Dear FML folks,
 
While I always find Bob C's commentary to be insightful and
well-reasoned, as well as extremely informative, I was surprised at
his recent opinion on breeding, as exemplified by: "First, I think
ANY breeding that causes change to the skull or skeleton should be
abolished."
 
First, I have to say that I do not have a strong visceral opinion one way
or another.  However, I think it's worthwhile differentiating breeding
programs for wild animals that are designed for reintroduction into
natural habitats and those breeding programs for domesticated animals
designed for, well, domestic purposes.  I think it's also important to
consider the ferret issue in a much broader context.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with all of Bob C's objections in the context of
breeding wild animals.  Since nearly all the breeding programs I know of
are with species that have very small populations, a prime goal is to
encourage as great a mix of genetics in offspring as possible to increase
the total population and eventually let natural selection take its course
within a critical mass of individuals.  It seems patently unwise to
decide, a priori, what genetic qualities would best suit a wild
population.
 
However, I have a harder time understanding the essential difference in
breeding strategies for ferrets compared to, for example, dogs or cats
or rabbits or cattle or gerbils or horses or sheep or mice or chickens
or snakes or goats or pigs or rats--none of whom are expected to be
re-introduced into the wild as a self-sustaining population.  The
purposes of domesticated breeding programs range from the purely cosmetic
(e.g., cats) to temperament and "use" (e.g., dogs) to direct human
nutrition (e.g., cattle).  One could easily cite significant changes in
skull and skeleton, as well as physiology and body composition, not
mention appearance in *all* domestic animals due to selective breeding
programs.  Indeed, our current food supply, both animal-based and
plant-based, is due almost entirely to generations of selective breeding
programs.  The astonishing variety of "show chickens" (meant to see, not
to eat) boggles my imagination.
 
While I partially understand the negative reaction to breeding simply for
appearance, I don't think that it is a trivial component to domestic
animals kept as pets.  A person living in an apartment is more likely to
choose a spaniel or miniature poodle than a great Dane or St. Bernard,
for example.  The innumerable animal shows around the country demonstrate
the fascination with different breeds and ideals of physical perfection.
However one might decry such exhibitions, it's disingenuous to dismiss
them all (and the leagues of pet and animal owners for whom appearance is
at least partially important) out of hand.  I will admit keeping certain
types of reptiles, and choosing pets from our local shelter partially
(though not wholly) based on how they look.
 
In sum, I agree that breeding programs should be carried out ethically
and responsibly, with careful attention to unfortunate physiological
defects.  However, I am very uncomfortable with condemning and
sanctioning a very select set of breeding programs for one domesticated
species based on narrow and arbitrary criteria.  True, economics will
dictate the success or failure of such programs and people should vote
with their wallet; however, history over the past thousands of years
suggests that Bob C's recommendations will not be followed.
 
Cheers,
Peter
 
: Peter Marvit, PhD                         <[log in to unmask]> :
: Dept. Anatomy and Neurobiology   University of Maryland Medical School:
: 20 Penn Street, HSF II, Room S251                 Baltimore, MD 21201 :
: phone 410-706-1272                                   fax 410-706-2512 :
[Posted in FML issue 4677]