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]