>From: Rebecca Allbritton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Rebecca Allbritton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Tailless gerbil
>Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:18:01 -0500
>
>At 02:33 PM 4/8/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>Steven Horvath wrote:
>>
>>"I just thought that it was really neat to hear about the gerbil who was
>>born with no tail..."
>If one is careful about where the
>animals wind up, and is willing to take responsibility for whatever might
>come of such crosses, a case can be made for exploring the effects of
>different mutations.
I think the main problem I have with the interest in the gerbil with no tail
is not that the mutation should not be explored by qualified, responsible
geneticists, but that it was suggested that tailless gerbils would make
better pets because people "don't like the tails." Hamsters naturally have
very short tails - if people want an animal with no tail, doesn't it make
sense that they should buy one that is naturally like this, rather than
mutilating another species to suit their taste?
Encouraging the breeding of animals that have obvious deformities with the
idea that they will become a popular pet does not seem responsible at all. I
see the perpetuation of deformities "for fashion," as repugnant.
Amy Hicks
President/Committee Chairman
American Gerbil Society
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
