 |  |
|
mel Goofy Gorillatoes    TX, USA 2464 Posts quote:
Originally posted by Ahsaehr
Everyone who dishes out a grand for one of those rat looking white gliders should donate to the Rheasha's college fund
 LuckyGlider Zippy Glidershorts  TX, USA 5266 Posts Hmm, very interesting. When I started this post, I made three points (abbreviated here): 1. Just watch your gliders change color over time. 2. Charging a premium for color promotes in-breeding, quick-buck behavior and wanna-be clueless breeders. 3. Color is just a fad on top of an *already* bad fad. Sure, on the first point, an albino is not going to change color. But champagne colored and cinnimon ones change. I know because it has happened to me in my two colonies. On the second point, this was not meant to be a condemnation of all breeders, but the starry-eyed clueless ones who have no moral compass let alone an idea of what they are doing. The reason I know the ills they have wrought is by talking to rescuers who clean up wanna-be breeder disasters. I don't need scientific proof of that. I also don't need scientific proof of how bad husbandry from clueless breeders produces sick and malformed suggies. I know because I have taken in some myself. The third point speaks to the issue of "cool" on top of "cool." Sorry, lots of kids buy these animals because they are cool and adding color variations on top of that compounds that problem. For the record, I don't need scientific proof to have made those three points. And yes, this is the low-brow gossip site, not the environs of exalted illuminati as was seemingly posited earlier. I don't need to go to other sites to post my opinion about buying for color. I prefer this one. If you want to come here and discount what I am saying, that is your right and I say bring it on. I am arguing from the standpoint of my own morality. It is too easy to say "get over yourself." That is a shallow comment. Oh, I get it, if I have an opinion I have to get over myself. I say grow up and recognize the sanctity of opinion. I doubt a non-breeder was behind the first utterance of that comment here. I am not suprised that breeders who read this thread feel threatened and feel like they have to take a strong position or to debunk what I said in my original three points. For me to point out that amongst your ranks you have unscrupulous, clueless and heartless people lurking is of course a sore point. But it's true. And it's a problem with puppies too. But we are not on a puppy site are we? This is about gliders. I did say that color in its own right and breeding for it is not inherently evil. I said the problem is bad husbandry practices of the people who don't know what they are doing or who just don't care about the collateral damage. And for that reason it is a morally correct position to take to avoid color so as to avoid propigating bad practice. That is my point and I think it's a valid one. It's not my fault that this industry is not mature enough and the government is not diligent enough to weed out and punish those of you who are clueless and heartless. And I don't see any evidence of breeders getting together to author a code of ethics or publish a dictionary of best practices in order to make an attempt to police your own ranks. At least if you did that you would be able to say you have standards and they are published and there are courses to take or some guidance to give new breeders. And the skinny books new owners buy are hardly requisite guidance. (oh please correct me if I am wrong, because if all of these things have happened, I would of course be jubilant). Yes, there are abuses in simply breeding thousands of greys. So if you want to start a thread to talk about that, go ahead. Yes, there are probabaly well-intenntioned and morally straight breeders. So if you want to start a thread about best practices, go ahead. Yes, this industry has a lack of scientific proof on EVERYTHING. It's easy to stand behind the idea of proof, but it's almost disingenuous in this case because we all know this industry has not reached critical mass enough to warrant the expensive studies to manifest that scientific proof. So if you want to rant about a lack of proof (as I am oft to do), go ahead and start a thread on that. But guess what, I don't need scientific proof to make a moral argument or an argument based on strong anectdotal evidence. Let me give you an example. Let's say it's 1964 and as a Joe Schmo, I said: "cigarrette smoking is bad for your health." Now of course the people who stand to lose something by me propigating that "OPINION" is the tobacco companies. Back in the 60s (and 70's and 80's and 90's) they yelled: "You have no proof." So the fact that in 1964, I had no scientific "proof" that cigarette smoking was bad - did that make me wrong? No. But it took years for there to be a "critical mass" of studies (although many were supressed) to really prove it. I see a parallel here. The only people who would want to argue against my three original points are people who stand to profit from people not even thinking about what I said. Sure it's a much more kush ride if all of your buyers are innocent dupes who have no notion of abuses and things to avoid. Else, why would my opinion rankle so many anonymous people???????????? Ahsaehr Goofy Gorillatoes  USA 3478 Posts quote:
Originally posted by PocketPrincess
It is rude, but I'm hormonal and angry that everytime someone has posted colored gliders for sale on here, that someone has to link to this thread. And, most of the time, there is no reason to post here because there is nothing that I have seen in any of these threads that has a bit of scientific evidence. Why don't you try exploring other places and get a feel for what is out there?
But, telling people in the first post that this is basically the absolute truth is absurd. There is nothing wrong with breeding for a specific purpose. You aren't on the AKC websites telling them that purebred dogs are horrible and inbred, are you? Paying for color in gliders is just like paying the extra to have a purebred dog.
You tell Tanya and Kris and the others that breed for color that they are doing something so horrible as to breed for a specific color. If you don't want a colored glider, don't buy one, but don't stop someone else from doing it because it is not wrong. There is nothing horrible with genetics.
I'm not the color expert. But, go talk to one. Find out what breeding is about. The colored gliders are not suffering for this and they are not being inbred. Good breeders can track their lines for many generations and will not inbreed a glider.
You being hormonal is NO EXCUSE TO BE A BUTTHOLE. My glider just died after a short life of about 1 year and most of that was spent in a vet or in a collar because of inbreeding, yes he was a standard gray but that's not the point. HOW about you get on some hormonal controlling medicine and get over YOURSELF. In my opinion breeding for profit is just horrible, and yes that's how I got my gliders but now that I know for better it's just sick and wrong. So...how about you forgive us for not wanting others to go to big breeders, get a glider who wins your heart over and it just dies knowing that there was nothing more you could do. 
Because this boy sure did win and break my heart. 
I have had my heart won and broke a few time too many.. (((hugs))) to you! No matter what color, or history, or genitics it still hurts to see them suffer. LuckyGlider Zippy Glidershorts TX, USA 5266 Posts mel, I tried to follow the link but I got an error. I'm sure the point you are making is that there is a thread of discussion between breeders about establishing a code of ethics and standards. That certainly is a good thing! I pray that eventually some action will be taken on it. Each industry that succeeds eventually will police its own ranks - with or without government regulation. I think we are still in the "wild frontier" in that regard but I would love to be proven wrong. But it needs to go beyond an electronic discussion thread for sure. Sadly, this "industry" still reels under an army of nameless, faceless "terror cell" breeders hiding in the shadows (I am not talking about the "legit" ones). These nameless scum are hit-and-run fly-by-nighters who masquerade behind being "just an owner" who needs to get rid of some offspring or worse yet - a rescuer doing God's work but really just another low-life. They masquerade under changing names and email addresses, etc. and some of them are right here in the classifieds. With such anonymity comes a complete lack of accountability. When there is no accountability, there are no standards. Standards is the stuff of people who embrace accountability. If you are a low-life, you don't want accountability let alone adhere to good husbandry standards. Those of you "anonymous" breeders who are really a legit concern who want this accountability - name thyself and step forward into the public light. I relish the thought of those of you who care enough to at least attempt to clean up this industry to go forth and do so. A good start would be to publish a book of ehtical standards and a book of best practices in suggie husbandry. If you are ethical and caring, and have an ethical basis to fall back on, my words are no threat. Because those of you who fall into this category would take up the mantle of studying and publishing standards and a code of ethics. And in this thread you would have come forward and said: "with regards color, we have established a code of ethics and breeding best practices which seeks to govern this aspect." Instead I get a bunch of "hey you have no proof" knee-jerk rationalizations. On the other hand, if you have no professional, ethical basis and are on the fringe of morality as some of you are, my words sting.
Some photos from our members LuckyGlider Zippy Glidershorts TX, USA 5266 Posts mel, OK I finally read that thread. Especially towards page 3 and 4 it gets into some good discussion. It was refreshing to see people weigh-in who are unabashed breeders, pet store owners and others of their ilk. I especially apprecaited seeing posts from Cyndie Burton, Stacie at Jolley Gliders (the one with the avatar of her albino Alabaster), KayKay, Peggy Brewer and Tonia Marie. Of all of them, the one who probably bristles the most at my sentiment would be Stacie, but I wouldn't paint her operation with a dirtball brush. Collectively, these folks and others gingerly stepped around issues of cage size, breeding biters, inbreeding, etc. but didn't really hone in on my rant. I think it is a challenge for well-intentioned professionals to tear away at each other in a public forum. Some did seem to draw some distinction amongst their ranks however. Hushpuppy did mention the "SRR minimum standards page" www.suggierescueresources.org/standards.htm
maybe that's a start... At any rate, I can see your point that there are intelligent discussions on issues related to this going on. PocketPrincess Joey 17 Posts Thanks for saying I speak like a breeder, but guess what? I do not breed. I have only 2 male gliders that are in their loving forever home. They are both neutered and I will not breed them. So, I guess I don't say the things I said because I profit from it, just because I state what I feel. I guess I will stick to the few boards around here that are not just gossip sites and seem to have people who are knowledgeable in more aspects than just their opinions. And, Ahsaehr, sorry about your suggie. But, hormonal controlling meds will not stop me from speaking out. Yeah, being preggo might be an excuse and now staying up late nights with a new little girl might make my attitude worse, but there is no way I will stop what I am saying and it is not an excuse. Next time, why don't ya'll not make blanket statements about all breeders and say you are going after unethical ones? And, how about you talk to a breeder for awhile and ask their opinions and let them comment. Most of them are very great with their suggies and love them very much. Just because they want to breed them does not make them bad. I does make them more knowledgeable about them than you though. They have been around them longer and have likely seen more illnesses and injuries too. They might have advice that could save your little one some day. LuckyGlider Zippy Glidershorts TX, USA 5266 Posts PocketPrincess, I know you are well meaning, but for someone who implies the denizens of this site are less smart than elsewhere, you yourself are not exactly articulating a very sound argument. You seem to have had difficultly synthesizing what you read and then recollecting it accurately. Either that or you are not reading carefully to begin with but are just taking to heart the things that seem personal. Allow me please to set the record straight on a few things. First, I don't think anyone said you were a breeder. In fact, this post was really not about you but it evolved into something personal for you. To put things in perspective, this post is about the three reasons not to pay for color. It's about saving the lives of sugar gliders who die for no good reason because of agressive breeding programs by *clueless* wanna-be breeders. So it's not about you or at least wasn't in the beginning. But then you tweaked a few people by saying we here should go to a "real board," and "get over ourselves" and a few other demeaning comments. So you took my moralistic and ethical arguments and somehow took it upon yourself to speak on behalf of breeders and took a few potshots. That's OK, but to imply when we are kinda dumb and not have a very logical basis for your arguments is ironic at least. Second, it appears as you have taken up the mantle for breeders and are acting as their proxy as if they had no voice of their own (regardless of the fact you are not one). That's very noble of you. I'm speaking for gliders who actually have no voice of their own. Sorry, but I can't "get over" that. It's not me I can't get over. It's my gliders and the others out there that are mistreated or die for no good reason. So I will not be apologetic for talking about something that most breeders will not touch publicly. Sure, on the animalcraze.net cite, a few breeders and pet store owners danced around some of the less controversial issues like cage size and not breeding biters. But nothing like what we are talking about here. Third, there have been anonymous posts here that were most likely from breeders else I don't know why they were anonymous. I can understand that. Consider the fact that commercial breeders have not been able to establish a standard code of ethics between themselves in this community and they don't want to bash each other publicly too much because it's bad for business. That's what I was refering to just a few posts ago when I reported on what I saw on the animalcrze.net site. In fact I said I liked some of what I saw and I said it was refreshing to see some of that banter. Now, take a step back and read read all of this thread a little more closely, especially the one where I go over my three original points *again* and you will see that I myself am not making any "blanket comments" about *ALL* breeders. I think I said several times I was disgusted with the amoral, clueless ones, who are starry-eyed and in it for a quick buck. So you are free to say whatever you want of course, this being a public forum, but try to get your facts straight. For example, PocketPrincess, did you read this passage before considering your "blanket comment" statement???: quote:
Originally posted by LuckyGlider
Yes, MrsKing, I am referring to irresposnible breeding practices that are inhumane. The trouble with color is it acts as a magnet for bad husbandry practices. I am not saying all breeders lack a moral compass, but color has a tendency to make the needle on that compass spin.
What part of that leads you to the conclusion I was making a blanket comment about *all* breeders?? And if you take the time to read further, you will see that I was encouraged by some of the intelligent conversation I saw from some breeders on the other site. But still they were not taking off the gloves, not that I expected them too because it is bad for business. And for the record, it happens that I too have several colonies of gliders and I love them very much like I'm sure you love yours. And I *HAVE* spoken to a lot of breeders. And guess what? Some of them are knowledgable and good but some of them are ignorant dirtballs. Some of them I have gotten good advice from, and some of them I have given advice to. And I have also gotten advice from rescue workers, animal care inspectors, and vets. So just because someone posts an opinion on where they sit on the color controversy does not necessarily mean they hate all breeders, or have never talked to breeders, or have never taken any advice from breeders. If you think our universe of understanding on animal husbandry is limited to this site, your facts are just wrong. And just becuase the word "gossip" is used here does not mean me and my colleagues are stupid. I mean you can say that if you want, but I don't think even the breeders on other sites who read what I say here would have a hard time articulating an intelligent response. I've just yet to see one, that's all. A subject being inherently provocative does not mean the person who started the thread is ignorant. I think I have made my point that the argument of scientific proof does not really hold water here, and I tried to go into detail on that with my post where I reiterated the 3 reasons. The thing about scientific proof was a tangent that veered the discussion away from the three orignal points that really need no scientific proof. I also gave you an allegory about someone saying in 1964 that smoking was bad for your health. At any rate, you are free to turn your nose down at this site all you want to. But if you chose to do that, please don't do it because of what I said. There are plenty of people here who are not militant moralists. And other sites that have a preponderance of breeders on them maybe are less controversial because the constituency wants to be perceived as more genteel and easy to do business with. Everyone is motivated differently to behave publicly in a manner that serves its purpose to that individual. Incidentally, you imply we lack intellectual capacity here on this "gossip site" yet I have not seen very many convincing arguments in the contrary of my original post. There have been a few pricing rationalizations that just plain miss the point. And then you have lodged your complaint about how there is no scientific proof, your misnomer about blanket comments, and emotional admonsishments about "getting over one's self" and going to a "real board," etc. Sorry, you have not demonstrated the intellectual horsepower that apparently manifests elsewhere so perhaps you are not the emmissary other sites need to send here. In fact, in a previous post I said: quote:
Originally posted by LuckyGlider
If you are ethical and caring, and have an ethical basis to fall back on, my words are no threat. Because those of you who fall into this category would take up the mantle of studying and publishing standards and a code of ethics. And in this thread you would have come forward and said: "with regards color, we have established a code of ethics and breeding best practices which seeks to govern this aspect." Instead I get a bunch of "hey you have no proof" knee-jerk rationalizations.
On the other hand, if you have no professional, ethical basis and are on the fringe of morality as some of you are, my words sting.
PocketPrincess, intellectually superior individuals would have had a logical retort to my argument like the example of "with regards color...." I suggested. Your breeder friends you are defending are free to come here and argue with as much superiority as they can muster. Hopefully, they will actually suggest a concrete path to establishing a code of ethics and best practice standards so the issue of color becomes a moot point. But until that happens, and until those ethical standards are in place, it is not a moot point and I stand behind the original three points I made despite your admonishments and references to our collective ignorance. You can continue to speak on behalf of breeders if you wish and you can continue to demean us. I shall continue to speak on behalf of innocent gliders and not get over my self or them. Anyone is free to come here and help us to explore this topic. We welcome good argument. Snoopy86406 Glider AZ, USA 116 Posts To each his own. I think the white gliders are beautiful. I have seen one in person and think they are just devine. Can't afford one, but I know I just can't have everything. Danielle G. LuckyGlider Zippy Glidershorts TX, USA 5266 Posts Danielle, yes white gliders are beautiful (they all are). And yes, "to each his own" is generally accepted as part of our democratic way of life. But when "to each his own" straddles a moral or ethical divide, it's more than just about democracy. It gets into like what's right and wrong in your heart. Take for example, wearing fur, or buying blood diamonds. Those are similar issues where ill-informed or truly ignorant people (ignorant is not a bad word here - it just means they don't know), are hypnotized by beauty and then buy something that represents huge suffering of animals or worse - fellow human beings. It takes a special brand of "I don't care mentalilty" to still buy these things and stand behind the naked argument of "to each his own." Granted, in this case, it's not about wearing fur or buying blood diamonds. What it's about Danielle, is the collateral damage that can occur from improper breeding (inbreeding) practices to get specific color variations in sugar gliders. That's the issue. whether they are beautiful or not is not really an argument. In fact, I proposed that their beauty and uniqueness contributes to the dynamic by way of the "cool" factor which supports my "fad within a fad" observation. So your argument that they are beautiful tends to support one of my original ascertions. The issue here is that if not bred properly and with good animal husbandry practices, the road to a white glider can be a messy one. And that mess is at the expense of gliders. When inbred agressively, the results can be disastrous. Unfortunately, there are breeders who are more interested in the incredible premiums you can get for color and less interested in the welfare of their "product." I am speaking for the "product" because they have no voices. There is strong anectdotal evidence this is true because of the testimony I hear from rescuers and other owners. This is a dirty little secret of our community. As to whether or not there is scientific evidence, neither you or I probably have the money to run the study to prove this scientifically, but the allegory to this is the argument in 1964 that smoking was bad for you. Watching someone coughing up black chunks and wheezing didn't really require scientific proof. The proof took years and now billions of dollars in lawsuits later, we can say there is scientific proof. But guess what? Any intelligent person knew it was bad before there was proof. And as I have stated clearly many times in this post, I am not painting all breeders with a bad brush, but the ignorant, greedy and clueless amongst them that don't care what it takes to get you to shell out more for color. I made 3 original, fairly simple points on why paying for color is wrong. I stand behind those points. If you think about it maybe some day you will have an affinity for at least one of those points. Someday, when this industry has established a commonly accepted code of ethics and standards for breeding best practices, color will be less controversial. Until then, you can turn your head and pretend it's not a problem or you can consider not buying (or selling) for color. Your choice. At least now you had an opportunity to hear the glider's side of the story - the side breeders are not likely to talk about. Now for anyone else who wants to weigh in on this, allow me to articulate a fervid desire... I am hopeful that soon, someone who disagrees with my 3 reasons can articulate a substantial argument that's actually "on point." I am dissapointed in that regard. Why? Because so far people have logged in to say (I paraphrase): - "the price being higher solves the problem" - "they are beautiful" - "get over yourself" - "breeders are people too" - "people on this site are stupid" It's hard to get my head around these vacuous comments seeing as they are so far afield from the core arguments. Can't anyone who actually disagrees with my sentiments structure an intellectual argument that actually debunks my points instead of these superficial, tangential observations? Where's all the intelligence that supposedly does not lurk here but abounds elsewhere? If you want us to all have the "natural color" then we would all have white tiped gliders seeing as they are more common in nature than "standard greys" and the "standard greys" are the "genetic mutants"
Some photos from our members ThePastafarian Joey 13 Posts Holy shnikies Batman... Ok, to you LaySiren8 quote:
Originally posted by ladysiren8
Hey you know what thepasta, you said it was unfair, comments made about colorization. Something I noticed I think will tell everyone what they need to know. ASk me anything about my animals and they have names or I might say my gliders or my dog. What is it you people say....MY BREEDING PROGRAM. They are not a business they are living creatures who should be treated as such. Enjoy the money from poor little lives suffering for greed. You obviously do not see them as the individuals they are and taht alone help makes my points against breeders.
So actually thank you for making my point for me,
Sugar Gliders vs My Breeding Program
Where did I even say that I breed? I've got rescues. Do I want to breed in the future? Yes I do, guilty as charged. Will I ever have 10+ breeding pairs like some? No. I'm sorry, but a breeding program is a way of referring to your practices. I guarantee you that the ethical breeders all have a name for each and every one of their gliders. How dare you assume that because someone puts time and energy into rearing healthy joeys they're causing these animals any suffering? I just don't understand the way you think, you remind me of those crazy PETA people. I'm sorry if I seemed way out of line, but the in the first post by LuckyGlider NOWHERE does it say "this is only in reference to unethical breeders". Otherwise, everyone and there mom would have been in agreeance. No one wants to see gliders suffer! Now, LuckyGlider has in following posts stated that his points are in reference to those idiotic breeders who just try to make a big buck. If that's the case, then I'm in complete agreeance. I just think it ridiculous to lump all breeders together. I think that breeders are necessary; new owners need to get healthy joeys from a glider knowledgable source. I think instead of having this circular debate we should ban together to shut down the many mills that are doing much more harm to the glider community than everyone else put together. ThePastafarian Joey 13 Posts Oh good grief, I really think you missed the point. Ethical breeders ARE able and REQUIRED by the USDA to keep records of the joeys they sell. So your point is null and void there. I never said I "run a rescue". I have three gliders who are rescues. I know how many homeless and suffering gliders are out there, which is why I opened my home to these. My choice to breed a few colored gliders of my choice will never keep a glider who needs a home from finding one in mine. A person can responsibly do both. I'm not breeding standard grey joeys. I've yet to walk into a petstore or a flea market and find a white faced blonde or a platinum glider just sitting in an aquarium along with the greys. Cinnamons, yes, but as LuckyGlider pointed out, most of those the color changes, simply because they where either stained or on a bad diet. I really think it's unfair to lump my wanting to breed colored gliders with a good genetic history with joe schmoe down the street who jumps blindly into it. I'm not a mill nor will I ever be; the health and happiness of ALL my gliders, regardless of color, will always come first. I really think your condescending attitude is unnecessary; I'm not hurting gliders in anyway. These are our captive animals; they're not going to be released back into the wild, so I really don't think what color they are matters anymore as long as they are healthy. Most good ethical breeders have done more for the glider community than many people who stand around and throw stones... I think anonymous person's comments should be ignored completely regardless of the content! LOL!
| | |
|
 |
New Message |
 |
|
. |
|
Home
Glider Gossip
Gliderpedia
Journals
Resources
The problem with posting is we don't always fully explain opinions from every point of aspect of the topic which can be misleading of our intention. Instead of jumping to conclussions of the intention try asking first. Ed is making some great points of those who would be unethical. I'm curious, How common do yall think it is to come across the breeder who would be unethical about colors? And even if it is uncommon it is still worth mentioning as a warning. Perhaps when we address a concern in ref to breeder or rescuer's ethics we can try to remember to comment that all are not this way but....
We do need to keep in mind both types of ethical and nonethical breeders or rescuers. They don't all deserve to be classified together even though I know it is unintentional. The flaming just gets in the way of the real message. 
