# Why is danger desirable?



## FishForLife2001 (Sep 23, 2014)

Hi guys,
Just posting here because im curious as to why venomous snakes are actually desirable to some people. There are lots of beautiful non-venomous species so what attracts you to venomous snakes in particular?


Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

FishForLife2001 said:


> Hi guys,
> Just posting here because im curious as to why venomous snakes are actually desirable to some people. There are lots of beautiful non-venomous species so what attracts you to venomous snakes in particular?
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


I think it's fair to say that many would say that the most beautiful snakes are venomous.


----------



## DAZWIDD (Feb 9, 2009)

I would suggest for some keepers it's bravardo


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

Their just snakes. 

But I have not seen any non-venomous that get close to

Gaboons, Rhinos, Mangshans, and most of the tree vipers.Or as spectacular as a fully hooded cobra


----------



## FishForLife2001 (Sep 23, 2014)

Thanks for the replies. Yes I agree the most beautiful are venomous but I wonder if this also attracts the wrong people to get venomous snakes. Then again from what I have heard it is a strict process to get a license.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## supatips (May 29, 2012)

FishForLife2001 said:


> Thanks for the replies. Yes I agree the most beautiful are venomous but I wonder if this also attracts the wrong people to get venomous snakes. Then again from what I have heard it is a strict process to get a license.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


The right people are the ones who have taken the time to learn the intimate details of their animals and gone through the proper process of obtaining a license etc. From what I understand it's not cheap, public liability insurance etc and I'm sure the license itself varies in cost between different councils/countys. Basically those who do it legally and by the book in my eyes are the right people.

Sadly I'm quite sure there a quite a few people keeping specimins classed as DWA illegally. 

Some of the restricted species fascinate me if I'm honest and I wouldn't mind being able to spend some time learning about them in a controlled enviroment.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

The "right person", IMO, is difficult to define. Working with venomous snakes is mostly about aptitude - you can keep and breed a variety of non-venomous for 30 years but if you're clumsy, can't think on your feet, struggle to work using tools instead of hands and aren't observant then you're probably not suitable for working with venomous. Another thing to bear in mind is health - if you have a history of serious allergies or are disabled then this must be taken in to consideration.

I also echo Ian and GT's answers.

Daz, indeed! Not all, though!


----------



## FishForLife2001 (Sep 23, 2014)

I agree most DWA keepers do it responsibly and properly but its just the risk the few stupid ones could cause-to themselves, others and the hobby (even non DWA species would be at risk if someone was killed by a captive venomous snake for example).

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

FishForLife2001 said:


> I agree most DWA keepers do it responsibly and properly but its just the risk the few stupid ones could cause-to themselves, others and the hobby (even non DWA species would be at risk if someone was killed by a captive venomous snake for example).
> 
> Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


The Government, both local and national, couldn't care less if a keeper was bitten or even killed, all they care about is that an innocent member of the public is not harmed by animals that are kept as "companion animals," and I use that term very loosely when describing Dangerous Wild Animals!

If the worst was to happen and a member of the public was harmed by an escaped dangerous wild animal - and I will say that there is far more on this Schedule than venomous snakes, venomous lizards, crocodilians and invertebrates - then there would most certainly be a thorough investigation as to how this happened, and action would be taken either against the keeper themselves for breaching the conditions of their licence (if they had one) or for not having a licence, the local authority for failing to ensure that the animals kept in their jurisdiction were kept in a secure facility, and/or the Act would be amended to make sure this doesn't happen again.

It is over the top to suggest that an incident involving dangerous wild animals will effect the keeping of animals not on the Schedule. This isn't America!


----------



## FishForLife2001 (Sep 23, 2014)

It wouldn't exactly paint a good image to the public though and would give fuel to the various anti captive animal organisations. I don't mean it would directly affect the hobby.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

FishForLife2001 said:


> It wouldn't exactly paint a good image to the public though and would give fuel to the various anti captive animal organisations. I don't mean it would directly affect the hobby.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


To be honest, I'm not sure that anybody within the DWA community actually cares about public opinion. Why should they?

I'm not a part of the community as such, but I do get the opportunity to get a few hours here and there with venomous and I could care less about what anybody thinks of my passion - it's my passion, not theirs. It's my life, not theirs... and as long as I'm not putting innocents in danger, it's not their business and fortunately, this is HMG's opinion as well.


----------



## FishForLife2001 (Sep 23, 2014)

Cool, thanks for the interesting discussion 

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

A DWA licence doesn't automatically make for a safe or competent venomous keeper. I know unlicensed keepers who have been keeping for decades safely without ever having been bitten..... conversely I know licensed keepers who have been bitten multiple times.

I can't speak for others but I don't work with venomous snakes for the danger or any adrenaline rush. Snakes are in my blood... I was destined to work with venomous snakes... its "normal" for me :thumb:


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

To be honest with you I think for many it's just an inherent fascination for snakes. For as long as I can remember I have been deeply enchanted by all snakes, regardless of whether they do or don't have venom.

I guess some see venomous snakes as the ultimate evolution of the snake, so there is an extra fascination. I remember very clearly catching my first V. ammodytes on a greek island as a young teenager and being engrossed by it. Now I am regularly catching venomous and non venomous snakes but the energy when dealing with a venomous snake is different.


----------



## Basin79 (Apr 1, 2014)

I don't keep any DWA but I do keep inverts and some of them could sit you on your arse. I'd be lying if I didn't say their venom wasn't a "turn on". But equally I absolutely love the inverts I have that don't have a nasty bite. 

My favourite snake is the gaboon viper. Mostly for it's look and build. Partially for it's record breaking fangs and venom.


----------



## FishForLife2001 (Sep 23, 2014)

Interesting, thanks for the new replies.

Basin79,
What (dangerous) inverts do you have? Are these not on the DWA for any particular reason?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Basin79 (Apr 1, 2014)

FishForLife2001 said:


> Interesting, thanks for the new replies.
> 
> Basin79,
> What (dangerous) inverts do you have? Are these not on the DWA for any particular reason?
> ...


My Scolopendra Hardwickei would hurt. My Macrothele Gigas would probably sit you on your arse and my Siccaria Terrosus have potent venom. Also for a tarantula my Poecilotheria Tigrinawesseli would give you a fair old whack. 

The DWA is a funny thing. Whilst being venomous they're not classed as deadly. It'd just be very unpleasant to receive a bite. The Siccaria Terrosus is supposedly highly venomous but there's not much on them. 

There are of course animals on the DWA that aren't deadly too. I'm not sure how they work to be honest.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

Out of all of the species B mentioned, _Sicarius_ sp. should be considered for the schedule. They produce potent necrotoxins - severe envenoming can lead to some pretty significant medical complications so it's better to err on the side of caution until more is known.

I haven't heard of any serious, systemic effects from _Scolopendra_, but I hear they're incredibly painful. Painful enough to make you wish they'd killed you. Pain alone isn't enough to warrant legislation, or else Bullet Ants would be a DWA species too, and they're not.


----------



## Basin79 (Apr 1, 2014)

ViperLover said:


> Out of all of the species B mentioned, _Sicarius_ sp. should be considered for the schedule. They produce potent necrotoxins - severe envenoming can lead to some pretty significant medical complications so it's better to err on the side of caution until more is known.
> 
> I haven't heard of any serious, systemic effects from _Scolopendra_, but I hear they're incredibly painful. Painful enough to make you wish they'd killed you. Pain alone isn't enough to warrant legislation, or else Bullet Ants would be a DWA species too, and they're not.


Yet the Sicarius Terrosus can't climb smooth surfaces and doesn't show no aggression at all. So it poses very little threat to the public. It's the same with DWA scorpions. 

The list is funny. I could well imagine there'll be snakes on there that pose little threat to human life. Although that is a guess.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

Basin79 said:


> Yet the Sicarius Terrosus can't climb smooth surfaces and doesn't show no aggression at all. So it poses very little threat to the public. It's the same with DWA scorpions.
> 
> The list is funny. I could well imagine there'll be snakes on there that pose little threat to human life. Although that is a guess.


There's a lot of snakes on there that pose little threat to human life, if you're talking a bite from a one off encounter. When was the last time a Bandy Bandy killed anybody, or at least, gave them a very serious bite?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

ViperLover said:


> There's a lot of snakes on there that pose little threat to human life, if you're talking a bite from a one off encounter. When was the last time a Bandy Bandy killed anybody, or at least, gave them a very serious bite?


Convenience, that's why. It's far simpler to say that all Elapidae and Viperidae are banned, rather than listing every species. Added to which, the Bandy bandy, being Australian, is not going to turn up in UK collections, so no need to amend this.

But then you have, for example, _Vipera ursinii_, which feeds on insects! Sadly, we are stuck with the Schedule. It was amended, not enough, but unlikely to be changed again for some time.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

ian14 said:


> Convenience, that's why. It's far simpler to say that all Elapidae and Viperidae are banned, rather than listing every species. Added to which, the Bandy bandy, being Australian, is not going to turn up in UK collections, so no need to amend this.


Of course.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

Unfortunately for civil liberty, a comprehensive review of the Schedule will never happen. For one, it will take time and it will cost money. Secondly, nobody cares enough to consider it. It took over thirty years for the first review of the Schedule!


----------

