Chondro Nazis (Greg Maxwell, April 2005)

Recently, I ran across something written in an Internet forum discussion about well known chondro breeders.   One contributor suggested that persons such as Greg Maxwell, Trooper Walsh, and a few others have an agenda designed to elevate themselves to some superior status.  He stated that, “...the so called chondro-gurus want the rest of us to believe that keeping these animals is somehow a higher pursuit and one which is best left to the learned elders and experts.”

About the advice offered to potential new chondro owners suggesting that buying a yearling may be better than a hatchling, this person comments, “With all due respect, that may be a bit of a myth, perpetuated by the chondro-gods who want everyone else to believe that they have a lock on knowing how to care for them.”

Another participant referred to me and some of my peers as "chondro Nazis."

I would like to suggest, “with all due respect”, that persons such as this get their facts straightened out before calling me a Nazi and accusing me of conspiring to complicate and discourage the keeping and enjoyment of green tree pythons.

As with most uninformed commentary, there is a grain of truth to these observations.  Casual readers of such discussions (and those with their own biases) often latch on to the small grain and buy into the entire premise.  The truth is, at one time chondros were considered to be considered more difficult to keep than they now are.  And, while breeding these pythons consistently is a challenge, I will also freely acknowledge that certain aspects of breeding, especially the difficulties of artificial incubation, have been over stated and even exaggerated by some breeders in the past.  That is where the facts stop and the rhetoric takes over.

When I first got into chondros in 1993, there was precious little information available.  Trooper Walsh graciously copied some of his early papers for me to read, and while these were fascinating they were hardly current.  This was especially true of incubation techniques.  In fact, inexperienced chondro breeders could just about count on failure with their first artificial incubation attempt.  There were no informative web sites, no Internet forums dedicated to chondros, no books, and no expert help through email.  The best a person could do, besides personal trial and error, was to talk to experienced chondro people at reptile shows, in their homes, or over the phone if you could get a number.  Most of the advice was very general and most breeding and incubation queries were sidestepped. 

Quite contrary to being a chondro “Nazi”, I am proud to say that I have helped to lead the way to the information explosion that is happily now the reality.  My web site was the first to bring in-depth and easy-to-duplicate information to the chondro community.  My cage and rack plans (which are free!) have helped and inspired hundreds to better care and housing for their animals.  My participation as a leader in Internet chondro forum development has resulted in near instant access to virtually any answer or solution that a keeper or breeder may be in need of. 

I spend an average of 2-3 hours daily answering global mail from keepers and newer breeders who need help.  And, in 2003 I authored the best selling “The Complete Chondro”, which has further opened the floodgates of information about chondros.  One reviewer said of this book, “The best information on reptile husbandry of any species in a decade.”  I clearly state in the book that chondros are not a difficult species to keep, once their needs are understood and met.  I believe that the facts show that I have done more to promote good chondro information and access to it, than anyone in the last decade.

The real problem in the reptile world isn’t elitism, or intentionally skewing the facts about chondros to make them seem more difficult to keep.  Far more problematic are small minds that seem to feel the need to tear others down in order to draw attention to themselves and promote personal agendas.  For the record, I have no problem with any person who shares his or her opinions about the relative ease or difficulty of chondro keeping;  But, I do take strong exception when such remarks include attacks on the motives and character of those who have given a significant part of their lives to further the appreciation of chondros, and have made significant contributions to helping others enjoy success with keeping them.  The entire reptile community should ignore such divisive individuals.  They seek attention and a stage; we are all better off when they have neither.

Chondro Pricing Philosophy   (Greg Maxwell, 1998, updated 2003)

The motivation for keeping (and breeding) tree pythons, as well as other reptiles, varies a lot with each individual. For me, the passion for snakes began at the age of five, and has burned for almost four decades. I have seen the reptile industry grow from a few 'eccentric' people scattered around the country into a multi-million dollar, almost mainstream, industry. People that started out with a love for these fascinating animals, with nothing to gain from keeping them except personal enjoyment, enrichment, and satisfaction, have in some cases lost the vision because of the almighty dollar.

Please don't get me wrong; reptile breeding can be very profitable and there are some who have refined reptile 'farming' to a high level with the accompanying financial rewards. When this is done with integrity and honesty, including an appropriate level of respect for the snakes as living things, then I have no quarrel. But far too often I see the animals reduced to nothing more than a commodity, greedily bought, sold, and traded with little or no regard for the animals' best interest and with financial gain or having the "flavor of the moment" as the only motive. Beginners are sold imports represented as captive bred, or sick animals, and given bad advice; and lies and exaggerations abound. Unwanted creatures pour into the marked place when they don't provide the dollars that their owners had hoped for, and over-breeding with the ensuing price slashing has reduced the apparent worth of some species to less than the cost of cigarettes.

It is my conviction that Green Tree Pythons are special, and as such they are not for everybody.  They are expensive because the relative difficulty in breeding them helps to prevent market saturation.  I believe that the price of captive bred chondros helps keep them out of the hands of those who would otherwise see them as just another herp to have, whether that person is prepared to care for it properly or not.  This is regularly illustrated by the number of teenagers asking where they can buy "cheap" GTPs.  Does anybody really think that Green Iguanas would suffer the all-too-common fate of poor care, and abandonment or death, if they cost several hundred dollars?  The fact that it is difficult to mass-produce CB chondros has kept the prices for them up and has contributed directly to them still holding a good value in the captive bred market.  I also believe that anybody who really has their heart set on owning a Green tree Python can find a way to buy a quality animal.  I reject the notion that breeders should lower prices so "everybody can afford one".  Chondros are the Mercedes of the captive bred snake market, and sacrificing to get one makes the acquisition even sweeter.  Does this mean that those of us that are not wealthy (me included) are not "worthy"?  By no means!  What I am saying is that quality captive bred chondros have a high value, and we should all strive to maintain that value, not diminish it.  This is in both the best interest of the chondros and the keepers.

How do high-end, designer chondro breeders set prices?  There are many criteria, and I can only speak for myself.  Many business and investment leaders say that any investment that has the real potential to break even in three to five years is a good one.  Using this model, I feel that my prices are reasonable and reflect a good value.  I start my pricing structures for specific projects at a moderate level, based on current market averages for similar animals.  This is in contrast to the practice of some, who price all designer offspring at the top end of the spectrum regardless of any mitigating factors.  This is their right, and pricing is a personal decision that each breeder must set according to what they are comfortable with.  Customers should also evaluate the actual value of potential purchases and decide what they are comfortable with.  I establish current prices for my best projects based on documented past results.  Because of this, I don't pay much attention to claims that my prices are "unreasonable."  The fact that I publish my prices can give the impression that I am the most expensive breeder in the business.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!

I hope that you can tell from the content of this web site that I am as interested in building passion as I am making a living as a breeder.  I also hope that you, like me, will find adequate compensation in knowing that we have the privilege of looking upon one of the most beautiful creatures that God ever created any time we want, in our own home.  Whatever other rewards may come to us as a result of our possessions are secondary.

The Locality Debate (Greg Maxwell, 2000)

Recently it has become very popular to attempt to assign a "Locality" label to almost any chondro being sold or described.  This mentality has gone so far as to cause some buyers to reject any chondro not locality identified, even labeling such animals as a "mutt", or "generic".  Even more troubling are those who want to label non-locale animals as "hybrids".  There are several reasons why I feel that most specific locality claims are meaningless.

First, let me say that there are some identifiable traits that are consistent with Island forms, notably Biak and Aru.  Even with these there can be wide diversity in the appearances of individuals.  Wild caught specimens that clearly exhibit the colors and patterns associated with these geographic races are frequently identified as locality-specific specimens.  Such locality "typing" can be useful as a tool to help communicate the appearances of individual animals.  We all know that an "Aru type" chondro has a medium green ground color with white spots down the back, and bluish sides just above the belly.   Biak types have a blotched yellow pattern and are usually irritable.  Different geographic races tend to have head shapes and tail profiles that differ from each other.  Mainland animals having blue dorsal stripes and triangles are usually identified as Sorong, and the Cape York (Merauke) race from northern Australia and southern Irian Jaya having unbroken white dorsal chain markings. These four groups comprise the generally accepted geographic races of the Green Tree Python.  When used in this manner the name or race designations can be helpful.

Within the large landmass of New Guinea there is naturally some variation in the various GTP populations.   However, with little in the way of geophysical barriers isolating specific populations, it probably isn't possible to identify specific populations based on sheer outward appearances.  One possible limiting factor for GTP populations is elevation, and there are those who claim that highland populations of chondros possess unique and distinguishable traits.  While there does seem to be some evidence backing these claims up, the same standards of documentation for lowland animals should apply to highland specimens... that is, documentation of the specific geographic origin of the wild founder stock must be provided before much weight can be placed on such claims.  One European breeder, Freek Nuyt, does claim to have such documentation for his captive bred highland stock.

It must be recognized by any serious and credible locality collector that without proper documentation, it is not possible or correct to label an animal "locality specific.  These animals are far too variable to base such claims solely on appearances.  Further, locality-specific is a term used to designate animals that are documented from an exact geographic location regardless of appearance.  The list of "locality" locations invented by importers and dealers seems to be endless!  When pressed, they are never able (or willing) to provide any verifiable documentation.  This is the biggest argument against most locality claims... the fact that it is nearly impossible to trace with any accuracy or verification the geographic collecting location of imported stock.  Trusting dealer claims is about the same as trusting a used car salesman!  Most importers and dealers will tell you what you want to hear, and some have even admitted this in public.

Statements of locality pureness should not be made unless there is credible documentation to back it up.  Customers need to stop demanding that some locality tag be placed on the chondros they buy, and dealers need to stop providing such information merely to help sales.  I do feel that the use of the term "type", as in "Sorong-type", very adequately communicates the animal is exhibiting certain traits, while honestly declaring that no collecting documentation is available for the specimen. 

I especially react negatively to the idea that "locality" specific animals are superior to non-specific ones, regardless of how they look.  This is one of the kookiest mindsets to enter the captive breeding community in recent year.  Let's face it, we are drawn to chondros in large measure because of how beautiful they are, and to the wide variety of colors and markings they exhibit.  To me, the fact that an individual animal comes from a known locality is secondary to how it looks, by a long shot.  I have no quarrel at all with those collectors who are attracted to the idea of a locality specimen for locality sake; but to suggest that such specimens are inherently more valuable than "generic" chondros that have been selectively bred for beautiful color is absurd.  Equally ridiculous, in my opinion, is the theory that breeding non-locality matched adults produces "hybrids"... especially when the "locality" animals have no documentation to begin with! 

Breeding locality stock, whether verified locality specimens or racially matched animals, is simply selective breeding based on a human value system. Some breeders may value wild caught animals because they represent new blood. Some value high yellow, some blue, some all green. I have no argument with those who value an animal more if they know where it, or it's parents, were collected.  My value system is based on color.  I find it arrogant and offensive to state that there is some moral or scientific mandate to use the "locality" value system.  If anyone places a premium on locale-specific or locale-type animals, it is their right to do so, and more power to them. But please don't tell me that your value system is morally superior to anybody else's!

Finally, it needs to be stated that breeding two phenotype-matched chondros together (such as Biaks) is not locality breeding...it's simply selective breeding for color and pattern traits, like any other morph.  Without proper and specific documentation for the founder animals, there is no such thing as locality-specific offspring.

There are those who disagree with my opinions about locality chondros.  That is their privilege.  Most defend their position based on emotion and bias rather on verifiable documentation.  Most of us can agree that there has been some legitimate attempts to breed pure locality chondros, and certainly the most consistent results can be obtained by attempting to keep lines pure.  I personally believe that just about any chondro color or pattern, regardless of whether it is the product of an isolated gene pool or not, can and will be strengthened (and improved if desired) by selective breeding. 

Many of us feel that the majority of (commercial) U.S. reptile dealers have no basis in fact or science when they put locality tags on their products.   Chondro collectors who insist on documented pure locality animals surely have a very few specimens to choose from, unless they just believe what they want to hear, and now we are back to the beginning.

For an in-depth treatment of chondro locality and importation issues, please see Trooper Walsh's excellent article in the June 1997 issue of Reptile & Amphibian magazine # 48.

The Value of Locality Specimens  (Damon Salceies, 2000)

(Editor's note:  I was so impressed with this post to the Green Tree Python Forum in September of 2000 that I reprinted it here.  This is the most articulate argument against sloppy locale claims that I have ever read, and it comes from a die-hard locale guy!  The post is published here by permission of the author, and has been edited for format.)

It's obvious that there is a great division of opinion on the issue of locality. I look at it from this perspective:  I graduated from college with a BS in Biology.  During my tenure as an undergraduate I participated in MANY field projects and was able to learn just how much of an effect that even a small change in geographic location can have on the parameters for morphological variation in a species. This is especially so in insular populations. I cherish that variation because of what it means in my general perspective on nature's complexity and adaptability. The animals are a product of their histories and evolutionary pressures.

I do not however feel at all comfortable with most of the locality tags placed on imported or captive raised tree pythons. Generalizations are made by untrained eyes and unsubstantiated classifications result.  My true love is the gray-banded kingsnake.   I've enjoyed looking for, photographing, and occasionally collecting them for almost 15 years.   I'm rooted in field biology.  I'm fanatic about the locality data because of what depth it adds to the animal.  For me, the animals are defined by their natural history and all that nature went through to produce them.  I trust only myself and a VERY few friends in terms of the locality data of the animals in my care.  I have seen other hobbyists who are new to the species conjure up generalizations based on morphology (appearance), which is the case by many tree python enthusiasts.

Granted, the true locality animals have a range of variation, and the average of the morphologies from a particular locale often displays a "unique" character, but truthfully, locality changes only the parameters for variation.  A snake with a fringe morphology from one locality could fall smack dab in the middle of the average of morphologies for another locality.  This applies to all species.  It's intriguing to take note of the shifts in morphology that do take place with changes in geography/habitat/climate but, for me, locality  simply enriches the animal by adding some information in regards to the spot in which it and it's ancestors were living.  I was very discerning when buying my chondros and REALLY wanted locality snakes because of the aforementioned reasons.  I was able to get some that fit my criteria although it was VERY difficult.  Too many middlemen in the importing business make exact data on almost all of the captive animals almost impossible.  Therefore, I marvel at the colorful possibilities presented by the myriad of captive tree pythons, but am somewhat reserved when it comes to owning them because mother nature's hand is (in my opinion) too removed from the project.  Designer snakes are pretty but to me have an "empty" air to them.   I like the way nature does it. My opinion may be a bit unpopular, but I did want to share it.

Why Support Captive Breeders?  (Greg Maxwell, 1998)

One would think that this question should not even have to be asked, but given the volume of imported chondros sold in the US every year it is obvious that there is a lot of work to be done to communicate the need to support captive breeding.

It is human nature to want to get the best price for something you want to buy.  This is a good idea when comparing prices on items that are identical and when no other factor is involved.  For example if you were shopping for a car, you might buy from a dealer with the lower price if his service was equal to dealers with higher prices for the same make and model car.  If his service is poor then you might pay the higher price for the same product.

But would you choose to pay a lower price for a vehicle that looked sound outwardly, but that had possible engine damage, or a substandard transmission?  How good is the savings when you are being towed?

While this analogy has its shortcomings, it does illustrate the weakness of the "lowest price" mentality when it comes to buying GTPs.  There are some things in life where you get what you pay for.  Imported chondros are frequently parasitized and need treatment, which will cost money.  They will need a longer acclimation period than captive bred animals, and some require years before they will breed, if they ever do.  Damage to the kidneys from dehydration is common.  Imports should be quarantined for several months if there is even one other healthy snake in your collection.  Imports frequently have mites, and nearly all have at least been exposed to them.  Mites are suspected of carrying IBD, a deadly, incurable, AIDS type reptile disease.  Imported adults almost never make the well-adjusted captives that domestic bred animals are.

In the same category as imports are newly hatched babies sold "out of the egg".  Unless the buyer has experience establishing new hatchling GTPs there is almost certainly trouble ahead.  I feel that breeders have a responsibility to get hatchlings feeding and started before selling them, unless an experienced person is buying them.   But for those who care only about making quick and easy money, starting babies is too much work.

In addition to these considerations, general reptile dealers often give poor or no follow up service, have no data about bloodlines, and show little respect for the future of the animals or the chondro market.  As long as people continue to patronize dealers and importers they will continue such practices.  A handful of breeders complain about their "secret" information being learned and applied by others, which they fear will result in lower prices and a flooded market.  In reality, the continuing flood of imports and "farm raised" animals is far more deleterious to the value of CB chondros than are new breeders achieving success.

I spend a lot of time each year helping people who have purchased a chondro from one of these dealers.  While I do this willingly, and out of a sincere desire to help both the animal and the owner, I do get tired of watching buyers purchase imports just to save a few dollars.  Equally frustrating are those who won't listen or receive advice, and even desire to publicly debate this issue, and then come back later expecting help with the troublesome animal they bought from some dealer or swap meet vendor.  Legitimate breeders who work hard to produce healthy babies that are well-started and come with data and service after the sale deserve your support!

Why buy from Fine GTP's?  Click Here!

Clever and Contrary: Not Always What it Seems by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds

(Editor's Note:  I am continually amazed at how the chondro world is a microcosm of our larger society.  I ran across this excellent article on the Fox News website, and was immediately struck by how accurately parts of it apply to certain elements of the chondro Internet community.  Specifically, points number one and two in the article clearly identify the type of individual who feels he must always be re-inventing the wheel in order to appear clever; or that person who always disagrees with anything the more experienced contributors share, in order to appear insightful.  This is an excellent article and well worth reading several times.) 

Sept. 11 brought a major change to academia. Suddenly the outside world was paying attention to what university people were saying — and that world didn't like what it was hearing.

Professors who applauded the attack on the Pentagon, or claimed that U.S. wrongdoing somehow justified the Sept. 11 attacks, found themselves being denounced. These denunciations have found support from within the academic community, including a new group made up of faculty, trustees and alumni of major universities. Even Harvard President Lawrence Summers has joined in, calling for his university to embrace patriotic values and get more in line with mainstream Americans.

In response, some are proclaiming a new era of McCarthyism and censorship. Such proclamations ring hollow: So far, no one has suffered anything worse than public criticism for making anti-American statements, and surely criticism does not count as censorship. If it does, after all, the "critical theorists" of academia, who criticize almost everything about American society, would constitute America's foremost censors.

Of course, in a way, they do. As even The Nation has come to notice, America's campuses are not free-speech zones, but among the most pervasively censored environments in our society. Campus newspapers that displease powerful ethnic student groups may find themselves the targets of theft, vandalism and intimidation. University administrations often adopt and enforce speech codes that are advertised as promoting civility, but that in fact are used to punish those expressing politically incorrect views, however civilly such expression is made. And peer pressure is very strong, both among faculty members and in classrooms, with the undeniable intent of chilling the expression of certain points of view.

Everyone knows this, and only a few bother to dispute it. As a result, complaints about censorship and neo-McCarthyism have fallen flat: Speech without consequences isn't the rule on campuses anymore. So perhaps it's time for the academic community to follow the advice we are always giving the rest of America, and ask what characteristics of ours have caused such a loss of confidence in the academic establishment, and what we can do to get that confidence back. Here are a few observations:

1.  Cleverness isn't everything:  In the academic world, originality is prized, and cleverness is almost as good as originality. But cleverness is overrated. To argue (as Cornell historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg and women's health advocate Jacquelyn Jackson did in the Boston Globe) that women who wear bikinis to be fashionable are somehow just as "trapped" by "cultural confines" as Afghan women who are forced to wear burqas on pain of lethal beatings may be clever, but it's also wrong — absurdly wrong. Academics may appreciate the cleverness, but non-academics tend to focus on the "absurdly wrong" part. Not surprisingly, they also tend to lose respect for the people, institutions and disciplines that appear incapable of making straightforward, comparative judgments. Clever explanations for hypocrisy (on PC versus free speech, for example) don't help, either.

2.  Being contrary isn't the same as being insightful:  As I said, academics want to look original. Actually being original, however, is hard work. The second-raters, therefore, tend to look for ways of seeming original without doing the heavy lifting required to actually come up with something new. One way of doing this is to set yourself against whatever the popular view is in the hopes that others will mistake this for incisiveness. (This frequently works, since other people are often not willing to put in the necessary effort to tell the difference). But knee-jerk contrariness isn't original — it's just conformity in the opposite direction. After a while, this becomes obvious even to casual observers.

3.  Professors aren't aristocrats:  Today's academia is descended from the clerical scholars and courtier intellectuals of the middle ages. Those folks naturally identified with the princes and potentates who provided their funding. Today's academics affect to identify with the working classes, but many of their attitudes — a contempt for popular culture, a low regard for business and commerce and a desire to set themselves apart from the common herd — are leftovers from a bygone era. There's a reason why kings and princes are no longer found in our society; emulating them isn't going to make you popular.

4.  Professors aren't saints, either:  Academic work is, in my opinion, a noble calling, at least when it is done well. But engaging in a noble calling doesn't necessarily make you noble. Too many professors seem to think otherwise, believing that because their work is good, they must be too, giving them a pass on examining their own actions and positions as critically as they examine those of others. Non-academics, however, aren't buying this, nor should they.

Not surprisingly, people who would rather be clever than right, who confuse oppositionalism with originality, who hold ordinary Americans and their beliefs in faux-aristocratic contempt, and who do all of this with an unshakable degree of self-righteousness, are not likely to be especially popular. (Note the similarity here to the also-unpopular news and entertainment media).

Academics who value their place in society will think about these things, and look for other ways in which they may be alienating Americans through attitudes that have more to do with selfishness than with intellectualism. And academics who want to see things change will speak out on these attitudes and criticize colleagues who display them, just as they would where, say, racist attitudes are concerned. So will people outside the universities, who are now paying attention to what happens there, and even reading campus newspapers via the Web. After years of wanting to make academia "relevant" to the rest of the world, academics are in a poor position to complain.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, and writes for the InstaPundit.Com website.