# Silkback Bearded Dragons - And Why They Should Be Banned



## DanielEM

The Breeding Process

The breeding of silkbacks, especially to the pet trade, encourages irresponsibility. 

A silkbacks skin is very soft and easily ripped, resulting in agony for the animal. Because of the way a male beardy will bite down on the back of a females neck, its considered cruel to use a female silkback for breeding. A minority silkback clutch can be achieved using other (more ethical) combinations of both leatherbacks and silkbacks.

However, it is possible to put two silkbacks together. This not only causes a female to endure a horrowing experience, it creates a clutch with alot more silkbacks. Which means more profit. Which means more people indulging in this brutal process for a quick buck. 

Another concern is the trend in selling the silkbacks, and killing the less valuable (but ironically genetically superior) leatherbacks and normals, to bring down costs of feeding. 

In the same way that a pedigree dogs specific characteristics come at the cost of various genetic inferiorioritys, so does the silkbacks. And like crufts and its hobbyests the reptile community must, for the good of the animal, notice and understand the severe downfalls of this mutation and work towards a humane solution. 

The breeding processes of silkbacks are not only detrimental to the individual animals, but the species as a whole. 




The Sale and Homing.

Its estimated that 50-70% (depending on your sources) of pets involved in the private and commercial exotic pet trade arrive at homes that dont look after them properly. Silkbacks are at a greater vulnerability because of their specific UV requirements, their shedding maintanence and their overall inferior genetics.

A silkbacks lack of scales means that it is less efficient at filtering UV rays. Many owners will use a normals/leatherbacks recomended UV levels. A silkbacks shedding process can be hazardous - certain creams and specific maintanence must be applied, which simply does not happen enough. 

The genetic inferiority of a silkback means that (again, like pedigree dogs) a trip to the vet is not only very, very expensive but finding a local, qualified vet is often impossible. This results in abandoned and neglected individuals. 

For every individual that goes to a home that is responsible and properly informed, the majority of its siblings will end up neglected. This is ofcourse the case with all pets involved in the trade, but the potential risk to silkbacks is much greater. 

Whether or not you personally can keep a silkback healthy is irrelevent, because the many other individuals involved will not recieve the same good fortune. If you are a contributor, you are part of the problem. 

It took first hand experience in breeding silkbacks for me to see this, and i feel guilt for contributing to this dark, selfish and unnecessary part of the hobby. 

I gave many of my silkbacks away for free, to people i could trust would meet their specialist needs, and would not breed them further. This is a luxury the majority of silkies do not recieve. 




---------------------------------------


I urge you all, not only for your personal satisfaction in a pet choice, but for the well being of the individual and the mutation as a whole. 

Do not breed, buy or sell silkback bearded dragons. If you do, your contributing to an incredibly cruel part of the hobby. 

Thanks for your time, spread the word.


---------------------------------------

Just in case you dont know what a silkback is, this guy is mine. He is very gorgeous but experiences alot more medical problems than other beardys of his age. He has a good home here, more than you can say for most!

I've also included an image of a silkback baby and a leatherback of the exact same age from the exact same clutch, to show you how runty and unhealthy these guys are from day one.


----------



## WesternBlueTongue

Thanks for your input. I personally don't favour silkbacks, and wouldn't buy one, but was also not aware of some of the issues you described such as applying creams, and regarding the mating. However, I'm with you, and I don't think they should become more available than they already are, especially since beardies are seen as they #1 starter lizard or whatever. I feel people will just assume that these are no different from the care of any other beardie, and can only imagine how many shops will try and flog them without the appropriate care advice given. 

Sorry to hear about the bad experiences regarding the breeding.


----------



## nicnet

I'd have to totally agree on this one. I think we are heading down the same road as those that breed the enigma gecko's. We know there are major health issues with this morph but due to some people liking them they are being bred purely due to fasion and nothing to do with a healthy animal.

Peronally I think they look like a penis in a coloured condom, (sorry mods but they do..its the only way to describe them)

Dragons should have spikes and scales. Leatherbacks are borderline in my opinion but as I have not heard of any obvious health issues with them as yet I'll reserve my opinion on that one for now.


We do not need even more scrutiny on this hobby by deliberatly breeding unhealthy animals that need permanent special care just to be able to shed properly.



I'd ask the responsible breeders to seriously reconsider breeding these, we do not need more unhealthy morphs in the reptile world.


----------



## Tombo46

Don't have time to post a "proper" reply but kudos to you for being big enough to realise that there is a problem ahead of us. 

Personally I love the look of them but I do think that animals with reduced fitness levels should not be bred from and silkbacks certainly fit this criteria.


----------



## Kuja

I don't mind their aesthetics all that much, however i do agree, however where there is money concerned people don't tend to care about much else(people still breeding enigma's not trying to fix it, but for profit etc)

still, be interesting to see what the breeders will have to say, they obviously know the problems with breeding them. I personally couldn't(i couldn't breed normal ones either mind with the state of the market)


----------



## vgorst

I hope people read this and take on board what has been said, breeders (experienced or not) need to realise what damage they are doing to the species in captivity. I knew there were health concerns with the silkbacks (although I didn't know the extent or special care required so thanks for explaining those).

If there are these problems with growth and mating (what an animals life mostly consists of!) then I personally don't think that they can be content or 'meant to be' and should no longer be bred from. I don't think aesthetics should matter as much as the wellbeing and fitness of the animals.

Thanks for sharing, have been wanting to know the problems of the silkback morph for a while but it hasn't been as well explained as the enigma problems


----------



## dramen

nicnet said:


> I'd have to totally agree on this one. I think we are heading down the same road as those that breed the enigma gecko's. We know there are major health issues with this morph but due to some people liking them they are being bred purely due to fasion and nothing to do with a healthy animal.
> 
> Peronally I think they look like a penis in a coloured condom, (sorry mods but they do..its the only way to describe them)
> 
> Dragons should have spikes and scales. Leatherbacks are borderline in my opinion but as I have not heard of any obvious health issues with them as yet I'll reserve my opinion on that one for now.
> 
> 
> We do not need even more scrutiny on this hobby by deliberatly breeding unhealthy animals that need permanent special care just to be able to shed properly.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd ask the responsible breeders to seriously reconsider breeding these, we do not need more unhealthy morphs in the reptile world.


I'm right with you on this one.


----------



## benjo

Very good read and very good points you have put across, i for one did not know about the issues and i agree with you. Kudos


----------



## imginy

They do take a lot more care than a normal bearded dragon and I personally wont be breeding them again either just because of the amount of effort needed to keep them eating and shedding. 

This really isn't any need to ban them is it?

Also a bit of a turn around isn't it a few months back you were boosting how superior the genetics were on your silkbacks and selling them for £200 each but I guess your breeding plans have changed.


----------



## DanielEM

imginy said:


> They do take a lot more care than a normal bearded dragon and I personally wont be breeding them again either just because of the amount of effort needed to keep them eating and shedding.
> 
> This really isn't any need to ban them is it?
> 
> Also a bit of a turn around isn't it a few months back you were boosting how superior the genetics were on your silkbacks and selling them for £200 each but I guess your breeding plans have changed.


When comparing to other silkbacks, the genetics are strong. But not compared to normals. 

I've already stated that the breeding process taught me alot. So obviously, i've changed my breeding plans. 

Also, i sold 2 beardys for £200 each, that were worth well over £500, to assure they found a good home. They were the healthiest and the people i sold them to im still in contact with today to assure they remain looked after.

It would be hypocritical if i maintained my breeding practices, but i have learned by my mistakes. I didn't make any profit breeding silkbacks. If i was that way inclined i could have made thousands, but instead i made a loss. 




Also; harrowing breeding processes, severe genetic inferiority's, unique care requirements, lack of public knowledge, lack of proper vet care...the list goes on. If that isn't a reason to ban them, what does it take?


----------



## Kiel

I *REALLY *don't like the idea of 'banning' our pets, we already have enough issues within the hobby. If people don't buy them, people won't breed them, especially with the specialist care you say they require (taking your word for this, 0 firsthand experience).

To ban this opens the entire hobby to a multitude of other misconceived cruelties from people that don't understand what we do.

Whilst I can agree on the problems, I don't think a ban is the solution. That's not to say I have any better ideas though...


----------



## Kuja

Kiel said:


> I *REALLY *don't like the idea of 'banning' our pets, we already have enough issues within the hobby. If people don't buy them, people won't breed them, especially with the specialist care you say they require (taking your word for this, 0 firsthand experience).
> 
> To ban this opens the entire hobby to a multitude of other misconceived cruelties from people that don't understand what we do.
> 
> Whilst I can agree on the problems, I don't think a ban is the solution. That's not to say I have any better ideas though...


 Perhaps a ban on breeding then? as they are pets we do not need to breed from them, let them retire as pets?

I don't know how it should be approached tbh as like you stated i have no first hand experience with them i can only judge by what i see, i just hope it does not get any worse and we end up with a rather colorful genetic problem 

Cannot see it getting far though, as look at pedigree dogs, classed as pure but so many problems.


----------



## DanielEM

Kiel said:


> I *REALLY *don't like the idea of 'banning' our pets, we already have enough issues within the hobby. If people don't buy them, people won't breed them, especially with the specialist care you say they require (taking your word for this, 0 firsthand experience).
> 
> To ban this opens the entire hobby to a multitude of other misconceived cruelties from people that don't understand what we do.
> 
> Whilst I can agree on the problems, I don't think a ban is the solution. That's not to say I have any better ideas though...


In my opinion, its an all or nothing thing. Various breeders and small time hobbyists (unfortunately, for a time, me included) cannot be trusted with forethought and unlike myself, they may not consider the steep learning curv and ethical compromises to be of importance..especially if it hinders their profits.

Its like asking the general public kindly not to sell drugs, steal or start fights. Rules and regulations have to be enforced. Its not about us, its about them...processes should be in place to protect victims, not protect the rights of the people instigating the problem.

Whether this be banning, licensing or something else. People having free run of a market that should be reserved for experienced, responsible owners is unacceptable.


----------



## Zakk

Totally agree with you mate but you've only got to look at the spider gene in royal pythons to know that most people are aware of the ethical issues and just dont care :/ its a terrible truth but its a truth all the same. glad you took the time to expand on your thoughts with some actual points though as opposed to the usual beat down threads that these things get. Kudos.


----------



## Gazfather

Kiel said:


> I *REALLY *don't like the idea of 'banning' our pets, we already have enough issues within the hobby. If people don't buy them, people won't breed them, especially with the specialist care you say they require (taking your word for this, 0 firsthand experience).
> 
> To ban this opens the entire hobby to a multitude of other misconceived cruelties from people that don't understand what we do.
> 
> Whilst I can agree on the problems, I don't think a ban is the solution. That's not to say I have any better ideas though...


Tjis^^^^ we are certainly going to have some major issues as a hobby if we start banning specific genetics. 
I think they should certainly be restricted , this goes without saying and also the sale of them should be very closely monitored. I don't personally believe that a silk back would be suitable for anyone as a first lizard for example. 
I think that a lot of reptile keepers should have to take a quiz or test before they're allowed to buy anything. Some pet shops do this as do some breeders however there are still far too many irresponsible morons involved in the sale of exotics.


----------



## DanielEM

gaz140 said:


> Tjis^^^^ we are certainly going to have some major issues as a hobby if we start banning specific genetics.
> I think they should certainly be restricted , this goes without saying and also the sale of them should be very closely monitored. I don't personally believe that a silk back would be suitable for anyone as a first lizard for example.
> I think that a lot of reptile keepers should have to take a quiz or test before they're allowed to buy anything. Some pet shops do this as do some breeders however there are still far too many irresponsible morons involved in the sale of exotics.


Thats not ideal. It doesn't really matter how qualified an owner is, the mutation still creates unavoidable irritations and pain to the individual. 

However, it is a good compromise and i certainly wouldn't discourage it, if it was on the cards.


----------



## Jazzy B Bunny

Silk backs are so ugly. They look naked and burnt. I have no idea why anyone would want one, but each to their own!


----------



## buggyboy

i thought ide post a few pics of my two silkys
ive had no problems with uv or shedding, i dont apply any creams and at 8 months they are perfectly healthy. in my opinion people fuss them way to much.
As for there skin being soft, they have never burnt at normal beardy baskin temps and nether a problem with 10% uv.
i think pics say it all




























and as babys


----------



## Yemen

Wow these morphs look amazing but I have to agree with your point!


----------



## MCEE

It's not a case of banning them. Banning everything only drives things underground. The answer is to stop them being "wanted". If you take out the demand the supply will stop.

I personally think they are horrible looking animals.


----------



## buggyboy

I think they are stunning and im glad to say a lot of people agree.
There will always be people breeding silkys whatever people think.


----------



## Kuja

buggyboy said:


> I think they are stunning and im glad to say a lot of people agree.
> There will always be people breeding silkys whatever people think.


and spiders, and enigma's etc etc.

Isn't ideal mind, but i can't see it changing either way, although i do wish people would at least think before they breed lol, seems to be pretty colour, sod the animal.


----------



## [email protected]

It is unfortunate that they have problems, but having an "industry" ban is not realistic (no enforcement) and a legislative ban is a terrible slippery slope choice that can lead to a much wider "reptile" ban.

There are any number of species that I think are highly inappropriate for private captive care, but there is not a lot I can do about it, aside from not selling those species.


----------



## trogdorable

i think its quite sad. To me i think its another thing that makes the hobby look bad. Breeding animals with poorer quality life and genes because people think they look pretty.


----------



## DanielEM

[email protected] said:


> It is unfortunate that they have problems, but having an "industry" ban is not realistic (no enforcement) and a legislative ban is a terrible slippery slope choice that can lead to a much wider "reptile" ban.
> 
> There are any number of species that I think are highly inappropriate for private captive care, but there is not a lot I can do about it, aside from not selling those species.


I think I have to agree with you, I guess thats all i was trying to discourage on this post. Alot of people dont know the extent of a silkbacks downfalls.

I think a licensing system should be in place for alot if not all exotic species. Or a house/address test or visit. Even a questionnaire and extra information at the pet shop. 

Banning is the extreme, but we're not even at the less severe cautions.


----------



## sheena is a gecko

I'll be the first to admit I have next to no experience with beardies in general never mind silk backs and if I'm honest i think they look awful, like they've been turned inside out. Was wondering if someone could expand on the specific problems they as a morph have. I know you said they have shedding issues and specific UV requirements etc but how many times have we read threads saying "My leo/beardie/crestie/whatever is having problems shedding, has been burnt, has MBD" etc etc, that is a problem with the husbandry and care of the owner not the animal. Any animal if not cared for correctly who doesn't have it's specific needs met is open to all manner of issues : victory:


----------



## GlasgowGecko

"Genetically inferior", in what way? Even a cursory understanding of genetics would allow you to realise that this term is hideously inappropriate here.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that while you _may_ have the species' "interest at heart", this type of nonsensical, inappropriately emotive, tosh is actually damaging to reptile keeping in general. Whether or not I agree with keeping these animals is irrelevant, if you want to make a case for not breeding them, and hope others will listen, it is best to based your arguments on facts, not propaganda.

A little annoyed by your post to be honest. If you have any way of backing up any of these claims, I would be happy to hear them.

Andy


----------



## Salazare Slytherin

Normal reptiles look much better in my opinion anyways.
Whatever happned to keeping reptiles for what they are, not what we want them to be?


----------



## Salazare Slytherin

buggyboy said:


> i thought ide post a few pics of my two silkys
> ive had no problems with uv or shedding, i dont apply any creams and at 8 months they are perfectly healthy. in my opinion people fuss them way to much.
> As for there skin being soft, they have never burnt at normal beardy baskin temps and nether a problem with 10% uv.
> i think pics say it all
> 
> image
> 
> image
> 
> image
> 
> and as babys
> 
> image


 
That looks like a sausage roll!


----------



## Tombo46

GlasgowGecko said:


> "Genetically inferior", in what way? Even a cursory understanding of genetics would allow you to realise that this term is hideously inappropriate here.
> 
> In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that while you _may_ have the species' "interest at heart", this type of nonsensical, inappropriately emotive, tosh is actually damaging to reptile keeping in general. Whether or not I agree with keeping these animals is irrelevant, if you want to make a case for not breeding them, and hope others will listen, it is best to based your arguments on facts, not propaganda.
> 
> A little annoyed by your post to be honest. If you have any way of backing up any of these claims, I would be happy to hear them.
> 
> Andy


I understand that you're annoyed Andy but the above post isn't something I'm used to seeing from you. Care to expand on your counter argument? Do you agree that silk backs in general are showing a reduction in fitness? Do you consider an inability to breed safety between 2 silk backs a reduction in fitness?

And just to be clear. In a discussion no ones opinion is irrelivant so what is your view on silk backs? And why? 

Let's try and turn this in to an actual conversation, it could well be interesting.



Salazare Slytherin said:


> That looks like a sausage roll!


I'm off to the butchers next door...see you in 5 ; )


----------



## GlasgowGecko

I am entirely neutral, with no strong feelings either way Tom. What I object too, is the speculation that anybody keeping or breeding these animals must surely be keeping them inappropriately, and thus committing animal cruelty (and the obvious mistakes in the logic of the argument).

I have no problem with people 'objecting' to keeping specific animals, but to base it on such propaganda, and call all keepers who do keep them immoral and unethical is completely unacceptable.

Andy


----------



## Salazare Slytherin

There is only one dangerous breed, (people).


----------



## MCEE

Salazare Slytherin said:


> There is only one dangerous breed, (people).


Lions are quite dangerous. Oh, and box jellyfish. Great white sharks can be... if you are a surfer. Then there's the Sydney funnel-web spider... nasty peice of work, that one. And what about...

At least people have the option, or can call upon self-will, not to be dangerous. All those above couldn't care less if they hurt you so they should be well avoided.


----------



## nicnet

Personally I think the slippery slope here is that as a hobby we seem to find it acceptable to be breeding morphs that have obvious health issues. The enigma being one of them. They are still bred regardless of the health issues just as they are a nice looking morph. If I recall correctly the original breeders of the enigma stopped breeding them due to the health issues, but enough of the morph had got out that others continued to breed them regardless.

With the silkbacks there are obvious problems already showing in the morph, sensitivity to UV, shedding issues. I've been seeing lots of advice online as to how to deal with their skin issues and some are even using oils as moisturisers for the shedding issue. If anyone has ever spent time in hotter climes like Africa you'd know that oil and UV do not mix, put oil based cream on over there and you'll fry. 

Colour morphs through selective breeding is one thing, as long as the morphs show no health issues. Changing the shape and scales in my opinion is a step too far, more so when added to the health issues on top.

We are seeing the health issues from this kind of breeding in the dog show world, animals that have inherant life threatening health problems that are selectivly ignored just to produce the next generation of dogs that are sold at high prices.

Lets not go down that road as a hobby and end up with unhealthy animals just for fashion.

What is the next step from silkbacks? Albino silkies that are even more prone to uv burns and possible blindness? Dragons with huge heads where their necks will suffer from the overbalance? Dwarfed dragons that can't drop their eggs naturally and need surgical intervention?

Where exactly is the line and at what point will the health of the animals and their offspring take precidence over fashion.

As to what to do about it, lobby the breeders of these morphs to think long and hard about the health of the animals over their drive to produce new morphs to get the big paydays out of them.

The problem with that is then that since everyone will be producing the same kind of animals the profits for them will drop and they can no longer sell that £3000 new morph and cash in on it regardless of the health issues. 

I'd say to the breeders, breed us healthy animals and take the responsibility of the health of those animals that your breeding. If you want a challenge on producing that which others can't then take on the rare species that are still being WC and get them breeding in captivity. Please do not play around with them next though, lets keep the breeding of these species above reproach and show other species breeders how a hobby should be doing it. Good healthy strong animals rather than unhealthy morphs.


----------



## Moony14

I'd rather a bearded dragon look prehistoric than a peeled orange like those high red silkbacks do :whistling2:


----------



## Salazare Slytherin

MCEE said:


> Lions are quite dangerous. Oh, and box jellyfish. Great white sharks can be... if you are a surfer. Then there's the Sydney funnel-web spider... nasty peice of work, that one. And what about...
> 
> At least people have the option, or can call upon self-will, not to be dangerous. All those above couldn't care less if they hurt you so they should be well avoided.


All those above are natural, and can get quite nicely by without human intervention, humans :censor: things up in the animal kingdom, always have done and it seems always will continue to do so, even in captivity there are issues which are not being addressed, nature is being pushed to its limits, land being taken over by human population, rainforests being cut down and trees not being replanted etc, you get the picture.

Animals can live quite nicely without us, we can't live without them though?:hmm:

Just where do we draw the line at as Nicnet said.
People are natures worst enemy, all of the above are nothing compared to what people can and are doing in numbers, we will likley be the end of ourselves.


----------



## Imrahill

anyone who thinks tinkering with these animals genetic make up is a goood idea should look at the world of dogs, there are many breeds which are knackered due to humans mucking about like a part time frankenstein just to get a "look" i personally think its stupid and in the long run will damage breeds to the point where they are no use but i agree that there is no real way to police people who wish to do this so in the meantime if you dont agree with it dont buy them or any morph because if there is no money in them people will stop breeding them.


----------



## Imrahill

To add to my point, i have nothing against people who breed morphs or whatever you call them, its not immoral illegal or unetheical.i have a good higher education understanding of genetics and anytime you alter an animal be it cat dog lizard you "weaken" its genetic strength but this i mean you generally shorten its life span notice i didnt say life quality however in some cases you will.For example a hundred or so years ago british bulldogs would live to easily 10 years but due to selective breeding nowadays 8 years is considered good, so even a leo morph will be "weaker genetically" than a normal however there is no proof that it causes the animal any problem but if we keep breeding morph with morph the weakness gets worse and eventually it will effect the breed either in lifespan or it immune system.


----------



## kirky1980

just looks like a shave scrotum really lol not my cup of tea but hey theres clearly proof that they can be kept as easy as a normal beardie : victory:


----------



## Salazare Slytherin

kirky1980 said:


> just looks like a shave scrotum really lol not my cup of tea but hey theres clearly proof that they can be kept as easy as a normal beardie : victory:


It looks somewhere between the lines of a naked rinkly granny, and a sausage roll, I can't see the mentality of getting a joy from keeping these personally, I certainly would not want one sat in front room or bedroom for that matter.

Beleive me I have tried to see it from a different angle but I just can't get my head around most morphs can someone explain what it is they see in them? without the personal preference answer please, lots of reptiles I would never keep but I can still see the beauty in them, these though?.

I know keepers will love their pets, and I wont argue with that, but what on earth attracted you to them in the first place?

As rthompson said today, peeps wont be happy ontil these animals are pooping out snakes.


----------



## Jazzy B Bunny

And a penis in a flavoured condom ...... :grin1::eek4:


----------



## nicnet

Imrahill said:


> To add to my point, i have nothing against people who breed morphs or whatever you call them, its not immoral illegal or unetheical.i have a good higher education understanding of genetics and anytime you alter an animal be it cat dog lizard you "weaken" its genetic strength but this i mean you generally shorten its life span notice i didnt say life quality however in some cases you will.For example a hundred or so years ago british bulldogs would live to easily 10 years but due to selective breeding nowadays 8 years is considered good, so even a leo morph will be "weaker genetically" than a normal however there is no proof that it causes the animal any problem but if we keep breeding morph with morph the weakness gets worse and eventually it will effect the breed either in lifespan or it immune system.



I have to disagree on some points there. Genetics can and are used for the good of some species and strengthen them. Look at racehorses for example. Some species of bulls. sheeps species. Selective breeding does not weaken the genetics if done responsibly and for the good of the animals.

Bulldogs were line bred to the point that there was a very limited genetic pool and pretty much all bulldogs that were being bred were related. The now look absolutely nothing like the original bulldog, the kennel club is however now altering standards and will start to refuse to register dogs that are showing obvious bad traits, like under/overshot jaws. I think they are even on about going as far as to say that if a bulldog needs a ceserean to give birth due to the size of the heads on the pups, then the pups will not be allowed to be registered. They are correcting past mistakes and we need to learn from this now.

Selective breeding is not the problem, genetics is not the problem, the problem here is when morphs are bred that are inherantly unhealthy and instead of stopping breeding that line the breeders think its great and continue. This is driven by the consumers who always want something different to 'jo bloggs' and will pay for these unhealthy animals regardless of whether the animal is suffering or not.

Take the fish industry for another example. neon coloured danio's. People buy them by the bucketful, and do not realise that they are actually injected with that colour 90% of the time. Each fish is fed into a machine, grabbed, injected repeatedly along points with dye by a needle that would be the size of a pencil to us. There are huge die off in the first few days from shock. But they are still sold in aquatic shops around the world as they are fashionable.

Bubble eyed goldfish, they usually die fairly young as their eye sacks are literally blown up like baloons, if they catch that on anything it bursts and the eye pops out. This is done by selective breeding.


The ONLY way to stop things like this from happening is for people to stop buying them and let the breeders of these morphs understand that the hobby does not need unhealthy animals just so they can fill their pockets from the latest fashion.

I'd like to see the FBH look into this and urge all their members to stop breeding these unhealthy morphs. After all its in the interests of the entire hobby in this country to be seen to be breeding healthy strong animals and as far as I'm aware that is part of what the FBH does, to look after the general interests of the hobby.


----------



## MCEE

nicnet said:


> I have to disagree on some points there. Genetics can and are used for the good of some species and strengthen them. Look at racehorses for example. Some species of bulls. sheeps species. Selective breeding does not weaken the genetics if done responsibly and for the good of the animals.


Selective breeding is very rarely done for the good of the animals. It is normally only done for our own gain. Whether it be for meat production, wool production, speed or because people think they will look nicer in the vivarium. However, whichever way you look at it, selective breeding is, by definition, enhancing some genes at the expense of surpressing others. Who is to say some of these surpessed genes are not ones that enable that animal to live a normal or comfortable life. As we are still in the age of gene fingerprinting infancy it is very unlikely scientist/breeders will know of all of the genes which are being surpressed only of the ones that they intended to enhance.

It reminds me of a friend who tried to crossbreed some sheep. One with good wool production and one with good meat content. His intent was to end up with sheep that had both good wool and good meat. However, he ended up with sheep that had crap wool and crap meat.:lol2:


----------



## pukka dragons

Hi everyone I havent read every post on this but would just like to say Ive kept silks for over 3years and breed them for the last 2year. I too had probs at the start because I listerned to the rumous of the extra care they needed.Once Ive stopped and treated them like the others Ive no probs. The only extra care needed is NO live food left in over night and bathed every other day instead of once a week. Theres a facebook group with breeders and keepers of silks all over the world that will tell you the same.feel free to join its called silkback loving. 

Silks wont every go away because everyone want mirco scaled dragons because of thier colour and as you know you cant breed these with out breeding silks. So the best thing people can do is help learn the people breeding them for the best of the dragon. :2thumb:


----------



## DanielEM

I think what alot of people are missing here is that; it doesn't matter how well *YOU* take care of your silkie or how much *YOU* take care at breeding them.

An industry, or a private breeder is distributing their "stock" far and wide. And the people who buy them are fueling this irresponsibility. 


The fact of the matter is, and it is a fact...is that the vast majority of the silkies sold and bought are going to be mistreated.


Its irrelevent how you act, if you are breeding and keeping silkies your contributing to a problem, and an ever growing one at that. 

Also, its important to note that like alot of species and sub-species, care depends on the individual. Theres been a couple of guys on here saying they dont need to encourage healthy shedding with creams or baths, or use a different UV level. 

For one its obvious a silkback will need different UV than a normal, whether the effects of not doing so appear now or later - *no scales means less UV filtration, simple enough right?*

Each individual will need different levels of care and experience different severity's of their inferiorities within their characteristics. But these characteristics remain present either way. 


It doesn't suprise me that people are coming forward to try and defend the morph. It also doesn't suprise me that the people doing so already own/breed silkies. 

But its also good to see that the majority of people can see the OBVIOUS downsides to breeding and buying this morph.


----------



## Adambeth

Let me get this right, you want the silk back breed to no longer exist, and anyone who buys and sells them are irresponsible?

You included a picture of a silk back dragon that YOU own. 

Do you see where I'm going with this?


----------



## MCEE

Adambeth said:


> Let me get this right, you want the silk back breed to no longer exist, and anyone who buys and sells them are irresponsible?


Correction. It is not a breed it is a morph or, as I like to refer to it, a mutant.


----------



## DanielEM

Adambeth said:


> Let me get this right, you want the silk back breed to no longer exist, and anyone who buys and sells them are irresponsible?
> 
> You included a picture of a silk back dragon that YOU own.
> 
> Do you see where I'm going with this?


I don't know if you skim read the first post but, 

I have realised the error of my ways through experience. The reason I own a silkback is because I used to (regrettably) contribute to this part of the hobby. I could cash in big time on my beardy as a stud, or continue to breed, but i dont. Because of the reasons stated.

If i was to sell my beardy on, theres a 100% chance others would use him to breed. I keep him for this reason. And because im attached to him ofcourse. I WILL NEVER buy into the exotic pet trade again. Let alone this part of it. 

What part of this confuses you?


----------



## Allykat713

It should be what Nature intended and that should be final...


----------



## DanielEM

Allykat713 said:


> It should be what Nature intended and that should be final...


Im not sure if thats a good turn of phrase if im honest. Afterall if life was like that we'd die at 20, live on fruit and nuts and the only animals we'd own would be wolves.

I garuntee any pet you own isnt "as nature intended". 

I think selective breeding is fine, aslong as the animals well being is not compromised.


----------



## MartinH1

I can see both sides of the arguement here, but if I'm honest a ban would be almost impossible to enforce due to many reasons. 

Firstly, it would never happen: dogs have been inbred for hundreds of years now, and only recently is the Kennel Club slightly altering rules after being pestered by the British Veterinary Society and by responsible breeders who have a clue as to what they're doing. Pugs have breathing problems due to their head shape, Labradors are prone to elbow and hip dysplaia (though this is now slowly being corrected due to public awareness and some new Kennel Club rules) and Chihuahua's are prone to heart problems. Yet I'm betting that some people on this forum have one of these breeds of dog and didn't do any research into the lineage of their dog to make sure it was free of harmful mutations. Even if health problems are present and are made aware to the public, this still hasn't changed peoples attitude to pedigree dog breeding, which is more of a widespread problem than reptiles breeding and other exotics. Its a niche, and until it's more in the public eye, I can't see it changing.

What I think is needed is a national body throughout the UK for the registration of reptiles (even though it is very unlikely), where reptiles have to meet a specific standard as to their lineage to ensure that closely related animals are not allowed to have their offspring sold (by lack of a certificate, which would normally be issued by the governing body to only breeders who have been checked and approved, to each of the offspring.

I haven't thought it out much so I'm sure theres holes in my arguement, but hey ho. But I do agree, if the animals welfare is at risk, then a specific morph shouldn't be selected.


----------



## MCEE

DanielEM said:


> Im not sure if thats a good turn of phrase if im honest. Afterall if life was like that we'd die at 20, live on fruit and nuts and the only animals we'd own would be wolves.
> 
> I garuntee any pet you own isnt "as nature intended".
> 
> I think selective breeding is fine, aslong as the animals well being is not compromised.


Selective breeding is fine when it is done to take advantage of a trait in the animal that would benefit us or the animal. However, using selective breeding for cosmetic purposes is just playing God for playing God sake. Silkbacks are a prime example. What purpose does breeding silkback beardies have over a naturally selected animals, through evolution, other than to try and enlarge the tiny egos of those who partake in such projects.


----------



## SwampK

a very interesting and thought provoking post there. I hadn't even heard of these problems before. When i first saw a silkback, it reminded me of a 'safety-proofed' bearded dragon- no sharp corners. judging by other people I've spoken to, it reminds of of a similar situation to chihuahuas; 50% love them and think they're cute, the other half think they're little sewer rats. 
Personally, i think that, considering all the health problems, these things should not be bred on such a large scale, and certainly not sold alongside normal bearded dragons.


----------



## NBLADE

DanielEM said:


> The fact of the matter is, and it is a fact...is that the vast majority of the silkies sold and bought are going to be mistreated.
> 
> 
> Do you have any figures and statistics to back up this claim? I have kept silks in the past, and still know quite a few that do, and none of these are mistreated.
> 
> 
> For one its obvious a silkback will need different UV than a normal, whether the effects of not doing so appear now or later - *no scales means less UV filtration, simple enough right?*
> 
> I've never used a different uv with them, and neither do the people i know, i did however just used to add a shelf to the vivs with silks in one corner, this would provide areas where there was no uv exposure, but i do this with standard beardeds alot aswell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't suprise me that people are coming forward to try and defend the morph. It also doesn't suprise me that the people doing so already own/breed silkies.
> 
> But its also good to see that the majority of people can see the OBVIOUS downsides to breeding and buying this morph.


I am not breeding silks at the moment, so have no financial gain from it, i quite like silks though, and have no issues with them being bred, shall we ban green tree pythons over other snakes as these can be tricky to look after and many of the cf indonesian ones can die suddenly. Should we ban people keeping and trying to breed some of the rarer agama or chameleon species as alot of people don't have success with them, mountain horned dragons and jacksons chameleons for example. There are many people around with great success keeping and breeding these species, as there are many people around who have great success with keeping and breeding silks. Just because you didn't have great success with them doesn't mean the majority of people will fail.

just my opinion.


----------



## DanielEM

NBLADE said:


> I am not breeding silks at the moment, so have no financial gain from it, i quite like silks though, and have no issues with them being bred, shall we ban green tree pythons over other snakes as these can be tricky to look after and many of the cf indonesian ones can die suddenly. Should we ban people keeping and trying to breed some of the rarer agama or chameleon species as alot of people don't have success with them, mountain horned dragons and jacksons chameleons for example. There are many people around with great success keeping and breeding these species, as there are many people around who have great success with keeping and breeding silks. Just because you didn't have great success with them doesn't mean the majority of people will fail.
> 
> just my opinion.


Its not about me, personally, having great succuss. Its about how strong the characteristics of these morphs are.

If it isn't a ban, it should be a licensing system/or even just a questionnaire at the shop. There is nothing, nadda, zip stopping clueless, irresponsible people buying speciality morphs.

So...yes, i do think there should be restrictions on all the species and morphs you just listed. I agree banning is not realistic, its a personal view, but i think we can all agree that absolutely no restrictions is ludicrous, exploitative and irresponsible.


----------



## NBLADE

DanielEM said:


> Its not about me, personally, having great succuss. Its about how strong the characteristics of these morphs are.
> 
> If it isn't a ban, it should be a licensing system/or even just a questionnaire at the shop. There is nothing, nadda, zip stopping clueless, irresponsible people buying speciality morphs.
> 
> So...yes, i do think there should be restrictions on all the species and morphs you just listed. I agree banning is not realistic, its a personal view, but i think we can all agree that absolutely no restrictions is ludicrous, exploitative and irresponsible.



but there are many people who have bred and kept silks for a few years now and are having no problems with them now they have tweeked how they keep them a little, so they are clearly not as weak as people think, it is just how they were kept in the beginning that was the problem, people have learnt not to overly fuss them and cream their skin and pull them about etc and they are now doing much better. 

I personally think that restrictions on things like this could be the start of a very slippery slope into restrictions on all the species we keep, and would make it easier for anti reptile keeping organisations to eventually put in for a blanket ban eventually, or such severe restrictions it may aswell be. 

I agree sellers of silk backs and with all reptiles should make sure the person the animal is going to will be able to look after it, a short conversation with someone should be enough to learn from them how much they know and if they know what they are talking about that is good enough for me.


----------



## Adambeth

Surely if the morph was that poor genetically and so difficult to look after then why do they still exist? Why are people able to successfully breed them and from them.


----------



## MCEE

Adambeth said:


> Surely if the morph was that poor genetically and so difficult to look after then why do they still exist? Why are people able to successfully breed them and from them.


Like with any morph in this hobby, rarity is more money in the pocket for the successful breeder. This money attracts more breeders and the more breeders there are the higher the odds that the morph will become successful, especially where there are buyers wanting these rarer morphs for their "trophy room". However, as these morphs become more common, through successful breeding, they become less prestigious and, thus, cheaper.

Lets face it, this is the typical morph where everybody who wants one only wants it because of it's rarity and earning potential. Very few people (there are a handful) want it because it's good looking. So when we get to the point that they are not worth anything does this mean there will be a glut of unwanted silkbacks looking for a good home? I think that may be quite likely.


----------



## NBLADE

MCEE said:


> Like with any morph in this hobby, rarity is more money in the pocket for the successful breeder. This money attracts more breeders and the more breeders there are the higher the odds that the morph will become successful, especially where there are buyers wanting these rarer morphs for their "trophy room". However, as these morphs become more common, through successful breeding, they become less prestigious and, thus, cheaper.
> 
> Lets face it, this is the typical morph where everybody who wants one only wants it because of it's rarity and earning potential. Very few people (there are a handful) want it because it's good looking. So when we get to the point that they are not worth anything does this mean there will be a glut of unwanted silkbacks looking for a good home? I think that may be quite likely.


They aren't really worth anything now, i've seen silks sold for 40 quid at shows, i like them not for their value, as they have none for me to worry about, but because the colours can really come through on them, and i also do like the way they feel. As for a load of unwanted ones, that's the same for bearded dragons in general, due to overbreeding the market is flooded with them now.


----------



## MCEE

NBLADE said:


> As for a load of unwanted ones, that's the same for bearded dragons in general, due to overbreeding the market is flooded with them now.


Exactly.


----------



## NBLADE

MCEE said:


> Exactly.


But the same could be said about leos, corns, cresteds, and a few other species aswell.


----------



## RENT-A-GOAT

Fecking about with nature is just wrong imho and whats to like about this result thet just look totally wrong like severe burns victims afterc extensive reconstuctive surgery. Just pure wrong and just for so called willy wangling points over other owners in the stakes of hey I have this new morph it looks totally wrong but hey its worth ££££ totally sad and pathetic. Just my 2p worth prob get flamed but feck it. 

sent from my Xperia S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MCEE

NBLADE said:


> But the same could be said about leos, corns, cresteds, and a few other species aswell.


'Tis true. 'Tis very true.


----------



## Adambeth

Almost every animal market these days are flooded by people to earn money.
We don't own any silkbacks, but I have always been interested in them, not for the money, but because of the colours they can show. 

people need to realise breeding animals shouldn't be about making money.


----------



## nicnet

Adambeth said:


> Almost every animal market these days are flooded by people to earn money.
> We don't own any silkbacks, but I have always been interested in them, not for the money, but because of the colours they can show.
> 
> *people need to realise breeding animals shouldn't be about making money.*



Nope. Breeding animals should be about producing strong, fit, healthy offspring and not about breeding a morph that is showing obvious health issues. The silkback is just the tip of that slope that it could go down but people will bury their heads in the sand and ignore the issue just so they can defend the fact that they breed them.

Female silkies get their necks ripped open when breeding, but 'jo bloggs jnr' who just bought two silkies and did very little research won't care about that, he'll just care that he has a pair of silkies that he can breed. When that male rips open the females neck, I'm sure little joe jnr will take her to the vet and get her stitched up again, at the end of the month maybe, when mom/dad gets paid, or after he sells the hatchlings...or probably not at all. I'm also sure that he won't keep a pair of silkies permanently in a 3ft viv where the male can rip at her all he likes, but hey, why should that matter one bit to the breeders of these morphs. They get bragging rights that they can breed silkies and still sell them.

££ for the breeders, and pain for the beardies. All is fair right?


----------



## Adambeth

Surely the silk back off spring morph is fit and healthy, otherwise they wouldnt survive. This is my point.

Any dragon can suffer from a "ripped neck" whether it be normal or silk back. Sounds to me like you're against breeding animals full stop, any female animal can become Injured during pregnancy.


----------



## 2 for Trippin

I disagree with breeding Silkbacks, Enigma morph leos and anything else which has neurological issues.


----------



## Allykat713

No my pets locked up in my house aren't as nature intended, not a lot i can do... i was just born into this world i didn't make it. And if nature intended us to have the brains to create medicine for us to live long than thats the way it is. And dogs have been domesticated over 10,000 years wolves would eat us. That silk thing is the first time i've seen it, and it looks awful, Looks like it needs suncream.


----------



## nicnet

Adambeth said:


> Surely the silk back off spring morph is fit and healthy, otherwise they wouldnt survive. This is my point.
> 
> Any dragon can suffer from a "ripped neck" whether it be normal or silk back. Sounds to me like you're against breeding animals full stop, any female animal can become Injured during pregnancy.



Silkies are not fit and healthy though. They have health issues that have been discussed in the thread. 

You can not breed a female silkie, they have no neck ridge for the male to get hold of so he just grabes her neck and rips it open, due to the fact they have no scales also there is nothing to protect her skin at all like a normal dragon would have.


I can't see how you can say I'm against breeding animals at all when I quite obviously have 2 clutches of beardies on the go at the moment. What I'm against is breeding unhealthy morphs like the silkie and enigma among others.


----------



## MCEE

Adambeth said:


> Surely the silk back off spring morph is fit and healthy, otherwise they wouldnt survive. This is my point.
> 
> Any dragon can suffer from a "ripped neck" whether it be normal or silk back. Sounds to me like you're against breeding animals full stop, any female animal can become Injured during pregnancy.


Paralympians are fit and healthy. What is your point?


----------



## Evilshiddenclaws

you forgot to say how disgusting they look :whistling2:

sorry but they look like they've been melted... or skinned and then melted... i just do not see the appeal


----------



## nicnet

Evilshiddenclaws said:


> you forgot to say how disgusting they look :whistling2:
> 
> sorry but they look like they've been melted... or skinned and then melted... i just do not see the appeal



I think they look like a penis in a coloured condom lol. (for the males who don't 'get' that comparison, have a look in the mirror ;p)


The appeal to those who keep them I think is more to do with something different looking than 'normal'. Latest fashion craze. Ever hear the term 'they are so ugly they are cute'.


Again it comes down to humans breeding animals for fashion rather than for the good and health of the animals. People will defend them just so they don't have to admit to the fact that once again a morph is being bred that in the long run will suffer so they can have something fashionable. 

People used to breed crocs and snakes just so they could skin them and make handbags as it was fashion, Now its 'living fashion' but still has nothing to do with the wellbeing or health of the animals. Its just to say they have something that someone else doesn't.

Reminds me of those people who walk around with pink dyed dogs in pushchairs. Fashion assessory rather than a living animal.


----------



## chris1978

Evilshiddenclaws said:


> you forgot to say how disgusting they look :whistling2:
> 
> sorry but they look like they've been melted... or skinned and then melted... i just do not see the appeal


Totally agree. Look like they've been set on fire, it's not a good look. 

I've never been a big fan of the whole morph phenomenon which has taken over the reptile keeping hobby, it wasn't too bad when just a few select morphs were being produced from a handful of species, but now more and more different species are being morphed into different colours and patterns, not to mention the hybridising of different species which seems to be occurring all the more regularly. 

Annoys me a bit when I see these crazy man made animals fetching thousands of pounds and these apparently sought after reptiles have diluted the interest in natural, and in my opinion, more attractive species because everyone suddenly thinks its cool to own a expensive morph. 

I've kept several different Beardies in the past(never Silkbacks) and I've often found the more unusual morphs to be generally weaker and more problematic than the commons and perhaps some of morphs that are not so far removed from the standard animal. 

It's wrong when it's reaching a point where the selective breeding is having severe effects on the animals health.


----------



## NBLADE

nicnet said:


> Silkies are not fit and healthy though. They have health issues that have been discussed in the thread.
> 
> You can not breed a female silkie, they have no neck ridge for the male to get hold of so he just grabes her neck and rips it open, due to the fact they have no scales also there is nothing to protect her skin at all like a normal dragon would have.



I was told this happens aswell, but according to a few friends of mine that keep them and breed them, they get no more damage to the necks than normal beardeds can get from breeding, and after seeing some of their breeding females there really is no real difference to it. 

I've seen some normal female bearded dragons with massive chunks out of the neck where the males have been to aggressive, so it happens with normal beardeds just as much as silks.


----------



## longdog13

chris1978 said:


> It's wrong when it's reaching a point where the selective breeding is having severe effects on the animals health.


Erm, kennel club have been dooing this for years, I bet some of those agreeing with, and being outraged by the subject of this thread have labradoodles, cockerpoos, sprockers or other such rediculously named 'fashionable' dogs. :whistling2::war:


----------



## Evilshiddenclaws

longdog13 said:


> Erm, kennel club have been dooing this for years, I bet some of those agreeing with, and being outraged by the subject of this thread have labradoodles, cockerpoos, sprockers or other such rediculously named 'fashionable' dogs. :whistling2::war:


jeez, dont even get me started on that topic.

btw can 'silkies' be referred to as a morph?? surely not, i was under the impression that 'morph' meant colour?? not scaleless!


----------



## nicnet

longdog13 said:


> Erm, kennel club have been dooing this for years, I bet some of those agreeing with, and being outraged by the subject of this thread have labradoodles, cockerpoos, sprockers or other such rediculously named 'fashionable' dogs. :whistling2::war:



Kennel club are cleaning up the standards on show dogs now though, they have learned by past mistakes (that they inherited from pervious generations). We should learn from their mistakes though.


As for labradoodles etc, which have nothing at all to do with the kennel club and can not be registered, dogs used to breed 'doodle's' are no longer eligible to stay registered. They are being bred not so much as a fashion assessory but for the 'wool' instead of fur. The animals themselves are healthy and fit. This started off as a way to provide disabled with working dogs even if they were allergic to dogs, they will not be allergic to the 'wool' of a poodle mix. Poodles are also very smart dogs so they were crossed with other smart dog breeds to enhance both fitness and mental health. They also don't molt and leave hairs around which to us is a bonus, to the dogs there is no down side. No more so than breeding 'pavement special' with 'jo bloggs mutt'. They are in essence a mongrel the same as a lot of us have. 


The price tag on them though is idiotic, which means that people will breed unsuitable dogs just to sell the pups. I've heard about labradors that have failed kennel club registration due to hip problems being bred to produce labradoodles. This is a problem with the breeders and not so much with the breed. Although if too many of those unscrupulous breeders sell pups then those bad hip genes will eventually be bred into the 'doodles'


Dogs are so far off their original form that they are a very bad example of this though. They can however be used as an example of what could protentially happen if ground floor breeding (where we are now) is left to indiscriminatly breed new morphs with no thought of the long term health of those animals.


----------



## MCEE

Evilshiddenclaws said:


> btw can 'silkies' be referred to as a morph?? surely not, i was under the impression that 'morph' meant colour?? not scaleless!


Maybe you are right. I will continue to refer to them as mutants.


----------



## empirecook

Surely it's about education rather than banning them?

Think of all that money which would be needed to enforce the ban...


----------



## Andy

Poor creatures... Sad world we live in where people purposely breed a deformity into an animal. I say deformity as in a negative genetic trait I.e. missing scales.


----------



## Igotamonster

I can understand now seeing one how different they can be my aunty just got one he has alot of old shed on him I want to ensure he has a healthy life a safe habbit. However I own normals and monitors and have looked but cant find any, so if anyone knows what cream , heat levels and uv strength so I can fix him up untill I find a vet


----------



## IngloriousJD

I've never been a big fan of silkbacks, don't think they're even that asthetically pleasing!


----------



## SeniorDiabko

I reggistered just to say thanks for the great information. After knowing what I know now, I too feel the same guilt.


----------



## GitaBooks

Wow, lots of strong-felt opinions here. : )

I've been doing a lot of research on genetically linked health problems in breeds and morphs of species kept as pets, so this is very useful information. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing all the variety in pet animals (even in dogs and cats and horses, though it is heart-breaking to see all the health problems), I just want to make sure they can live a natural, healthy life with a long lifespan and no extra pain or disabilities.

While the point of UV issues, shedding problems and males injuring females has been gotten, there were also references to babies being smaller, weaker, and less likely to thrive, adults being less likely to eat, and these animals having shorter lifespans. However, no proof was given of this and I would like to know if this is true or not. The facts are very important when doing research about such things. 

Thank you guys! : )


----------



## Azastral

GitaBooks said:


> Wow, lots of strong-felt opinions here. : )
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research on genetically linked health problems in breeds and morphs of species kept as pets, so this is very useful information. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing all the variety in pet animals (even in dogs and cats and horses, though it is heart-breaking to see all the health problems), I just want to make sure they can live a natural, healthy life with a long lifespan and no extra pain or disabilities.
> 
> While the point of UV issues, shedding problems and males injuring females has been gotten, there were also references to babies being smaller, weaker, and less likely to thrive, adults being less likely to eat, and these animals having shorter lifespans. However, no proof was given of this and I would like to know if this is true or not. The facts are very important when doing research about such things.
> 
> Thank you guys! : )


I think statistically silkbacks do tend to be smaller, and it does make logical sense that with the number of genetic handicaps they have from the breeding process they have a harder start at life.

With it being a desert dwelling animal, a lot of its evolutionary development will have gone towards being ready for that kind of harsh environment, the thicker skin, the ridges over its eyes, the spines to look more "dangerous" to a predator etc... the whole thing with silkbacks is these traits are bred out of them when they are the physical resistances they have developed for the world they are in. By removing so much of it, it is essentially more exposed and vunerable to environmental factors.


----------



## lcpete

I'm new to keeping reptiles but to me if a reptile can't shed naturally on its own and is very vulnerable to damage and in pain that can't be right 
I think that breeders should agree together not to breed and sell them but in the real world that is unlikely I suppose 

Something that I did notice while looking at the bearded dragons in our local shop they all seemed to have toe deformities of some type 
Things like a toe bent out at an odd angle 
Is this normal and due to intensive captive breeding?
They were all healthy and well kept though


----------



## Azastral

lcpete said:


> I'm new to keeping reptiles but to me if a reptile can't shed naturally on its own and is very vulnerable to damage and in pain that can't be right
> I think that breeders should agree together not to breed and sell them but in the real world that is unlikely I suppose
> 
> Something that I did notice while looking at the bearded dragons in our local shop they all seemed to have toe deformities of some type
> Things like a toe bent out at an odd angle
> Is this normal and due to intensive captive breeding?
> They were all healthy and well kept though


Its quite common yes, often due to where many young are kept in a viv thats either a bit too small for so many or where they are fed together and babies are frantic eaters biting at anything.
Minor injuries like bent/broken toes, tail tips missing, toes missing are unfortunate but common side effects of this.

It takes a breeder who is willing to properly look after each clutch, separate them out into much smaller groups (meaning more vivarium setups) and then monitoring at feeding times to help avoid these issues.
Good breeders will also then rotate out the ones that are growing fastest and put the bigger ones together so the smaller ones arent dominated too much and get a chance to feed properly.

Its sad but its true, beardies are bred in far too high a number and many do not give them the time or care or expense to provide enough space and avoid issues like this.


----------



## GitaBooks

Thank you for the replies, that does help with my research a lot. : )


----------



## lcpete

Azastral said:


> Its quite common yes, often due to where many young are kept in a viv thats either a bit too small for so many or where they are fed together and babies are frantic eaters biting at anything.
> Minor injuries like bent/broken toes, tail tips missing, toes missing are unfortunate but common side effects of this.
> 
> It takes a breeder who is willing to properly look after each clutch, separate them out into much smaller groups (meaning more vivarium setups) and then monitoring at feeding times to help avoid these issues.
> Good breeders will also then rotate out the ones that are growing fastest and put the bigger ones together so the smaller ones arent dominated too much and get a chance to feed properly.
> 
> Its sad but its true, beardies are bred in far too high a number and many do not give them the time or care or expense to provide enough space and avoid issues like this.


I see thanks so it's just poor husbandry by the breeders rather than genetic deformities which is what I thought


----------



## AmenMoses

In my opinion this is no longer really a bearded dragon, i.e. it would not survive for long in the current environment typical of a 'real' bearded dragon.

Instead it is a throw back to an earlier species, probably when the environment was completely different, wetter and probably cooler (Australia has not always been where it is now nor anything like how it is now!). The Genes that code for this earlier species still exist within the DNA, similar to how some humans can be born with tails or chickens with teeth. Unfortunately, without a wild version of these particular traits to study, the exact husbandry required is pure guesswork.

For these traits to be easily expressed through breeding they must have existed sometime on the past and most likely together (probably mutations on the same Gene in fact) so it is not correct to say that this is genetically inferior any more than a hairless dog is inferior to a great dane, just different.

If I had one of these I would (purely from appearance and compared to conditions for a 'normal') raise humidity by about 20%, change the substate to a less sandy mix, reduce UV to 5% and for lower periods, possibly even go for IR as main heat source with reduced levels of full spectrum visible light.

The main worries I would have is that the genetic traits may be missing other essential traits that would have been combined in the past, i.e. the skin obviously requires higher humidity but is the adaptation in the lungs also present to cope with higher humidities? Are they more prone to respiratory problems?

Can anyone who has these tell me if they can change colour like 'normals' can?


----------



## GitaBooks

You make some good points. : )

However most, if not all, mutations in animals are just that, a spontaneous mutation where a gene is defective during "construction" meaning it is not naturally in their genetic code and was not in it during the past. Take albinos for example, or long-haired dogs. This is when genetic material is either lost (no color in albinos) or changed (hair grows longer then meant to), or even with the example of people with tails, probably just a gene gone wrong, like when people have excess skin growth or extra fingers. 
As a matter of fact, some mutations are caused by physical factors like temperature during incubation, chemicals, or radiation. Many mice colors in captivity were created in labs by changing the genetic code.

I know I'm getting off track, I just love talking about animals though. : )


----------



## Azastral

There are two types of variation, genetic and environmental, this is even taught as a equation in genetics to give phenotypes (physical expressions of variation).

Mutation can be a consequence of error during processes like transcription or can occur in the process of creating gametes and these are two very difference sources of genetic variation, there are also then environmental factors that interact with genetic variations to produce differing results, or have a direct impact on phenotype development...the list goes on, theres many ways to alter genes or their phenotypical expression.

Silkbacks are not "throwbacks" to earlier forms of bearded dragons, they have specific traits bred out of them which is a very different process to evolutionary development. The whole idea of natural selection would also support this, the conditions exist which require the traits for survival, those without the traits have lower success rates and as such the genes are not as successful in being passed on.

Evolution and natural selection effectively work together, one eliminating genes the other creating new ones, you cant create an earlier version of a species through selectively breeding the existing species. You may create approximations but the genetics themselves will not match, primarily due to a section of those genetics having been lost due to their low survival rates in animals carrying that phenotype.


----------



## AmenMoses

I doubt very much these traits are due to new mutations, if these traits have come about in just a few generations they are most likely recessive traits exposed through breeding individuals that both happen to have them in their genes.

In the wild such individuals would quickly die off, long before they themselves could breed but the genes stay around in the population even if not actually expressed very often because the dominant genes are more common.

The environment in which Beardies have evolved has not been constant, in the past their ancestors needed to survive in lots of different conditions and the genes that allowed for that survival stay in the gene pool for a very very long time.

Hence why sometimes chickens are born with teeth, the gene for teeth is still there it is only when it accidentally gets turned on the trait re-appears, similar to hairy humans or humans with tails. The chances of a NEW mutation suddenly arising that codes for a tail or teeth is absolutely minuscule, evolution works with what is already there.

Accidental switching on of pre-existing suppressed traits that give a survival advantage is probably the most common trick of evolution, far more common than that of new advantageous mutations which tend to act on existing traits to tweak them slightly.


----------



## Azastral

AmenMoses said:


> I doubt very much these traits are due to new mutations, if these traits have come about in just a few generations they are most likely recessive traits exposed through breeding individuals that both happen to have them in their genes.
> 
> In the wild such individuals would quickly die off, long before they themselves could breed but the genes stay around in the population even if not actually expressed very often because the dominant genes are more common.
> 
> The environment in which Beardies have evolved has not been constant, in the past their ancestors needed to survive in lots of different conditions and the genes that allowed for that survival stay in the gene pool for a very very long time.
> 
> Hence why sometimes chickens are born with teeth, the gene for teeth is still there it is only when it accidentally gets turned on the trait re-appears, similar to hairy humans or humans with tails. The chances of a NEW mutation suddenly arising that codes for a tail or teeth is absolutely minuscule, evolution works with what is already there.
> 
> Accidental switching on of pre-existing suppressed traits that give a survival advantage is probably the most common trick of evolution, far more common than that of new advantageous mutations which tend to act on existing traits to tweak them slightly.


Silkbacks are the product of selective breeding to bring out recessive genes, recessive genes are not signs of precursor species, simply alleles that are commonly overridden by other alleles, recessive genes are also commonly found to be detrimental, it is not because they arent commonly present in a species, they arent expressed because it normally takes two alleles of the same recessive gene for it to be expressed.

Yes, the environment in austrailia has changed considerably over time, as has the rest of the world, but silkback characteristics would have made them more vunerable in any of these due to being a prey species and even with the enviromental changes, there is a strong chance the uv protection would still be a requirement.
I dont think silkbacks will bare any greater resemblence to any ancestoral species than the "norm" morph.

Its is not a rule, but it is nearly always true that having recessive alleles expressed, ie there is no other allele present to override it and as such the recessive phenotype/trait is expressed, is detrimental.
That can be in a number of different ways, extreme examples of this is when you look at some breeds of dogs and they have respiratory problems, joint problems, growth deformities, short lifespans etc etc

Alleles by definition are mutations, and mutations can occur in a single generation. Admittedly, -Successful- mutations tend to take longer but it is not impossible, it can also take several generations of mutations in order to get to what you might consider a "finished" product.
Thats pretty much evolution.


----------



## GitaBooks

It is so cool how animals can "turn off" a gene and then "turn it back on" when they need it. This is a huge discovery that is teaching us just how quickly animals can adapt, with-in just one generation or so.

However, both toothed chickens and tailed people aren't signs of this as tails in people are not actually "tails" they are just a mutation like people missing eyes or teeth or dwarfisim. These are bad mutations, things not meant to happen, because something happened wrong during development, not something happened right. 

Toothed chickens are a lethal gene, meaning it is a mutation in a gene and kills the chicks before they hatch. Toothed birds did and do exist, but I don't think that is why chickens have teeth.

I love talking about genetics. You guys are helping me learn so much. : )


----------

