>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
