power to ensure they were happy and healthy.

What I find disgusting, more than anything is the view some have taken on hybrids. Seriously guys... don't breed them if you KNOW you don't want 50% or more of what they will produce. No names mentioned here, but I know theres members with jungle corns who take this view. Utterly contradictory IMO. A jungle is a jungle be it 75% corn or 25% king. Just the same as a motley is a motley be is striped or not! Whats in a name huh?!

We are obviously too quick to judge on what cannot be judged! Theres no rule book for mother nature. Theres no set standard for what we should or should not be producing. In fact we chose to pair animals that would NEVER mate in the wild. Then decide their offspring are unsellable and cull them. IF mother nature intended these different species to come together, there would be many more unthinkable hybrids running about in the wild.

Off at a tangent, but I felt these points had to be covered. IMO breeding snakes (whatever species) is sometimes not ethical at all... In regards to an overcrowded yet unrepresented hobby.

 

[JoannaD]

So yould punish your kids the same for each action without considering the intentions? So, if a kid put down a very sick mouse it found on the road because it was suffering, it would get the same punishment as when it would have killed a mouse just because he thought it was ugly?!

How did my kid kill the mouse? Why did they decide that the mouse was sick and did not deserve to live? Who made them the judge of sickness, life worth living etc.....

Have you ever lived in a house with mice? Have you set traps that kill, put out poison? Why should that mouse not have the right to live? Is it ok to kill a perfectly healthy mouse because you don't think they should be living in your house? Are you going to judge all your friends as having poor ethics/morals etc because they did not want a mouse runnign loose in their house?

 

[SnakeAround]

"Someone hit the nail on the head a few posts ago, this whole industry is based around playing god. Its unnatural in all forms. Large scale breeding seasons are a selfish attempt at producing hatchlings that will sell for a pretty penny, or producing a new morph. And thats the only reason (for large scale breeders) to not frown upon killing unsightly, unsellable hatchlings. You take the good with the bad, the pretty with the ugly, the severely deformed with the perfect hypolavenderbloodredthingymebobs! You commit yourself to bringing up these animals and raising their offspring. THAT means ensuring you have the means to provide them with the best care you can offer, giving them an awesome start in life and from there on after you have sold them on its not your problem. You can have peace of mind that you did EVERYTHING in your power to ensure they were happy and healthy"

I repped you for this particular part Elle, but the rest is crisp and clear too.

 

[Tula_Montage]

Thanks Barbara... Just my humble opinion...

 

[Roy Munson]

Large scale breeding seasons are a selfish attempt at producing hatchlings that will sell for a pretty penny, or producing a new morph. And thats the only reason (for large scale breeders) to not frown upon killing unsightly, unsellable hatchlings.

Well, we can't all live up to the saintly, selfless standards by which many of you conduct yourselves in all aspects of life. :grin01:

You take the good with the bad, the pretty with the ugly, the severely deformed with the perfect hypolavenderbloodredthingymebobs! You commit yourself to bringing up these animals and raising their offspring. THAT means ensuring you have the means to provide them with the best care you can offer, giving them an awesome start in life and from there on after you have sold them on its not your problem. You can have peace of mind that you did EVERYTHING in your power to ensure they were happy and healthy.

And thus spake Elle! :grin01:

 

[Tula_Montage]

Well, we can't all live up to the saintly, selfless standards by which many of you conduct yourselves in all aspects of life. :grin01:

And thus spake Elle! :grin01:

Not all aspects of human life Dean, just where creating unnecessary life is concerned. Wait that should include human births too, however I'm afraid I'd be verbally slaughtered if I posted my opinions on the human race :grin01: