# venemoids



## naja-naja

why are they seen as bad.
aside from the fact that some people such as raymond hoser butcher them, and that it may reverse itself if not done correctly. if it is done correctly, why is there such a big issue with it? (genuinely curious)


----------



## Ssthisto

Finding a vet who is able to do it correctly AND willing to do it correctly is always going to be a bit of a trial. It isn't legal to have it done here in the UK at all, so any venomoid that someone wanted to get would have to be bought from a country where it is legal - which reduces the ability to "vet" the veterinarian who'd be performing the procedure.

I personally would not have a problem with it being done by a licenced vet with exotics experience, using veterinary tools and anaesthetic, if the vet was experienced and had done the surgery on multiple cadavers of the species in question prior to attempting it on a live snake ... but if I can't talk to the vet, I don't know if they've done that. In that respect I'd only be willing to buy a long-term venomoid, one that's proven by its ongoing health that the surgery had not done it permanent damage... assuming I was going to have a venomoid at all.

I do personally think that too many people think it's a "shortcut" and means they can be sloppy with their handling - which could theoretically lead to some unpleasantness if they got an animal that wasn't correctly operated upon and got an envenomation for their trouble. Or, as has apparently happened once in the USA, you order a venomoid, you receive it, and it turns out that someone ELSE has got your 'void due to a shipping error and YOU have the hot snake. And if it's done correctly, you wouldn't KNOW unless you knew how to test the snake for venom output (no, I don't) ... which means you might not know until you've been bitten and start feeling effects you didn't expect.


----------



## naja-naja

see, i was thinking that it would be a way to get into hots like, keep one for a year without getting bitten, or venemous mentors could use them for 'training' purposes without telling their students.
so far the only argument seems to be 'if you want to take the venom out of a snake get a non-ven' which isnt much good for practice.


----------



## naja-naja

and i've got one pm from someone who loves vipers saying 'its bloody cruel' but gives no reason. but since they keep no hots, venemoids or even any snakes i'm inclined to ignore them.


----------



## Ssthisto

Thing is, if you KNOW that the snake is meant to be no-longer-venomous you are not going to handle it the same way. You might make mistakes that, because the venomoid doesn't have a way to make you pay for it (although in the case of cobras this is apparently not the case - I've heard from two separate reliable sources that they can REALLY chomp down on you with a lot of bite pressure) you won't learn what not to do. 

I do see the point in people running handling training courses using venomoids for the first parts of training, without telling the students - reduce some of the risks while still teaching them how to handle the animals correctly. But a good trainer probably doesn't NEED to reduce risks by using surgically altered animals. 

I have had the pleasure of meeting a venomoid cobra; it was an extremely unique experience to see how that animal behaved when he DIDN'T have to be handled with extreme caution. Inquisitive, very alert... and ticklish, apparently. Great animal, and I can certainly see why people like cobras. But if I couldn't cope with a fully loaded one, it's not fair to have one altered just so I can have a cobra I can adequately manage to keep.

As for the cruelty aspect... as I said, if it's done by a veterinarian experienced in the technique, I can't see how it's MORE cruel than spaying a small dog, cat, or rabbit - or doing dental work on one.


----------



## nitro

if the snake was to have its glands removed it would still be DWA though right?? As the list goes by name of species


----------



## naja-naja

nitro said:


> if the snake was to have its glands removed it would still be DWA though right?? As the list goes by name of species


 it is, i think due to it being able to breed (and create loaded hots).


----------



## nitro

once the snakes have there glands removed there not released back into the wild are they as they wouldnt be able to kill their prey.


----------



## naja-naja

nitro said:


> once the snakes have there glands removed there not released back into the wild are they as they wouldnt be able to kill their prey.


 i'm talking about someone breeding them in captivity.


----------



## nitro

naja-naja said:


> i'm talking about someone breeding them in captivity.


no i know. Does raymond hoser remove glands and release these snakes back into the wild is this the reason people find him contravorsal?


----------



## Ssthisto

nitro said:


> once the snakes have there glands removed there not released back into the wild are they as they wouldnt be able to kill their prey.


Of course a venomoid wouldn't INTENTIONALLY be released into the wild. 

The reason Raymond Hoser is controversial (other than his advocacy for venomoid snakes) is the procedure he recommends for doing it - namely chilling the snake and using half-frozen wet towels to keep the snake cold and immobile during the procedure; he may not have or regularly use sterile veterinary equipment either.


----------



## nitro

Ssthisto said:


> Of course a venomoid wouldn't INTENTIONALLY be released into the wild.
> 
> The reason Raymond Hoser is controversial (other than his advocacy for venomoid snakes) is the procedure he recommends for doing it - namely chilling the snake and using half-frozen wet towels to keep the snake cold and immobile during the procedure; he may not have or regularly use sterile veterinary equipment either.


O i see thank you. That is disgusting


----------



## stuartdouglas

Venomoids are DWA listed animals as they will produce "fully loaded" offspring


----------



## Tehanu

For me personally, it's nothing to do with how accurately its done, or how safely for the snakes health, or that the snake proves to be "healthy" for a substantial length of time after the event, I'm not concerned with whether they'd be useful as training animals or whether people might get sloppy working with them.

Keeping animals is a selfish persuit in almost every way, whichever angle you look at it, there has to be a line though where our own indulgence is checked.
Chopping organs out of an animal purely for our own convenience is where I draw that line...


----------



## naja-naja

Saedcantas said:


> For me personally, it's nothing to do with how accurately its done, or how safely for the snakes health, or that the snake proves to be "healthy" for a substantial length of time after the event, I'm not concerned with whether they'd be useful as training animals or whether people might get sloppy working with them.
> 
> Keeping animals is a selfish persuit in almost every way, whichever angle you look at it, there has to be a line though where our own indulgence is checked.
> Chopping organs out of an animal purely for our own convenience is where I draw that line...


 but the whole idea is that you can make mistakes, and rectify them with venemoids, so that when it comes to the real deal, you know what to do. the 'chopping off organs' bit is what everyone comes out with, saying 'it doesn't benefit the animal' but keeping in captivity doesn't either! and i put it to you, hat removal off the glands mightin fact make it easier to tend to, making it beneficial to the animal, and if ts used as a 'trainer' or first hot, could benifit many more!


----------



## stuartdouglas

It boils down to basically, if you are incapable of keeping the animal "intact" then you should not be keeping the animal, full stop! There is no benefit in removal of the venom glands other than to allow sloppy handlers to "get away with it" or to allow complete d*ckwads to show off their free handling skills


----------



## naja-naja

stuartdouglas said:


> It boils down to basically, if you are incapable of keeping the animal "intact" then you should not be keeping the animal, full stop! There is no benefit in removal of the venom glands other than to allow sloppy handlers to "get away with it" or to allow complete d*ckwads to show off their free handling skills


 but if you're a venemous noob, an 'oid might be a good idea.
like oh, he bit me, to keep a hot i'll do this differently... so after a year of this, you'll be well up on techniques needed for safe keeping.


----------



## stuartdouglas

naja-naja said:


> but if you're a venemous noob, an 'oid might be a good idea.
> like oh, he bit me, to keep a hot i'll do this differently... so after a year of this, you'll be well up on techniques needed for safe keeping.


Sorry, but I don't agree, you will always know that it's a v'oid and this *will *alter how you deal with it. The only way to deal with hots properly is to deal with hots. You may as well pretend your ratsnake is a cobra and save an animal the uneccesary cruelty of having its glands chopped out.
Ask how many of the keepers on this section have "trained" with venomoids................


----------



## slippery42

stuartdouglas said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree, you will always know that it's a v'oid and this *will *alter how you deal with it. The only way to deal with hots properly is to deal with hots. You may as well pretend your ratsnake is a cobra and save an animal the uneccesary cruelty of having its glands chopped out.
> Ask how many of the keepers on this section have "trained" with venomoids................


I'll guess none

I'll further guess that most of us hate this barbaric practice!


----------



## naja-naja

slippery42 said:


> I'll guess none
> 
> I'll further guess that most of us hate this barbaric practice!


 see that's what i'm trying to get at, what makes it barbaric? or is it just bad press because of hoser?


----------



## Tehanu

naja-naja said:


> see that's what i'm trying to get at, what makes it barbaric? or is it just bad press because of hoser?


Nothing to do with who in particular does it.

How is it not obvious that mutilating (yes, that is what it is considered under the law of this country) an animal for your own personal convenience of keeping it is barbaric and disgusting?

It isn't even about the consequences or implications for me (it should never even come to that), it is wholly the fact that people can even consider taking away a vital organ from an animal to make their own lives easier. We might get away with this kind of attitude of convenience towards ourselves, but to impose it on animals is appalling.

It is an ethical issue, I don't know how much clearer I can make it...


----------



## DavidR

> see that's what i'm trying to get at, what makes it barbaric? or is it just bad press because of hoser?


The fact that it is completely unnecesarry surgery which causes massive stress, often carried out by non trained 'butchers' in a non-sterile environment with inneffective anaesthesia and aftercare. As has been previously said, if you want to keep a snake that is not capable of envenomation why not choose one of the many non venomous snakes available? instead of mutilating a venomous snake and taking the very real risk of killing it. Nobody with a respect for venomous snakes will support venomoid surgery.

There are a number of reasons that people don't like Ray Hoser, his publication of a step by step guide to venomoiding is just the tip of the iceberg!

David.


----------



## PDR

I don’t like the idea of venomoids and I’ve never kept any myself as they would be pretty useless for our work. The only time I ever handled one was when Liverpool Museum put on a venomous exhibit and borrowed a venomoid cobra from a Private Keeper (Health & safety would not allow a fully loaded snake in the exhibit). I was asked by the Museum Staff to go down and help with the snake as it had not shed properly. Venomoid or not that was one big aggressive snake to handle and I treated as I would any other cobra.
I did have a situation about 12 years ago where we took a number of snakes that had been confiscated from a un-licensed keeper...... he had a particularly beautiful Canebrake Rattlesnake that was a venomoid.... he used this as an excuse as to why it should not be confiscated, but the Local Authorities asked us to take it anyway. After the raid was over I had a phone call from the owner saying “Paul, don’t take any chances with that Canebrake, it is NOT a venomoid... I only said that in the hope that they would let me keep it”


----------



## kelboy

PDR said:


> “Paul, don’t take any chances with that Canebrake, it is NOT a venomoid... I only said that in the hope that they would let me keep it”


Lucky thing it was someone with the work ethic of you that had the snake! And also somewhat of a redeeming feature of the keeper with his honesty, although I'm not sure keeping unlicensed and then lying to try and keep a snake is worthy of redemption.


----------



## naja-naja

Saedcantas said:


> Nothing to do with who in particular does it.
> 
> How is it not obvious that mutilating (yes, that is what it is considered under the law of this country) an animal for your own personal convenience of keeping it is barbaric and disgusting?
> 
> It isn't even about the consequences or implications for me (it should never even come to that), it is wholly the fact that people can even consider taking away a vital organ from an animal to make their own lives easier. We might get away with this kind of attitude of convenience towards ourselves, but to impose it on animals is appalling.
> 
> It is an ethical issue, I don't know how much clearer I can make it...


well i support descenting ferrets, skunks and civets,pinioning birds, declawing cats and debarking dogs (all where needed) and obviously spay and neuter programs. these are all mutilation, and all of these are needed in the wild, but unneeded and sometimes detrimental in captivity. are these procedures barbaric and disgusting? i have researched these procedures thouroghly and have found no evidence to say that they are, i am now researching venom gland removal in snakes, and so far the only argument is 'why would you do that if you can get a non-hot' i have found nothing that says it affects the health of the snake, the longevity etc.
if someone can sow me proof that it is bad please do, i am having some trouble finding it myself.


----------



## masticophis

DavidR said:


> The fact that it is completely unnecesarry surgery which causes massive stress, often carried out by non trained 'butchers' in a non-sterile environment with inneffective anaesthesia and aftercare. As has been previously said, if you want to keep a snake that is not capable of envenomation why not choose one of the many non venomous snakes available? instead of mutilating a venomous snake and taking the very real risk of killing it. Nobody with a respect for venomous snakes will support venomoid surgery.
> 
> There are a number of reasons that people don't like Ray Hoser, his publication of a step by step guide to venomoiding is just the tip of the iceberg!
> 
> David.


I'm not trying to argue but do you have any idea how many backyard butchers are doing these jobs compared to licenced practicers who do it with anesthetic and pain relief. Obviously hoser is one, but then he should be in prison for the way he does it anyway.

Also for the people in the venomous hobby. a very well respected person wrote this on venomoids.

_I think as long as it's done by a licensed vet, with post-op care including antibiotics and painkillers, then its perfectly acceptable. This is in contrast to an unhinged paranoid delusionist doing it in his dirty garage using no anesthetic (and utterly unable to spell antibiotic) all so that he can show off by freehandling, in a pathetically desperate attempt to overcome having been born with a micro-penis.

_I won't put the name but if someone like PDR or WW wants the name then I will point them to the statement in question, otherwise I will let everyone else look in your books for it.

Mike


----------



## Tehanu

naja-naja said:


> well i support descenting ferrets, skunks and civets,pinioning birds, declawing cats and debarking dogs (all where needed) and obviously spay and neuter programs. these are all mutilation, and all of these are needed in the wild, but unneeded and sometimes detrimental in captivity. are these procedures barbaric and disgusting? i have researched these procedures thouroghly and have found no evidence to say that they are, i am now researching venom gland removal in snakes, and so far the only argument is 'why would you do that if you can get a non-hot' i have found nothing that sas it affect the health of the snake, the longevity etc.
> if someone can sow me proof that it is bad please do, i am having some trouble finding it myself.


*backs away very slowly and very quietly...*


----------



## stuartdouglas

naja-naja said:


> well i support descenting ferrets, skunks and civets,pinioning birds, *declawing cats and debarking dogs* (all where needed) and obviously spay and neuter programs. these are all mutilation, and all of these are needed in the wild, but unneeded and sometimes detrimental in captivity. are these procedures barbaric and disgusting? i have researched these procedures thouroghly and have found no evidence to say that they are, i am now researching venom gland removal in snakes, and so far the only argument is 'why would you do that if you can get a non-hot' i have found nothing that says it affects the health of the snake, the longevity etc.
> if someone can sow me proof that it is bad please do, i am having some trouble finding it myself.


 
A resounding YES, this is completely barbaric and done solely for the convenience of humans with no regard to the detrimental impact on the animal. How would you fancy having your voicebox removed or all your fingernails pulled out?


----------



## SiUK

stuartdouglas said:


> A resounding YES, this is completely barbaric and done solely for the convenience of humans with no regard to the detrimental impact on the animal. How would you fancy having your voicebox removed or all your fingernails pulled out?


I agree, those two in particular are disgusting procedures.


----------



## naja-naja

stuartdouglas said:


> A resounding YES, this is completely barbaric and done solely for the convenience of humans with no regard to the detrimental impact on the animal. How would you fancy having your voicebox removed or all your fingernails pulled out?


 note i said where needed, sometimes cats are so destructive the only alternative to declawing is euthanasia. one person i know had a dog that barked so much it did damage to its throat. i have thoroughly researched these, particularly declawing, and while i was against it, i learned of the newer laser surgery, which is completely painless and lets the cats behave normally from 30minutes to a few hours after the procedure, and even leaves little stubs of claws. as far as the detrimental effect, if done properly there are almost none and those are related to the anesthetic, and resolved with a few day to a few weeks of medicine. this is from speaking to people on both sides of the debate, medical professionals and literature available.


----------



## Tehanu

De-clawing cats is comparable to removing your fingertips at the first knuckle, pinioning birds is comparable to removing your hand at the wrist... 

I won't even waste my time arguing ethics with someone who is prepared to give such a list so vocally.

P.S: just view the profile.


----------



## naja-naja

Saedcantas said:


> *De-clawing cats is comparable to removing your fingertips at the first knuckle*, pinioning birds is comparable to removing your hand at the wrist...
> 
> I won't even waste my time arguing ethics with someone who is prepared to give such a list so vocally.
> 
> P.S: just view the profile.


that was with the old procedure, like i said, the new laser one, leaves little stubs of claws left. pinioning birds is done for their on saftey to stop them flying away, and usually done on ones that are too stressed by human contact to have their feathers clipped periodicly.
im still looking for proof that 'de-venomising' (if that's even a word) is bad.


----------



## southwest vipers

Here is a link to a site that gives an interesting view of venomoids
VENOMOIDINC.COM - Welcome


----------



## Jb1432

Very Barbaric imo.


----------



## naja-naja

southwest vipers said:


> Here is a link to a site that gives an interesting view of venomoids
> VENOMOIDINC.COM - Welcome


 thank you, i would equally be interested in links from the other side of the debate.


----------



## naja-naja

according to the link, they feed and defecate at the same rate the fully-loaded ones do. so that blows the myth that they need venom to digest food out of the water.


----------



## AmyW

I don't keep hots and never will but animal mutation imo is wrong.

IMO if you think that venomoids and declawing cats and debarking dogs is ok, you may as well encourage removal of teeth for all the people who don't want to get bit but want to own a snake etc

I am absolutely petrified of being tagged by one of my snakes (stupid I know, fear of unknown I think) but I accept this as part of keeping them. I have been bit a few times by my skinks though! And just deal with this. Also my cat has scratched me all over when trying to get him away from a bird he was killing. My eldest dog as a puppy ate my sofa, not good but just worked harder at entertaining her.

If I didn't want any of the above to happen or have a dog that barked at every noise I just wouldn't keep animals. But because I choose to keep these animals I put up with it.

If you want to keep hots, then keep hots. If you want something non- venemous get a non- venomous snake.

But to mutilate an animal to suit yourself is very, very wrong. The animals we keep in collections and as pets never asked to be owned by us nor do they ask to be mutilated.

Personally I couldn't live with the guilt of it. Still feel bad that when I got my dog someone docked her tail as a pup!


----------



## mad martin

> according to the link, they feed and defecate at the same rate the fully-loaded ones do. so that blows the myth that they need venom to digest food out of the water


No it doesn't. I suggest researching venom a bit more closely before researching the removal thereof. Not all venomous snakes use the venom for digestion purposes. I didn't even look at that link, but let me guess that the snakes used for their "experiment" were elapids (to prove the rate of defecation etc.)

Venomous snakes do not belong in a home. I feel very strongly about that. But if you decide to put a snake like that in your house, you need to be fully prepared to deal with that animal in every facet. Removing venom glands so you can work safely is idiotic and uneducated egotism. If you are scared to learn on a snake that is fully loaded, then venomous snakes are not for you, plain and simple. Venomoids do have their place, but their place is not to help you learn how to work with snakes. 
I am completely shocked that anyone would even consider that. I can teach a baboon how to tail a cobra in thirty minutes, so why would you want to use a venomoid for a year to "train"? Its much harder catching a gecko in the field than a cobra. Its much harder working with a monitor lizard than with almost any snake. Yet, you never see a "How do I declaw my monitor lizard?" thread. The problem is this stigma attached to venomous snakes, and this stigma attracts wankers and assholes and ego maniacs. And its these clowns that want to destroy an animal to suit themselves.

You ask for an argument.
If they didn't need venom, why take millions of years "to evolve" them? (word?)


----------



## Owzy

They are just for those who cannot hold their nerve against the real thing and I agree with Stuart in that it would be very difficult to treat every aspect of their care & handling with the same caution.

A completely selfish thing in my opinion on the behalf on mankind.

You can argue it is painless blah blah blah but this is beyond debate.... the procedure will never ever benefit a snake. 

I don't understand how someone could call them selves a lover of snakes if they support this rubbish.


----------



## Ssthisto

AmyW said:


> But to mutilate an animal to suit yourself is very, very wrong.


Would the removal of glands from a mammal - which, when removed, cause morphological changes (changes in body shape and growth) as well as behavioural changes - for human convenience count as "Mutilation" ?


----------



## AmyW

Ssthisto said:


> Would the removal of glands from a mammal - which, when removed, cause morphological changes (changes in body shape and growth) as well as behavioural changes - for human convenience count as "Mutilation" ?


I am now going to sound very stupid but not all of us 'know it all' but I haven't got a clue what you mean.

I was trying in my own words to say changing an animal for your own benefit is wrong. I feel no different about this than arguing with other parents why I believe piercing childrens ears is wrong!
Animals or babies they don't have a choice.

Sorry if I came across the wrong way, I think I will keep out of debates in future!


----------



## glidergirl

naja-naja said:


> note i said where needed, sometimes cats are so destructive the only alternative to declawing is euthanasia. one person i know had a dog that barked so much it did damage to its throat. i have thoroughly researched these, particularly declawing, and while i was against it, i learned of the newer laser surgery, which is completely painless and lets the cats behave normally from 30minutes to a few hours after the procedure, and even leaves little stubs of claws. as far as the detrimental effect, if done properly there are almost none and those are related to the anesthetic, and resolved with a few day to a few weeks of medicine. this is from speaking to people on both sides of the debate, medical professionals and literature available.


Not getting involved in the venomoid debate, there will always be differing opinions on that one, but declawing cats is completely un neccesary - Soft Claws UK - The humane alternative to declawing cats&dogs! :2thumb:.


----------



## Ssthisto

AmyW said:


> I am now going to sound very stupid but not all of us 'know it all' but I haven't got a clue what you mean.


That's sort of the point. I'm asking "Is it mutilation to remove glands that are inconvenient to people from a mammal if it is mutilation to remove glands that are inconvenient (and dangerous) to people from a reptile".

Doesn't particularly matter WHAT glands it is I'm talking about!


----------



## AmyW

Ssthisto said:


> That's sort of the point. I'm asking "Is it mutilation to remove glands that are inconvenient to people from a mammal if it is mutilation to remove glands that are inconvenient (and dangerous) to people from a reptile".
> 
> Doesn't particularly matter WHAT glands it is I'm talking about!


I assumed thats what I said? I believe it to be mutilating an animal. My point was it is wrong to change an animal for these reasons.

Whether I am right or not is an entirely different matter.


----------



## Rikki

mad martin said:


> I didn't even look at that link, but let me guess that the snakes used for their "experiment" were elapids (to prove the rate of defecation etc.)


I havent looked at the link either, but there is research showing that venom plays no role in digestion for _Crotalus atrox_, a species with highly proteolytic venom.


----------



## Ssthisto

AmyW said:


> I assumed thats what I said? I believe it to be mutilating an animal. My point was it is wrong to change an animal for these reasons.


That's fair enough. 

Spaying or neutering mammals can have significant physical affects on the growth and body shape of the animal, as well as significant behavioural effects. I won't discuss spaying specifically, as that has some very clear health benefits for the animals in question in addition to changing behaviour.

*Male *animals are generally neutered for human convenience (more that their entire-male behaviour is *inconvenient* for people) and the health aspects ("he won't get testicular cancer") are tacked on as an afterthought. I would assume the risks of a companion animal actually contracting testicular cancer are no higher, really, than a human getting the same thing - and humans don't remove the testicles of other humans *even* when trying to prevent reproduction. It's not done prophylactically for humans because humans WANT the male behaviour to continue - which implies strongly that castration of animals is done primarily to PREVENT normal male behaviour.

So if "mutilating" mammals to make more tractable, handleable, docile animals is routinely done and indeed recommended by veterinarians... why is it suddenly so *bad* when we're talking about the venom glands of a snake instead of the reproductive glands of a horse, cow, sheep, dog, cat or rabbit? Surely the mammal - being smarter - is MORE likely to notice the absence than the snake is (if either of them recognises that there's something missing at all)?


----------



## leecb0

I agree with Stuart/ Si and the other people against Venomoids. an argument to the fact that "it would be a great training animal and if im bitten, i will do something different with the real thing" is a total non argument. I have only ever once come across one Venomoid snake in my time and that was a Cobra and it didnt know it was a venomoid and acted the same as any other cobra of its ilk but i still would not trust it personally and would have treated as a "fully loaded snake, as i have seen many venomoids which had not had a good job done and still will produce venom. I think its a totaly pointless excercise if you are botherd about getting bitten then simply dont have any "hot" snakes i have never been bitten due to the fact i hope i have good handling practices, and i know if i do its my fault not the snakes. There is only a couple of guys on here who i know have been bitten but they do very risky procedures as a job and being bitten i hope they dont mind me saying it is i would call an occupational hazard but i bet they and the other handlers never learnt with a venomoid.
getting one would be like buying a big superbike and then taking the engine out and putting pedels on it "till you get used to it"
as for changing anything on any animal that helps the person wanting to keep the animal rather than helping the animal is just WRONG


----------



## ScottGB

I saw a great link on here a while back, of a youtube video where they managed to milk 3 out of 4 cobras that were supposed to be venomoid. They all had the tell tail scars of the surgery but it did't work. So even if you wanted to get it done its not 100% its been done right. I wouldn't risk it.

I was told about a king cobra that is venomoid in london. The same one was used to test the effectiveness of certain snake handling gloves. 
Now its supposed to be either the oldest or biggest King cobra in the country (i'm not sure which it is an this is second hand info) but it sounds as though the snake was very healthy.

I personally wouldn't do it, not for part of my collection nor for practise. Because for practise you wouldn't get the psychological effect of the adrenalin pumping threw you veins thinking one wrong more an i could be dead. 
I know its next to impossible to find a mentor. I'd still try and find one. Or get as much experience with nasty fast snakes then ease into getting mildly venomous then get something on the DWA that might not be as bad if it does catch you out. But with luck you'll have the experience so you'll be alright. 
An there are loads of people on here that would give you advice.

Please note I don't have a DWA. I'm at the point were I'm trying to get the experience. 
Anyone please point out the were this is bad advice. Cos I'm looking for ideas too.


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Venomoids are created because some cowardly person wants to own a ‘venomous’ animal without the consequences. It’s like removing the wings from a bird because the owner does not want to take the chance that the animal may escape due to his or her ignorance.
These animals were created with a weapon. If the human is too cowardly stupid to accept this why punish the animal for this selfish ignorance?
I hope that Answers your question Mr. Common Cobra (Naja naja)


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*venomoids*

How nice, a constructive discussion in a VL free zone. I have to say I am completely with Stuart Douglas and Saedcantas and others on this issue, I consider the process unnecessary and barbaric and I agree one will treat a venomoid differently than a hot even with the best of intentions, and especially when in a hurry. My dislike of the process is not because Mr Hoser and I are not the best of buddies, it is because I disagree with creating venomoids in principle, regardless how it is done, although the way he does it is as others have said, barbaric. After the IHS published his DIY venomoid surgery article in The Herptile, against my recommendation I might add, I wrote an article examining the whys and wherefores of venomoids, examining the reasons people want them. I have posted a pdf of this article on my homepage www.markoshea.tv - check under Say No to Venomoids.
The article states my position on the subject so I won't say more here for now (my dinner is ready anyway) but I will add that it is certainly illegal for a vet to practise what is considered cosmetic surgery of this type in the UK.

But before I go I have to ask AmyW - how big is your eldest puppy and what kind of dog is it? Did it eat the whole sofa ?
Either you have very large ravenous dogs (in which case I am definitely sticking with venomous snakes) or you have very small furniture in your house !

Only fooling with you, hope you post again.
Regards

Mark


----------



## naja-naja

thank you Mr O Shea, hopefully it will explain why it is a procedure disliked by so many.

EDIT: the pdf appears to be blank?


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Thanks Mark. I am unable to remain as cool as you when dealing with ethical issues like this that should be outlawed and the perpetrators jailed in solitary confinement for ever.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*pdf*

Hello naja-naja, It should not be blank, I've just tried it and went straight there, opened and I could have downloaded it - starts with a cover image with my beloved old Egyptian cobra 'Haje' who did a lot of UK TV and media work and was far from venomoid, having put me in hospital once.

Okay, go to the homepage, to the Say No to Venomoids, click the cartoon snake underneath "I don't want the snip" and that should take you to a page 
that reads like this:

Index of /uploads2

Parent Directory
O'Shea 2004 The case against venomoid snakes.pdf
Apache/2.2.9 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.9 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_jk/1.2.25 PHP/5.2.6 Server at www.markoshea.tv Port 80

Click on O'Shea 2004 The case against venomoid snakes.pdf 
and it should open.

If it doesn't post email address and I will send you the pdf from the website herpshop address. Happy to send it to anyone.
Did this link work for anyone ?

Mark


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*jail for abusers, do not pass Go*

Snakes incorporated, I agree about the jail bit, our old 'friend' RH did go to jail, for something else. 
But not the solitary confinement.
Don't you think it would be better to have the abuser worried about bending down to pick up the soap instead.

Mark


----------



## zoeu

The link worked for me.


----------



## andy2086

Mark O'Shea said:


> Snakes incorporated, I agree about the jail bit, our old 'friend' RH did go to jail, for something else.
> But not the solitary confinement.
> Don't you think it would be better to have the abuser worried about bending down to pick up the soap instead.
> 
> Mark


:lol2: Link worked for me too. 

Interesting article Mark. Completely agree with you, there is no reason at all why the venom glands should be removed : victory:

Andy


----------



## masticophis

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Thanks Mark. I am unable to remain as cool as you when dealing with ethical issues like this that should be outlawed and the perpetrators jailed in solitary confinement for ever.


This is half the problem, you and most people say it is unethical. But ethics are a personal thing, what may be fine to you may not be fine to someone else. Keeping captive animals or using animals for food, or their remains for making things. These are all things considered barbaric by some people, the problem is why should they be wrong and you are right ?

I'm not picking on your specifically though, its not a personal attack, just an observation that not everyone will agree.

What gets me are some of the excuses against it, the need for venom to digest prey being one, if that is to be a valid excuse then it should mean that on the whole elapids could be venomoids whilst vipers couldn't be. So to me that excuse is invalid. They certainly don't need venom to kill their frozen/thawed prey. I wonder if (ignoring the actual op itself) that a venomoid not having to use its resources to produce venom, whether it would actually be a healthier animal, You would infact be taking away some part of its body that is parasitic on it. This is not necessarily a point of view, more a thought that might need confirming. (AND certainly should need considering)
Another thing is that a lot of people say you should have the guts/balls to deal with an intact snake. Whilst I do understand this, I do fear that by having the keeping of venomous being perceived as a macho thing then prehaps it would be no wonder that some would be against venomoids as it will be diluting their appearance as tough guys. As has been said about neutering dogs, no one complains about that as it is accepted, but with snakes then although the op not be much worse and cause less long term changes it is still unthinkable to do.

AGAIN... these are just observations, playing devils advocate, mainly because I see the same old excuses on these topics, but like the AR people , very few people are prepared to actually look into both sides. I PERSONALLY haven't said if I actually agree or disagree with them, or if I am indifferent. Just I would like to base any decision I make on facts rather than on emotions

It's fine to have your own opinions (again not meant at one person), but it doesn't always mean they are right, in fact sometimes there are no right ways.

Mike

At least it has stayed relatively civil so far on this thread, I would like to see a proper discussion on it, but normally they degenerate.


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Masticophis either you are part of the problem or the solution so no middle ground SORRY for you. 
Removing the potential breeding capacity of a domestic animals ability to create future unwanted problems because of human domestication has no comparison. (A fact so get used to it)
A snake will always be a wild animal so removing an organ or three will not change that as a fact but will no doubt disfigure the animal for some bazaar human entertainment. 
Digestion: My cobra`s digest there food a lot quicker than there non venomous brethren but slower than my adders and vipers so venom plays a very enlightening factor in the natural digestion process.
If your opinions is to want a venomoid WHY? Would this be to brag that you can free handle a potentially dangerous snake to impress your mates? Or because you enjoy infecting unnecessary pain and disfiguration on innocent creatures for no reason?


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*in response to masticophis*

Dear Masticophis, I do honestly see your point it is hard to be equal in an argument where you completely support one side. I wrote the article 5yrs back and would write it differently today (maybe). 
Ethics and morals are what make us human and more than that, humane.
Some consider eating meat, wearing leather, feeding mice to snakes wrong, for 'ethical' reasons. The Jains of India do not believe in killing anything, they sweep the street before them in case they step on an ant. And what about illness, I am often (every year) in the tropics and I take precautions to kill malaria in my blood (maybe not well cos I've had it 6x since 1986) but malaria is a living organism, a unicellular protozoan which has its juvenile stage in us and adult in the mosquito (a highly advanced dipteran we also seek to eradicate). So theoretically the malaria fans of this world would be incensed by my uncaring attitude to their beloved species.

Don't worry about the flu virus though, even if you are a vegan, because being a virus it has no DNA, only RNA, and is therefore not technically ALIVE (microbiologists please stay your verbal-swords).

I like devils-advocate, it is a good equaliser against yes-men who are the ones who stab you in the back eventually.

To the nitty-gritty. Some snakes may need their venom to help deal with prey. Take a puff adder, juveniles prey on a lot of lizards and have a neurotoxic component in their venom, to stop the little fellows getting to far, adults loose this and are highly cytotoxic (proteolytic) to help speed up digestion of rather bulky prey (big rats). A boa and a puffie of same size take the same sized rat. Puffie has digested his dinner far sooner and is vulnerable to the unfriendly hand of man for a shorter period of time than the boa. 
Work done on elapids in Australia with their post and pre-synaptic neurotoxins and pro or anti-coagulant haemotoxins does not really equate to venomous snakes worldwide, this is not one-size-fits -all.

Macho snake keeping - well I have one word to say to that and it is the same word used for to certain dangly male adornments. I am not hitting back at you, I am saying working/keeping venomous snakes should not be perceived as macho because (and get his any tattooed (male) snake keepers out there) girls do it too!!!!!!

I know many girls who work with venomous snakes, some keep them in captivity, okay, we know there is a safety net there, but some work with then in the field, surnames to save girlie blushes: Pook, Malhotra, Daltry, Sanders. To emphasis this may I recommend a book: (pity too late for Xmas) Mean and Lowly Things by Kate Jackson, published in 2008.

Kate is an extremely competent and highly respected expert on venomous snakes and their delivery mechanisms and the complete antithesis of 'macho', (I can envisage pen!ses wilting everywhere). She is a slightly build Canadian herpetologist who I met at the 2nd World Congress of Herpetology in Adelaide in 1992. Since then she has proved herself worthy of the title of 'snake expert' and what is more (and all your guys out there who think fieldwork is a doddle and a bit of fun listen up) she had been into the Congo (the place where people disappear without trace, get put against trees and chopped up with machetes, die of awful diseases like Epola) ALONE at least 3x to conduct herp surveys. She deals with forest cobras, water cobras etc. It is an exceptional read. Yes, she preserves snakes for science, but museums are not stocked with specimens that died in private collections with no locality data, and for every specimen she put in a museum 100x will be killed by villagers, hunters or drivers that are left for the vultures or thrown into the bush. All we know of snake distribution comes from such data. Fortunately being Canadian Kate speaks French, but believe you me, what Kate has achieved would be tough for a man, and is exceptional for a woman (because of tribal and even bureaucratic pre-justice against women doing anything but wash clothes and have babies). So can we have less of this venomous snakes are for tough blokes sh!t - venomous snakes are for those who can hack it, and not for those who can't regardless of their gender, whether private, zoo or fieldwork.

Mike- I would agree with the desire to stay civil to the end of this debate, I hope my feeling on the last point did not overstep (but since out moderator is herself, a woman, I figure she agrees with me).
Moving on, one of the most important aspects of venomous in captivity today is the interest in venomoids.

I consider your observations perfectly sound and worthy of discussion.
Ethical issues are always tough but it is important to see the bigger picture and listen to others arguments.
Someone convince me a value to creating venomoids, especially one the venomoid itself might find positive.

If you want to learn, buy a Boiga dendrophila melanota (not one of those pissy B.d.annectans around today) with a strike of a metre.
If you want to pose buy a Boa constrictor imperator (now B.imperator incidentally, recent revision), it looks good, will put the wind up your relatives, but won't kill you or anyone within strike range.
If you are serious, get a DWA and think about what you want to keep and do it properly.

Keeping a venomoid and pretending it is the real deal is like buying costume jewellery for a big party. At the end of the day you are fake!

Mark

(funny thing when I post, I find I have a lot to say on the subject and have to take care not to go too far off piste, my editor tears his hair out, I've written over 120,000 word already for the next book, but I guess over 40years with reptiles must stand for something)


----------



## Angi

Very interesting discussion. 
I would like throw another point of view/question into the pool too.

For those who do not believe a venomous snake should have its venom glands removed because they feel it is cruel :- Is it any less cruel to keep a wild animal in captivity? Surely this alone could be percieved as the most cruel act one could commit against a wild creature other than actual bodily harm or death. Captivity usually results in reduced opportunity for movement and other enriching daily activities of life, such eating a variety of prey, actual sunshine and all it wonderful benefits etc etc. Yes I kow they dont have to experience the stress of being hunted in captivity, but seriously, reducing a wild animal to keeping it in a (often small) box is bound to have many negative effects. I imagine their bone density would be greatly reduced and muscle tone less than ideal through less than ideal space to move in. The lack of variety in diet surely cant exactly be beneficial. Lack of sunshine could result in their entire body systems being depressed and consequently stressed. etc etc
Maybe I'm going off on a tangent here and I could extrapulate forever on the points surrounding this issue, indeed it could easily be a whole new topic to post for healthy debate . But I am interested in others views on this point.

There is no way everyone on here will agree on the whole venomoid topic, simply because our backgrounds, upbringings, beliefs, knowledge, IQ, experience are all so unique to each of us. But as long as the thread doesnt degenerate into a petty argument it should be a very interesting read as more information and viewpoints are added to the pot. Its a topic I dont know enough about and would like to learn more about, part as I'm intrigued by the scientific aspects and also partly as I find it quite interesting watching the human element of debate and seeing how each persons views evolve.

Off to get some popcorn


----------



## naja-naja

thanks guys. the way i see it, its about pros and cons.
the pros to the snakes are: its safer and therefore easier to work around.
the cons are what i'm trying to figure out now, i want to know what stress the operation does to the snake, what long term problems there may be.

there are also pros and cons to the handler. after all these have been evaluated, then i will draw my opinion. saying its cruel is fine _but i want to know* why*_.

thanks for being civil (unlike someone else was in their pm, for some reason they couldn't post on thread)


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*response to naja-naja*

It is safer to keep a venomous snake if you cut its head off - okay is smells after a while, but get another one.

Yes, I agree a stupid argument, but the big question is WHY do you want to alter nature. Venomous snakes have venom glands. If we could solve the 64,000-120,00 fatalities worldwide by a simple snip (but massive procedure) removing the venom glands from all venom snakes and knowing (by Larmarkism - read the article) that the offspring would also be nonvenomous - job done, maybe but what about the snake's biology, ethics have not been taken into consideration yet ?

There are ethical and moral reasons at play here, for removing the glands, but everyone is missing the obvious WHY REMOVE THE GLANDS ?

Give me a valid ethical or moral reason for removing the glands and we can take this to the next level, but I found only one miniscule reason (Hollywood) for my article. I am open to suggestions, please.

WHY DOES ANYONE WANT TO KEEP VENOMOUS SNAKES THAT ARE NOT VENOMOUS ?

If it is for personal safety and you are not up to it, then get a treeboa.
If it is for the adoration of your friends or attractive females, they will find or soon or later you may "talk the talk" but you do not "walk the walk".

Come on why!

Not why not! We do not have to justify why not, any more than why we should not all have vasectomies (those of use who are male of course).
If you want to alter the course of something you have to have an argument WHY, not expect the other person to have an answer WHY NOT.
If you have a strong argument, THEN the other person is forced to reconsider WHY NOT, but in this issue, not yet.

Mark


----------



## AmyW

Mark O'Shea said:


> But before I go I have to ask AmyW - how big is your eldest puppy and what kind of dog is it? Did it eat the whole sofa ?
> Either you have very large ravenous dogs (in which case I am definitely sticking with venomous snakes) or you have very small furniture in your house !


She is a Rottweiler x GSD and it was just after the birth of my son. She was acting out towards new baby and us neglecting her (emotionally and attention). It just made us buck our ideas up and remember the dog we made our pet. Learnt our lesson very fast, as it was a nice sofa!



Angi said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> I would like throw another point of view/question into the pool too.
> 
> For those who do not believe a venomous snake should have its venom glands removed because they feel it is cruel :-* Is it any less cruel to keep a wild animal in captivity? *Surely this alone could be percieved as the most cruel act one could commit against a wild creature other than actual bodily harm or death. Captivity usually results in reduced opportunity for movement and other enriching daily activities of life, such eating a variety of prey, actual sunshine and all it wonderful benefits etc etc. Yes I kow they dont have to experience the stress of being hunted in captivity, but seriously, reducing a wild animal to keeping it in a (often small) box is bound to have many negative effects. I imagine their bone density would be greatly reduced and muscle tone less than ideal through less than ideal space to move in. The lack of variety in diet surely cant exactly be beneficial. Lack of sunshine could result in their entire body systems being depressed and consequently stressed. etc etc
> Maybe I'm going off on a tangent here and I could extrapulate forever on the points surrounding this issue, indeed it could easily be a whole new topic to post for healthy debate . But I am interested in others views on this point.


I don't think so. As long as you provide everything that animal needs, as best as can be done in captivity. I can not stand harm or mutilation to any animal.
I try so hard to research what animals I keep and provide them with what they need. I have dogs and a cat for an animal to 'fuss' over and keep reptiles because they fascinate me. Especially Skinks. I don't over handle or treat them like a pet ie like my dogs but provide them with what they need.
I have one Blue tongue skink who we took on a few months ago and she was 'loved' a bit too much. My other BTS weigh around 600-800g, this girl topped the scales at 1.3kg. She struggles to walk and is on a diet with us.

So maybe keeping animals in captivity can be cruel due to naivity and ignorace of owners? 
I give up, I don't know! :blush:



Mark O'Shea said:


> It is safer to keep a venomous snake if you cut its head off - okay is smells after a while, but get another one.
> 
> Yes, I agree a stupid argument, but the big question is WHY do you want to alter nature. Venomous snakes have venom glands. If we could solve the 64,000-120,00 fatalities worldwide by a simple snip (but massive procedure) removing the venom glands from all venom snakes and knowing (by Larmarkism - read the article) that the offspring would also be nonvenomous - job done, maybe but what about the snake's biology, ethics have not been taken into consideration yet ?
> 
> There are ethical and moral reasons at play here, for removing the glands, but everyone is missing the obvious WHY REMOVE THE GLANDS ?
> 
> Give me a valid ethical or moral reason for removing the glands and we can take this to the next level, but I found only one miniscule reason (Hollywood) for my article. I am open to suggestions, please.
> 
> WHY DOES ANYONE WANT TO KEEP VENOMOUS SNAKES THAT ARE NOT VENOMOUS ?
> 
> If it is for personal safety and you are not up to it, then get a treeboa.
> If it is for the adoration of your friends or attractive females, they will find or soon or later you may "talk the talk" but you do not "walk the walk".
> 
> *I think these same reasons came be said for most animals. Fair enough most aren't mutilated but how many people by a 'giant' snake to show off?*
> *Or get that big, aggresive male dog then either have it neutered or in some cases put down?*
> 
> *Most people get anyu animals to show off or get it as a novelty that gets worn off.*
> 
> *Obviously keeping venemoids is the ultimate show off that will only make the owner look a fool.*
> 
> *I don't understand the whole macho thing but I guess it could be likened to buying a sports car?*
> 
> 
> Come on why!
> 
> Not why not! We do not have to justify why not, any more than why we should not all have vasectomies (those of use who are male of course).
> If you want to alter the course of something you have to have an argument WHY, not expect the other person to have an answer WHY NOT.
> If you have a strong argument, THEN the other person is forced to reconsider WHY NOT, but in this issue, not yet.
> 
> Mark


Right I'm done with debating but was a very good read! 

Back to reading up on corucia zebrata....


----------



## leecb0

Bugger Mark you beet me too it!
WHY would anyone want to remove the venom gland from a Venomous snake???????
Will it give the snake a better quality of life?
Will it help in its longevity?
Will it help with its breeding potential?
Will it change the status to a non DWA listed animal?
just a few of the many questions that could be asked the answer is simple NO!!
So the only reason there is for the procedure is purly for the keeper never mind ethics or morals this is plain and simple selfishness or possibly bravado "look at me i have a venomouse snake" and to me these are all the wrong reasons to keep any snake weather venomous or not.
Simply put if you want a venomous snake then have a venomous snake get the experience and training/mentoring. do it the right way it is more rewarding and there are no short cuts. if you think training with a venomoid is going to help with advancement into the real thing then it wont, as you will always have it in your mind "its a venomoid" so will never have that "if i f:censor:k up im in trouble" thought in your head which i find really focuses my mind when im dealing with "hots"

Also please correct me if i am wrong isnt there a high motality rate in doing this procedure?

Lee (a Tattoo'd male snake keeper of the non macho veriaty):lol2:


----------



## Ssthisto

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Removing the potential breeding capacity of a domestic animals ability to create future unwanted problems because of human domestication has no comparison.


If that is all humans wanted to do by castrating male animals - prevent excess offspring, then we would *vasectomise* them exactly the same as we vasectomise human males who do not wish to have (any more) children. It'd be even less invasive than castration, and there would be the chance that if you realised you'd made a mistake and this animal WAS going to be breeding quality, you might be able to have it reversed.

The simple fact of the matter is that people neuter male animals because they don't like how entire male animals behave - it's inconvenient for the human to deal with entire-male behaviour. Stallions are gelded to make them more docile and tractable. Cats are neutered to stop them territorially spraying. Dogs are neutered to prevent mounting behaviours and reduce dominance.

All of those things are things that benefit the PEOPLE, not the animal. It's quite possible, with patience and effort, to train those inconvenient behaviours out of an animal... but people can't be bothered. So they have their vet lop off the animal's testes before the animal's done growing, and cause physical changes as well as behavioural ones.



> A snake will always be a wild animal so removing an organ or three will not change that as a fact


Are twenty-generations-captive-bred animals in funky colours and patterns still "wild" by definition? 

Oh yeah, zoos will on occasion spay/neuter their wild charges, too. Again, for convenience, since there's only so many places for normal lion cubs to go.



> Digestion: My cobra`s digest there food a lot quicker than there non venomous brethren


And my colubrids digest their food faster than boas or pythons. That could be a factor of cobra lifestyle compared to the non-venomous animals you're comparing them to. I'm not doubting that venom might be used in the digestive process, and if it's *necessary* for a species to have it, it is not unreasonable to say "venomoiding this species is cruel as you are rendering it unable to digest food."



> If your opinions is to want a venomoid WHY? Would this be to brag that you can free handle a potentially dangerous snake to impress your mates? Or because you enjoy infecting unnecessary pain and disfiguration on innocent creatures for no reason?


How about reason #3?

I don't want to brag - in fact, if I obtained my DWAL, you can bet I wouldn't be shouting it to all and sundry because I wouldn't *want* my neighbours causing problems about the deadly snakes living next door. Heck, I've been living in the same house for seven years and they know I have one big lizard and a couple of snakes (because that's all I've ever taken out into the garden). It would be because I want to have the animals to have them for myself (ooh, purely selfish act there, keeping animals because I want them!)

I wouldn't want to cause *unnecessary* pain on an animal - but I had my female cat spayed and my male cat neutered at my vet's suggestion. Do I think I did the right thing? Well, for the female cat, yes - I've removed all possibility of her getting pyometra, which is fatal, and rendered her unable to be bred to death, producing litter after litter of kittens. For the male... I'd have to sit down and ask myself if I really DID do him any favours... or was it all for me?

If I had a venomoid, it would be so that I could handle it essentially AS a fully loaded venomous (I don't want to get bitten by anything anyway - I hate needle teeth, and the only real species I'd be interested in as a venomoid has an extremely nasty bite WITHOUT venom) but so that my relatively slow reaction times aren't going to get me or anyone else in my family killed if I screw up. Yeah, I'm CRAP at dealing with fast snakes. Cleaning out my pogo-stick Radiated is a nightmare. The number of times he's wound up behind someone else's vivarium.... 

Of course, the obvious solution for *me* is "don't go for fast elapid-type snakes, go for something like European vipers or a Gila". Yes, that's a possibility. Something that I can use a broom to sweep into a bin if necessary (and know it's not going to be up the broom and in my face) is a more appropriate venomous animal for me to keep if I keep venomous at all.

And in the long run, unless a long-term venomoid turned up that I'd already met and REALLY liked as a specific animal ... that's what I'd do. There's a specific venomoid cobra I'm thinking about there - who was a lovely animal I'd really like to have gotten to know as an individual.

I wouldn't set out to obtain a venomoid or have one "made" for me... but I sure wouldn't turn down *that *Egyptian cobra JUST because he's been surgically altered.



Mark O'Shea said:


> Someone convince me a value to creating venomoids, especially one the venomoid itself might find positive.


In your experience - since you've met venomoids and fully-loaded animals of the same species, presumably in captivity - are the venomoids *calmer* around people than the unaltered animals? 

The description in your paper of the Egyptian cobra's behaviour indicated he as an individual didn't like people at all and saw them as a threat to be driven off; my experience of the same species, but venomoid, was that he was as inquisitive as any kingsnake and just as inclined to be "friendly" (or as friendly as a food-oriented snake can be). I can't help but wonder if that's because the one I met didn't have to be hooked and tailed and pinned to manage him - he could just be picked up, and apparently HAD been handled like that all his life.

But I don't have any experience with fully-loaded animals of the same species, so I don't know if his behaviour is in fact typical of Egyptian cobras, or if he is an exception and your _N. haje_ is the rule. 



Mark O'Shea said:


> Yes, I agree a stupid argument, but the big question is WHY do you want to alter nature.


The moment we put the animal in a box in our homes, we're not altering *nature*. A captive-bred leucistic albino monocled cobra isn't part of nature and could never be released into the wild, any more than a hypo tangerine pinstripe albino Honduran milksnake could.



> If it is for personal safety and you are not up to it, then get a treeboa.


But a tree boa *isn't* a cobra. It *isn't* a Gaboon viper. It isn't even an equivalent or approximation (and believe me, if someone could find a non-venomous snake the COLOURS of a Gabby I'd have that and definitely in preference to two-inch-fangs). And at the end of the day I don't personally like tree boas (fanged tree whip!) all that much and wouldn't have one in my home... but as I said previously, that specific 'void cobra was *lovely*. I wouldn't want to buy a different one hoping it'd be the same... but that one? Yes. 

I don't want a snake that I can say "Look, you can't walk past the glass without it trying to strike at you" - I don't have my snakes to brag about them. I want a snake that is inquisitive, alert, interested in its surroundings, because that's what I personally like in a snake. The cobra I met fit the bill - which is why I can understand why people might like to keep cobras (entire or not) - because I can definitely see what people see in them.



> Not why not! We do not have to justify why not, any more than why we should not all have vasectomies (those of use who are male of course).
> If you want to alter the course of something you have to have an argument WHY, not expect the other person to have an answer WHY NOT.
> If you have a strong argument, THEN the other person is forced to reconsider WHY NOT, but in this issue, not yet.


Mark, I'd have to disagree with you there. I think there are legitimate precedents for altering animals for human convenience (i.e. neutering male animals to render them more tractable, docile, and in the case of large livestock to be SAFER to be around - instead of merely vasectomising them if you don't want them to be able to breed) and I believe that talking about the process of removing the venom glands of a snake that can appropriately digest its food with_ or without_ them is an equivalent procedure.

My argument is simple: If it's *reasonable *to alter one type of animal (mammals) for human convenience and safety*, then why is it *unreasonable *to alter another type of animal (reptiles) for the exact same reasons?

*Heck, we even castrate _birds _to make them grow bigger and fatter and tastier to eat - that's what a capon is. And in a bird that's invasive surgery equivalent to a spay operation.



leecb0 said:


> Will it give the snake a better quality of life?


It might do, if the snake does not have to be handled in stressful ways in order to be safely managed. But as I said, I don't have enough experience with both venomoids AND fully loaded animals to be able to say "All the venomoids I've seen are calmer and less stressed by people than all the fully loaded animals I have seen."


----------



## snakekeeper

I honestly don't see the point of owning a venomoid snake or for that matter putting any venomous snake through a stressful procedure in the first place. I personally would feel like a complete idiot keeping one and at the back of my mind would feel like a fake. The only reason people now keep venomoids is because they are too cowardly to keep the real deal. I mean what is the point? Is it to show off and say "hey look I own a venomous snake such as a cobra" and believe me at the back of one's mind think, "what a complete tw:censor:t I am"? I have to admit being quite clumsy when it comes to snake handling, especially with all my non-venomous snakes, however, when I have to handle one of my v.ammodytes I become completely alert and fully aware of what I have to do. I even have a list of procedures prior to even opening the vivs. The whole excitement for me is actually owning a venomous snake with its venom.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Ssthisto said:


> Mark, I'd have to disagree with you there. I think there are legitimate precedents for altering animals for human convenience (i.e. neutering male animals to render them more tractable, docile, and in the case of large livestock to be SAFER to be around - instead of merely vasectomising them if you don't want them to be able to breed) and I believe that talking about the process of removing the venom glands of a snake that can appropriately digest its food with_ or without_ them is an equivalent procedure.
> 
> My argument is simple: If it's *reasonable *to alter one type of animal (mammals) for human convenience and safety*, then why is it *unreasonable *to alter another type of animal (reptiles) for the exact same reasons?


To compare the procedure of making venomoid snakes to neutering cats and dogs etc is naive. While the latter procedure is primarily for the convenience of the owner, as you mentioned yourself there are benefits to the animal. Pyometa in female cats, but also in males you remove the risk of testicular cancer, and by eliminating some aggression you lessen the chance of injury caused by fighting. Also it prevents huge quantities of unwanted kittens, puppies etc being produced that are unwanted and therefore likely to end up as strays or being put down. Admittedly these benefits are usually positive by-products, an afterthought if you prefer, but they most certainly exist.
When a snake is made venomoid there *NO *such benefits. The arguement that it doesn't affect the process of digestion is often bandied about and that may well be the case, but that isn't the point.
Reptiles on the whole do not do well under anaesthesia, and are often highly stressed by surgical procedure. Add to that the chance of blood clots forming when air is introduced into blood vessels, as with surgery in all species, and the risk of bacterial infection at the wound site, which can and does happen even when conditions are maintained as near to aseptic as possible, and you have a very real reason not to perform a completely unnecessary operation.
As for venomoids being calmer, well they maybe are, but only because they're the snakes that get dicked about with and free handled more frequently, so they become accustomed to human interferance. When I handle my hots, it is done so in the least stressful way possible. This obviously benefits them but also it suits me as they become used to interaction as opposed to scared of it, and if I'm gentle then they don't fight what I'm doing as much, ergo they're safer to work with.
So to summarise, making venomoids is bad and you don't need them to be safe, you just need to be gentle.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Also, to use the statement that "digestive function is unaltered" as a pro-venomoid arguement is incorrect. It isn't of any benefit to the snake to live as long as it would anyway. If it shortened the lifespan it would be a "con", but it could only be a "pro" if it lengthened it. If it causes no change it is null and void as point to be considered.
As I understand it, the speed of digestive transit remains the same whether the snake is venomous or venomoid. What changes is as follows.
With the introduction of proteases via envenomation, the digestion and subsequent absorption of proteins is facilitated and sped up, allowing more to be taken from the food whilst it passes through the gut. However, production of venom itself requires protein, so if no venom is being produced the protein demand is diminished. This therefore cancels out the reduction in absorbed proteins caused by non-envenomation, resulting in a net loss or gain of roughly zero. 
If the change is zero, then there is no change, so the statement cannot be used as an arguement for either side.


----------



## reticmadness79

im not 1 for posting on here,but i have to say iv worked with a wide range of venomous,and have came across 3 venomoids in the time iv been keeping reps,i found them no good at all for training they seem to lose that fiestiness that they would have naturally,and as for use for training cos you know its not carrying its defense you would drop your guard and be more at ease with the snake in question/handling at the time,but then when it does come to move over to a snake that is all their are you going to ready,i think not.
I dont agree with venomoids fullstop,as said previously theirs plenty of non hots out their to choose from.personally leave them be the way they were created,if you dont like the thought of the the venom they carry stay away.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

reticmadness79 said:


> im not 1 for posting on here,but i have to say iv worked with a wide range of venomous,and have came across 3 venomoids in the time iv been keeping reps,i found them no good at all for training they seem to lose that fiestiness that they would have naturally,and as for use for training cos you know its not carrying its defense you would drop your guard and be more at ease with the snake in question/handling at the time,but then when it does come to move over to a snake that is all their are you going to ready,i think not.
> I dont agree with venomoids fullstop,as said previously theirs plenty of non hots out their to choose from.personally leave them be the way they were created,if you dont like the thought of the the venom they carry stay away.


Well put. :notworthy:


----------



## reticmadness79

Thanks :2thumb:


----------



## reticmadness79

Ssthisto said:


> The description in your paper of the Egyptian cobra's behaviour indicated he as an individual didn't like people at all and saw them as a threat to be driven off; my experience of the same species, but venomoid, was that he was as inquisitive as any kingsnake and just as inclined to be "friendly" (or as friendly as a food-oriented snake can be). I can't help but wonder if that's because the one I met didn't have to be hooked and tailed and pinned to manage him - he could just be picked up, and apparently HAD been handled like that all his life.
> 
> But I don't have any experience with fully-loaded animals of the same species, so I don't know if his behaviour is in fact typical of Egyptian cobras, or if he is an exception and your _N. haje_ is the rule.
> 
> 
> Ssthisto
> id just like to say iv had the experience with both fully loaded and venomoid Egyptian cobras,the fully loaded male bout 5 1/2ft long was a complete nut job and a real handfull and would never settle out of his enclosure on the other hand the venomoid was like handling a big corn snake wouldnt hood,strike or react in anyway when being handled or approached,so i do beleive it does make a difference when you take away their natural defense


----------



## Chris Newman

Interesting debate, however, the bottom line to this issue is that it is unlawful to perform a ‘multination’ on an animal that is not exempted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. ‘Venomoid’ is not an exempted mutilation therefore it is illegal, and rightly so in my personal opinion.


----------



## reticmadness79

Chris Newman said:


> Interesting debate, however, the bottom line to this issue is that it is unlawful to perform a ‘multination’ on an animal that is not exempted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. ‘Venomoid’ is not an exempted mutilation therefore it is illegal, and rightly so in my personal opinion.


Agreed


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Seconded. Although I still stand firm. Venomoid does not make a snake tame. The removal of the gland does not have any effect on the temperament.
A friend of mine hand a venomoid albino monocled cobra that was identical in behaviour to any venomous. It's simply to do with how often and by what method they're handled. If you don't free handle then they won't tame down. Period.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*consensus is against venomoids*

Morning folks, I think the consensus seems to be against venomoids and I support that view fully. I know people with venomoids and I know them as good honest snake-keepers but I do not approve of their venomoids. I have to admit to having met only 3-4 venomoids that I knew were such, the Indo-Chinese spitter in the article (and its mate which I assume was also), a normal brown Thai monocled on a UK film studio shoot (it was an egg guarding scene and the film company wanted a venomoid for the safety of the cameraman who was working very close) and the albino Thai used to test the 'snake-resistant' but not 'snake-proof' gloves in the Nottingham pub some years back (I am sure many of the forum members will remember that). I recall that venomoid was only too keen to bite.

I have to say, I wonder if they know, I rather doubt it, so does it change their behaviour? Probably not. Altering the status of one's testicles is bound to have an effect on behaviour because of the loss of testosterone but I doubt loss of venom glands alters the snake's behaviour, although it might alter its biology, and life-span.

I believe each individual snake is different, even with in a species, so one Egyptian cobra, like Haje, might be a head-banger, always up for a fight, whereas another is placcid (we have had placcid cobras at WMSP too, our snouted is daft as a brush and years back we had a Suphan that only half-hooded 2-3 times in the many years we kept her). Let me give you an example of this individuality.

Some years ago I was in Sri Lanka working on a documentary about cobras. It was a blue-chip type doco, no presenter, not an OBA. The film company wanted to look at the balance between cobra the killer of humans and cobra the killer of rice-robbing rats, is the cobra friend or foe. Before I arrived Anslem da Silva had caught me two cobras to use in the doco and every day for 10days we visited the same paddyfields to film sequences. The Director wanted scenes were the cobra would hood, gape and threaten, and then make a lunging strike. She also wanted to follow the cobra, the cobra's POV (point of view) as the snake glided though the rice paddy, or investigated rodent burrows. Now if you have a cobra that hoods well (like Haje did) that snake is unlikely to go about its business and ignore a great big camera and an even bigger cameraman shadow. I had 20mins at the start to get to know the two snakes and as luck would have it I found one was really up for it, hooding, lunging, while the other was placcid, hooded briefly and then turned and ran, so by noting a small spot marking on the hood of one of the pair I could provide the ideal cobra for what ever scene the Director wanted. Two hot wild cobras caught in the same area but with very different temperaments. Does that answer your question Scthisto?

On the comparisons with horses, dogs, cats, even poultry, we have domesticated these animals for food, work, companionship for thousands of years, they have been far removed already from the original wild horse, wolf, jungle fowl etc. But reptiles are not domesticated animals, they really serve no similar purpose to man. So albinos or other cultivars (which personally I am not attracted too) may be a few generations captive bred and removed from the wild, but even so it is only a few years, not the thousands of years of manipulation the aforementioned animals have experienced.

At the end of the day keeping a venomoid boils down to:
a) I don't want to die (or anyone I love die)
or
b) I don't want to get caught

And, as Chris reminded us, it is illegal to perform this operation in the United Kingdom so we should roundly condemn the practise as people who profess to actually like reptiles.

Mark


----------



## reticmadness79

terciopelo_dave said:


> Seconded. Although I still stand firm. Venomoid does not make a snake tame. The removal of the gland does not have any effect on the temperament.
> A friend of mine hand a venomoid albino monocled cobra that was identical in behaviour to any venomous. It's simply to do with how often and by what method they're handled. If you don't free handle then they won't tame down. Period.


Im not saying because the venom glands are removed it changes their intial temperament,but because they had been removed the keeper at the time was free handling him all the time cos he knew their was no risk of being envenomated and the snake just got used to it,but having said that i know another guy who had a venomoid black-neck spitter whod hood but wouldnt strike or even try to spit and wasnt handled regulary.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Mark O'Shea said:


> and the albino Thai used to test the 'snake-resistant' but not 'snake-proof' gloves in the Nottingham pub some years back (I am sure many of the forum members will remember that). I recall that venomoid was only too keen to bite.


That's the exact same snake I referred to in my last post. She was in no sense "calmed" by having no venom glands. When people say "cobras have short, ineffective fangs and need to chew", I always smile and think of her. She chewed on me twice and there was nothing inefficient about it. No snake has ever bitten me with more vigour.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

reticmadness79 said:


> Im not saying because the venom glands are removed it changes their intial temperament,but because they had been removed the keeper at the time was free handling him all the time cos he knew their was no risk of being envenomated and the snake just got used to it,but having said that i know another guy who had a venomoid black-neck spitter whod hood but wouldnt strike or even try to spit and wasnt handled regulary.


You didn't make the point mate, so I should've been clearer when I quoted you. Like I've said, it's down to how often the snake gets handled. Although I will say, with regards to a spitter, you couldn't know it didn't try to spit if it had no glands. Most of the spitters I've kept could do it without any warning. No lunging, no gaping, just spray. Without venom there would simply be nothing.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*handler temperament*

Yes, I agree that a keeper's method of working with the snake will be different if he knows it cannot harm him. Folks say, no I would treat it as a hot snake, but I wonder if that is not wishful thinking. Initially yes, but familiarity breeds contempt and over time the snake will get picked up midbody with an ungloved hand so it can be cleaned out quickly so the owner can go out or whatever. I envisaged a similar scenario with the planned overseas serpentarium with hot and fixed cobras in the article.

The question is how long can you keep up the pretence to your friends ?
Longer than you can keep you the pretence to yourself I think.

Say I just noticed I am a 'hatchling'.
I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment of not.
Tell me somebody, how long does it take to reach maturity in this game?

Mark


----------



## thetong6969

not too long mark around 600-900 posts i think
ive come on leaps and bounds on here and hope some things i have posted have been decent topics


----------



## reticmadness79

terciopelo_dave said:


> You didn't make the point mate, so I should've been clearer when I quoted you. Like I've said, it's down to how often the snake gets handled. Although I will say, with regards to a spitter, you couldn't know it didn't try to spit if it had no glands. Most of the spitters I've kept could do it without any warning. No lunging, no gaping, just spray. Without venom there would simply be nothing.


agreed i should have been clearer in pointing the handling part out.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Mark O'Shea said:


> Yes, I agree that a keeper's method of working with the snake will be different if he knows it cannot harm him. Folks say, no I would treat it as a hot snake, but I wonder if that is not wishful thinking. Initially yes, but familiarity breeds contempt and over time the snake will get picked up midbody with an ungloved hand so it can be cleaned out quickly so the owner can go out or whatever. I envisaged a similar scenario with the planned overseas serpentarium with hot and fixed cobras in the article.
> 
> The question is how long can you keep up the pretence to your friends ?
> Longer than you can keep you the pretence to yourself I think.
> 
> Say I just noticed I am a 'hatchling'.
> I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment of not.
> Tell me somebody, how long does it take to reach maturity in this game?
> 
> Mark


Could be wrong Mark, but I think you get to 50 and you're "regular".


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*how many!*

600-900, either I need to give up my day job to catch up (actually I don't have a day job as such) or I will be a hatchling to eternity, how embarrassing!
Okay, this makes 29, one more and I am 5% of the way there.

By the way, I meant to mention it, did anyone notice the spelling of the thread title. Should have been venomoid and I think everyone has used that since.

Mark


----------



## leecb0

Mark O'Shea said:


> Say I just noticed I am a 'hatchling'.
> I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment of not.
> Tell me somebody, how long does it take to reach maturity in this game?
> 
> Mark


You could always POWER FEED like some people do. (VL LOL)


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*phew!*

A bit more achievable Dave, might get there before the next decade, but 600 would be the next century for me.

So have we discussed this topic to death, can we have straw-pole

Who is 
a) for venomoids
b) against venomoids
c) indifferent or undecided

Mark


----------



## terciopelo_dave

I noticed and ignored the spelling Mark. In the OP's posts it continues to "venemous" too.
I agree with Mark. You can tell yourself you'll treat a venomoid as if it's venomous, but it takes real danger to activate that part of the brain that reacts to threat. No matter what you say, if it isn't always a present danger that you could die you'll behave differently.


----------



## exoticsadmirer

i would go for b as animals should be with what nature gave them even if it is life threatening.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Staunch, unchangable, undeniable.... *B*


----------



## reticmadness79

Are you trying to your rating up now mark lol
but i can honestly say im not a fan of venomoids and would never purchase 1,would rather have the real deal,just cant at mo as my council dont issue the DWA license:devil:
Looks like a house move might be in order:whistling2:

*B*


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*30*

No I am not posting deliberately to boost my status, really I'm not.
This is a subject that always gets my attention.

So far three against venomoids, and with me, that makes four
Any other takers

reticmadness77, if you comply with the requirements of the Act I am not sure the council can legally say they don't issue DWA.
I am sure a lot will have to do with your premises but you said house move, not flat move, so it sounds like you have your own four walls.

A DWA is an expensive exercise but it should not be prohibitively so, the point Jim made on Inside Out, cos any councils that say No way, and think they have solved the problem are fooling themselves, they just sent out a very clear message, don't apply. But now I am wandering into a different thread so will finish there.

Say no to venomoids = four at the moment
but I know some others who have been vocal about this have not actually said B yet, or A for that matter.

Mark


----------



## reticmadness79

I do have my own four walls,but upon speaking to the local office they have never issued a Dwa license in this area,god for bid iv tried everything to get 1 and to talk them round but got no where :devil:


----------



## leecb0

*B*THERE IS NO ARGUMENT I CAN SEE AGAINST IT
Lee


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*Dwa*

Never have is not the same as never will.
Every DWA council issued their first DWA to someone.

You should ask them their reasons why not, when the Act is there to regulate, not prevent you.

If they have concerns why not speak to DWA holders in other areas to find out how they did it.

Mark


----------



## Ssthisto

Mark O'Shea said:


> Folks say, no I would treat it as a hot snake, but I wonder if that is not wishful thinking...
> The question is how long can you keep up the pretence to your friends ?
> Longer than you can keep you the pretence to yourself I think.


And if you're NOT keeping for macho reasons, why would you bother trying to hide the animal's status from your friends at all? If I had a venomoid why would I deliberately hide the animal's surgically-altered status as long as the surgery had been done in a country where it was legal to do so AND the animal was being legally kept under the appropriate licence here in the UK? 

I wouldn't be keeping venomous for the "thrill" of keeping them or the "adrenaline rush" of knowing that the vivarium I'm about to remove a turd from also contains a snake that *could* hospitalise me. In the most part I'd rather remove the adrenaline aspect from my personal reptile keeping entirely!

Yes, you do have a valid point that if I did manage to get that _N. haje_ I mentioned earlier, which is the ONLY venomoid snake I'd be interested in - not the _species_ but _that specific individual animal _- I can certainly imagine the scenario you described happening.

Just to clarify: I'm not "pro-venomoid" here. I'm just "anti-double standard". If it's reasonable to surgically alter one animal for human convenience, it's reasonable to alter any animal for human convenience. If it's not reasonable to alter one animal for that reason, it's not reasonable to alter any of them.... or, you can say that SOMETIMES for *any* species it is reasonable to alter them, but that it must be done on a case by case basis and NEVER by someone who is not trained to do so and always done in a legal fashion (i.e. if you want a venomoid snake in the UK it would have to be an import). It's not ALWAYS OK to neuter a dog; it's not ALWAYS OK to castrate a horse; it's not ALWAYS OK to remove a snake's venom glands - but that there are cases where it may well be appropriate.

On the other hand, I did take the liberty of asking one of my coworkers - who isn't a reptile keeper - what he thought about a veterinarian surgically altering a venomous snake in order to remove the venom glands - I did mention the risks of anaesthetic, that licencing would still be required, that the snake would still be able to bite and would still have its fangs, and that it is not legal to do the surgery in the UK even if it is elsewhere. 

His response was simple: "Why on earth would you want to KEEP them venomous if there's a way to remove it?"

I don't agree with his stance either.

My vote:

D - Other. Case by case basis, seriously questioning WHY a venomoid is being chosen over a fully loaded hot or an alternative species.


----------



## reticmadness79

Iv asked the question and all i got is we dont issue them.
Iv even had a couple of friends of mine,who i think you know say they could vouch for me thats not worked either,im gonna keep trying as iv got big plans anyway so who knows may get their in the end,if not will move and go from their.


----------



## lordbiggles

After reading all this:-

Against column if you please.........


Will never get my cobra now as the landlord wont allow DWA and it would be hypocritical to get one after publishing the above considered opinion


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Ssthisto said:


> …a snake that *could* hospitalise me.


If you get bit and end up in hospital then you have made an error not the animal. If you rather not take that chance go get yourself a cornsnake and be done with it.



Ssthisto said:


> I'm just "anti-double standard".


Don’t try comparing domestic animal “family planning” to a wild animal venomoid. Please mate there is no comparison and this has been explained more than once through the thread.



Ssthisto said:


> …asking one of my coworkers - who isn't a reptile keeper - what he thought about a veterinarian surgically altering a venomous snake in order to remove the venom glands…


Your co-worker has no clue what he is talking about so let’s not use his lack of knowledge and experience as an example of public opinion. 



Ssthisto said:


> "Why on earth would you want to KEEP them venomous…


Easy answer. Because that is the way these animals were created. 



Mark my vote:
"SAVE A SNAKE, KILL A VENOMOID LOVER"


----------



## Al Hyde

Without a shadow of doubt, *B.*

I've made my feelings on this subject clear years ago on KS.com

Al


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*interesting points*

Okay, I have comments on several of these posts.

Ssthisto, pleased to hear you are not pro-venomoid although I don't see it as double standards for the reasons I gave earlier, man has been manipulating other animals for thousands of years and the breeds of horses, sheep, cows, dogs that exist only exist because man fiddled with them. Reptiles are not domesticated man-created animals despite the colour morphs available. They are the same body shape and size as wild specimens. And some things are no-goers for vets, is not dog tail-docking illegal now.
I agree, the question is WHY do you want a venomoid?

reticmadness - I am sure you have grounds for complaint, maybe you should speak to Jim Collins.

lordbiggles - you landlord owns the property so he can say No to pets, a common restriction usually aimed at dogs, you are in his house and he has the right to deny you just as VLs parents have the right to deny him reptiles if they feel so inclined. But if you own your own premises like reticmadness and can fulfill the requirements I am not sure it is legal for the council to say a blanket No.

Are we up to 5X B and 1x D or have I lost count, been busy with other things.

Mark


----------



## snakekeeper

B without a doubt.


----------



## Ssthisto

Snakes Incorporated said:


> If you get bit and end up in hospital then you have made an error not the animal. If you rather not take that chance go get yourself a cornsnake and be done with it.


If I get bit that's one thing. But I don't want my family to have to pay for my mistakes, either. And I don't just mean my HUMAN family.



> Don’t try comparing domestic animal “family planning” to a wild animal venomoid. Please mate there is no comparison and this has been explained more than once through the thread.


People don't castrate horses for "family planning". They castrate them because they don't like stallion behaviours. 



> Your co-worker has no clue what he is talking about so let’s not use his lack of knowledge and experience as an example of public opinion.


I asked him precisely BECAUSE he doesn't know much about reptile keeping - what the opinion of someone who doesn't have an interest in either direction, for OR against, was.



> Easy answer. Because that is the way these animals were created.


And dogs, stallions, tomcats, bulls and rams are born with testicles. They're MEANT to have them, their growth uses the hormones from them to produce a normally shaped adult male animal, and removing them - particularly when removed from juvenile animals - causes significant behavioural and physiological changes that are not always to the benefit of the animal... so why do we *castrate* them instead of *vasectomising* them if we don't want them to breed?

As I said, I don't think ALL venomous snakes in captivity should be venomoids (unlike my coworker) - but I don't think that NO venomous snakes in captivity should be venomoid, either.

If I did go for the DWA, I'll be taking the "responsible" course and only getting snakes/lizards that I can manage with my limitations of speed/reaction time... unless that _specific animal_ I particularly liked, who happened to be a venomoid member of a species I don't think I could manage, unless it's venomoid, came up for sale.


----------



## mad martin

> If I get bit that's one thing. But I don't want my family to have to pay for my mistakes, either. And I don't just mean my HUMAN family


Then don't get a venomous snake. Its unfair to an animal to get mutilated to make sure it can be housed safely. Then it should rather not be kept.



> People don't castrate horses for "family planning". They castrate them because they don't like stallion behaviours.


A horse is much harder to control than any snake in any kind of mood.



> As I said, I don't think ALL venomous snakes in captivity should be venomoids (unlike my coworker) - but I don't think that NO venomous snakes in captivity should be venomoid, either


No venomous snake belongs in a private collection at all. But if you do decide to keep them, you need to accept the risk that goes with it.


----------



## blood and guts

Iv always been anti venomiod, i just see it as a needless and cruel act. If you want a non venomus snake get one that is ment to be that way, simple.

Ive seen a couple of venomiods in the past and to me they looked messed up from the procedure, its just not humain. I even stopped being a member of the ihs when hoser had his piece published.


----------



## masticophis

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Masticophis either you are part of the problem or the solution so no middle ground SORRY for you.
> 
> I'm so sorry for you, that statement puts you right up there with the animal rights nut people. There is a middle ground as to make an informed decision you need to look at all the information. to stay in a middle ground means that you haven't had enough information to sway you Fully to one direction.
> 
> A snake will always be a wild animal so removing an organ or three will not change that as a fact but will no doubt disfigure the animal for some bazaar human entertainment.
> Please explain the meaning of 'disfigurement' ? Yes the old venomoids had scars and a recess where the gland was, the newest ones have little scaring (maybe none) and silicone where the glands were. So from the outside no disfigurement as I understand it.





Mark O'Shea said:


> Dear Masticophis, I do honestly see your point it is hard to be equal in an argument where you completely support one side. I wrote the article 5yrs back and would write it differently today (maybe).
> Thank you Mark (And I really mean that)
> Ethics and morals are what make us human and more than that, humane.
> Some consider eating meat, wearing leather, feeding mice to snakes wrong, for 'ethical' reasons. The Jains of India do not believe in killing anything, they sweep the street before them in case they step on an ant. And what about illness, I am often (every year) in the tropics and I take precautions to kill malaria in my blood (maybe not well cos I've had it 6x since 1986) but malaria is a living organism, a unicellular protozoan which has its juvenile stage in us and adult in the mosquito (a highly advanced dipteran we also seek to eradicate). So theoretically the malaria fans of this world would be incensed by my uncaring attitude to their beloved species.
> Yes that's exactly what this issue is mainly about, ethics. Half the reason I play devils advocate on these threads is people always bring up the old arguments about the venom being needed, or that it isn't natural. Keeping animals for human pleasure is selfish, I don't see many mamba keepers letting their snakes run free in an area miles wide. The point that half on here haven't got, is that we all draw the line somewhere, but just because someone doesn't agree then it doesn't mean they are wrong. You Mark, do seem to realize this point.
> 
> I like devils-advocate, it is a good equaliser against yes-men who are the ones who stab you in the back eventually.
> 
> To the nitty-gritty. Some snakes may need their venom to help deal with prey. Take a puff adder, juveniles prey on a lot of lizards and have a neurotoxic component in their venom, to stop the little fellows getting to far, adults loose this and are highly cytotoxic (proteolytic) to help speed up digestion of rather bulky prey (big rats). A boa and a puffie of same size take the same sized rat. Puffie has digested his dinner far sooner and is vulnerable to the unfriendly hand of man for a shorter period of time than the boa.
> Work done on elapids in Australia with their post and pre-synaptic neurotoxins and pro or anti-coagulant haemotoxins does not really equate to venomous snakes worldwide, this is not one-size-fits -all.
> Exactly again, so the needed venom theory isn't always applicable to all front fanged, plus they are kept in safe conditions in captivity so no longer need it for defense.
> 
> Macho snake keeping - well I have one word to say to that and it is the same word used for to certain dangly male adornments. I am not hitting back at you, I am saying working/keeping venomous snakes should not be perceived as macho because (and get his any tattooed (male) snake keepers out there) girls do it too!!!!!!
> 
> My post wasn't meant to be sexist, it was sort of trying to say that some keepers (hopefully the minority) seem to think that because they have DWA they are better than everyone else. If people keep DWA for the right reasons, ie a fascination with the snakes themselves, then that is the right reasons. It's not about being big its about doing something you are genuinely interested in. I certainly wasn't saying that women can't do it as I know for a fact that there are men an women out there that would be much better than me at it, even if I spent the rest of my life dealing with venomous. So totally agree with you that it shouldn't be perceived as macho, but some people who normally reply on venomoid threads do seem to take it as an affront to their macho image. Partly why I am surprised this one has stayed so civil and calm.
> Thank you for the heads up on the book, I may well get that after xmas, and no offense was taken, you didn't over step any mark.
> 
> Moving on, one of the most important aspects of venomous in captivity today is the interest in venomoids.
> 
> I consider your observations perfectly sound and worthy of discussion.
> Ethical issues are always tough but it is important to see the bigger picture and listen to others arguments.
> Someone convince me a value to creating venomoids, especially one the venomoid itself might find positive.
> That statement there is a fantastic statement and shows a true scientist. A willingness to research a subject and to consider changing your mind if different evidence comes up. Normally when I bring up the things like increased handling making for a less stressed snake, or the lack of venom possibly meaning that it is easier on a snake because the venom no longer has to be produced (I know someone later has posted on that subject.), then these things are ignored, they should never be ignored but thought about and if they are wrong we have made an advance by learning more.
> 
> Keeping a venomoid and pretending it is the real deal is like buying costume jewellery for a big party. At the end of the day you are fake!
> LOL, I do like that statement, and for everyones information I do agree with it
> 
> For those who do not believe a venomous snake should have its venom glands removed because they feel it is cruel :- Is it any less cruel to keep a wild animal in captivity? Surely this alone could be percieved as the most cruel act one could commit against a wild creature other than actual bodily harm or death. Captivity usually results in reduced opportunity for movement and other enriching daily activities of life, such eating a variety of prey, actual sunshine and all it wonderful benefits etc etc. Yes I kow they dont have to experience the stress of being hunted in captivity, but seriously, reducing a wild animal to keeping it in a (often small) box is bound to have many negative effects. I imagine their bone density would be greatly reduced and muscle tone less than ideal through less than ideal space to move in. The lack of variety in diet surely cant exactly be beneficial. Lack of sunshine could result in their entire body systems being depressed and consequently stressed. etc etc
> Maybe I'm going off on a tangent here and I could extrapulate forever on the points surrounding this issue, indeed it could easily be a whole new topic to post for healthy debate . But I am interested in others views on this point.
> Thank you Angie, for again seeing the point of discussing things. A venomoid discussion isn't about just saying its wrong, it's about explaining why (for and against), then it is listening to possible advantages and disadvantages, and making up you own mind. But everyone must consider that most arguments against it are basically the same ones that AR people use against us all for keeping animals. It's all about what we consider acceptable, I too could go on the animal aid site, read the info and come on here slagging everyone off for keeping animals and if I didn't listen just kept on regurging the same info time and time again we would get nowhere
> 
> There is no way everyone on here will agree on the whole venomoid topic, simply because our backgrounds, upbringings, beliefs, knowledge, IQ, experience are all so unique to each of us. But as long as the thread doesnt degenerate into a petty argument it should be a very interesting read as more information and viewpoints are added to the pot. Its a topic I dont know enough about and would like to learn more about, part as I'm intrigued by the scientific aspects and also partly as I find it quite interesting watching the human element of debate and seeing how each persons views evolve.
> 
> Off to get some popcorn





leecb0 said:


> Bugger Mark you beet me too it!
> WHY would anyone want to remove the venom gland from a Venomous snake??????? To make it safer to handle the animal maybe, that safety meaning the snake can have a better quality of life after the op ? Maybe that is, not a statement just a possible answer
> Will it give the snake a better quality of life?I don't know, does it, without asking the question you will never know.
> Will it help in its longevity? Again does it, or does it shorten the lifespan ?
> Will it help with its breeding potential? Again does it, though I'd think that it makes no difference here personally
> Will it change the status to a non DWA listed animal? No, an in my opinion owning a venomoid shouldn't make it easier to get a license.
> just a few of the many questions that could be asked the answer is simple NO!!
> So the only reason there is for the procedure is purly for the keeper never mind ethics or morals this is plain and simple selfishness or possibly bravado "look at me i have a venomouse snake" and to me these are all the wrong reasons to keep any snake weather venomous or not. The problem there is that it is purely selfishness that we keep any pet animal. It's one of the reasons AR groups use against us all the time. If something is done to an animal purely for the keeper and that is wrong then the keeping of animals is wrong, not the keeping of venomoids, but the keeping of animals.
> Simply put if you want a venomous snake then have a venomous snake get the experience and training/mentoring. do it the right way it is more rewarding and there are no short cuts. if you think training with a venomoid is going to help with advancement into the real thing then it wont, as you will always have it in your mind "its a venomoid" so will never have that "if i f:censor:k up im in trouble" thought in your head which i find really focuses my mind when im dealing with "hots" I agree there, I see a venomoid being handy really for training only if the people being trained have no idea it is a venomoid.
> 
> Also please correct me if i am wrong isnt there a high motality rate in doing this procedure? I will confess I haven't looked into it properly, but if you include people like hoser then yes, but I think the people like venomoidinc don't have big losses. If done properly then it should minimize losses (you can never say there will be none)
> 
> Lee (a Tattoo'd male snake keeper of the non macho veriaty):lol2:


All in all thank you for the replies, Mark and some others have restored faith in that they will consider things. Most people consider venomoids to be wrong and that is where it ends for them, there is no way they would even consider it, even if evidence did point the other way. I find that a problem, as that is the blinkered view that the AR people have. Without looking into things properly and making an informed decision then I don't believe that these people will improve the way they look after animals. It's only by asking questions that we learn.

Mike


----------



## masticophis

terciopelo_dave said:


> Also, to use the statement that "digestive function is unaltered" as a pro-venomoid arguement is incorrect. It isn't of any benefit to the snake to live as long as it would anyway. If it shortened the lifespan it would be a "con", but it could only be a "pro" if it lengthened it. If it causes no change it is null and void as point to be considered.
> As I understand it, the speed of digestive transit remains the same whether the snake is venomous or venomoid. What changes is as follows.
> With the introduction of proteases via envenomation, the digestion and subsequent absorption of proteins is facilitated and sped up, allowing more to be taken from the food whilst it passes through the gut. However, production of venom itself requires protein, so if no venom is being produced the protein demand is diminished. This therefore cancels out the reduction in absorbed proteins caused by non-envenomation, resulting in a net loss or gain of roughly zero.
> If the change is zero, then there is no change, so the statement cannot be used as an arguement for either side.


If this is correct then that is fine, as I have said before it is about taking all the information and making an informed decision. Even if it is speculation then that is good, as that way hopefully people will keep an open mind and not use the venom needed for digestion excuse. If however it turns out that DWA snakes need their venom for digestion and will suffer without it then that is also good, as that again means we have learnt something and should maybe consider from that that venomoids would be wrong.

As for the poll, I think I would have to go for D case by case, but leaning towards having to find a reason to have the surgery done rather than an excuse to not have it done.

I personally love boomslangs, but if offered the chance to have one venomoid for me or to have either a jacksons tree snake or large eyed tree snake then I would take one of the later two. I can get as much enjoyment out of a similar species.

Mike


----------



## AZUK

Snake Charmers around the world often use what might be termed as Venomoid.......... the difference is most sew the snakes mouths up, bash the fangs out with stones or Butcher their snakes in crude procedures , to our horror. Why then should venemoids in the the more civilised word be more exceptable ? Basically they are created for the same reasons (although granted the animals welfare is of more concern ).


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Masticophis and Ssthisto if you have made up your minds that venomoids are “cool”. 
Then what is the point in trying to use fact and logic to explain to either of you that forcibly removing a useful organ from a wild animal for no other reason than human selfish cowardice and twisted entertainment. 
If you are not embarrassed by being macho fakes by retaining a venomoid then stop making silly excuses trying to make yourselves feel better.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*don't get me wrong*

Hi Mike

Thanks for your comments but I am still emphatically ant-venomoid, I am just prepared to listen to others reasons why they should be created. It would take a very well thought out and earth-shattering reason to get me to even move to the middle ground, and switching sides is as unlikely as me changing sex (and before anyone comments, that is not going to happen). I am just inviting discussion on the whys and wherefores of venomoids. I am against them, so are most others who have posted, a few hold the middle ground, sitting on the fence waiting to be convinced either way, and maybe one or two are trying to justify 'coming out' as pro-venomoids.

If you read the article you will see I thought of one possible cause for a few venomoids, the movies, after all who wants to see a boa portrayed as a venomous snake like they used to in the past. Equally, what agent or insurance company would allow their A-list film star to co-star with a species that could kill them. But for general keeping, no, I do not think it right to create venomoids.

If you are really anti-venomoid then add you moniker to this petition which we started a couple of years ago. Help put an end to this practice - Please sign this petition

Is it not odd that an Italian chef can be prosecuted by the NSW Parks and Wildlife but the Victorian department turns a blind eye to Australia's self-professed number one herpetologist carrying out operations in his kitchen table. And before you say the chef was Italian and the other person in an Aussie, he isn't he emigrated from our own fair shores as a child.

Mark


----------



## slippery42

Ssthisto said:


> If I did go for the DWA, I'll be taking the "responsible" course and only getting snakes/lizards that I can manage with my limitations of speed/reaction time... unless that _specific animal_ I particularly liked, who happened to be a venomoid member of a species I don't think I could manage, unless it's venomoid, came up for sale.


?? Whats that supposed to mean??


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*chef*

I forgot to explain, for those that did not know, the winner of I'm A Celebrity, Gino d'Acampo, a chef, killed, prepared and cooked a rat found in camp when food was scarce. He is in court in Sydney in February on an animal cruelty charge and could be jailed.

Now that is double-standards. 

But that was a rat, and these are mere snakes.

Mark


----------



## HABU

keep 'em real...


venomoids aren't for me...


----------



## AZUK

Mark O'Shea said:


> I forgot to explain, for those that did not know, the winner of I'm A Celebrity, Gino d'Acampo, a chef, killed, prepared and cooked a rat found in camp when food was scarce. He is in court in Sydney in February on an animal cruelty charge and could be jailed.
> 
> Now that is double-standards.
> 
> But that was a rat, and these are mere snakes.
> 
> Mark


I believe that was not a wild rat but instead one supplied by a member of the production team........ and while were at it what about the invertebrates used on this show ? they get a pretty rough deal.......... nothing deserves to be eaten alive for our entertainment.
I see your point though...... snake do and will always get a bad rap..... Blame Human conditioning and Bad press for this which let's face it goes as far back as the Bible !


----------



## masticophis

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Masticophis and Ssthisto if you have made up your minds that venomoids are “cool”. Please explain where I have said that, I dont think you have read my posts.
> Then what is the point in trying to use fact and logic to explain to either of you that forcibly removing a useful organ from a wild animal for no other reason than human selfish cowardice and twisted entertainment. I know it may well be different in SA but here all snakes are kept in viv's or tubs, so they are captive snakes, not wild animals. Being captive over here means that they should be fed frozen thawed prey. So from that I can pretty safely assume that a DWA snake doesn't need it's venom to secure its food. By the same measure, I can't remember the last time any venomous keeper I know has picked up the water bowl and found a predator of the snake in there.... 'oh look there is a secretary bird hiding in this tub'. As myself and others have said time and time again, keeping animals can be considered selfish, so by that it would mean that you are selfish in keeping.
> If you are not embarrassed by being macho fakes by retaining a venomoid then stop making silly excuses trying to make yourselves feel better. And where does it say that I am in favour of venomoids ? Just because I question the reasons against doesn't mean I agree or disagree with them ! Next you will be telling me the earth is flat because you say so, and you will get mighty upset if I ask for your reasoning. I'm sure suicide bombers think they are correct, but I can't see many people on here thinking it's right to blow up innocent people.
> Also where have I said I keep venomoid snakes ?.. Anywhere....? I'd be pretty daft to do that on an open forum,where it is easy for people to find out who I am then check if I have a DWAL. For your information I don't keep anything DWA and if you look at my last post I am not 'for' venomoids, but neither am I wholly against





Mark O'Shea said:


> Hi Mike
> 
> Thanks for your comments but I am still emphatically ant-venomoid, I am just prepared to listen to others reasons why they should be created. It would take a very well thought out and earth-shattering reason to get me to even move to the middle ground, and switching sides is as unlikely as me changing sex (and before anyone comments, that is not going to happen). I am just inviting discussion on the whys and wherefores of venomoids. I am against them, so are most others who have posted, a few hold the middle ground, sitting on the fence waiting to be convinced either way, and maybe one or two are trying to justify 'coming out' as pro-venomoids. Thats fine Mark, I don't want you to change your views, it's enough to know that you would listen to information and change your views IF you thought the information pointed to a good reason for venomoids. I personally couldn't say I was completely against them, but I would be much,much closer to that side than agreeing it should be done.. Oh and I do like hearing the sensible discussion,only problem is there are only a few of us prepared to try to see it from the other side, everyone thinks its wrong, I like to hear why it is wrong and again why it is or may be right. Just a pity on venomoids I have to go on the 'bad' side to get any sort of discussion.
> 
> If you read the article you will see I thought of one possible cause for a few venomoids, the movies, after all who wants to see a boa portrayed as a venomous snake like they used to in the past. Equally, what agent or insurance company would allow their A-list film star to co-star with a species that could kill them. But for general keeping, no, I do not think it right to create venomoids.
> 
> If you are really anti-venomoid then add you moniker to this petition which we started a couple of years ago. Help put an end to this practice - Please sign this petition
> Yes the hoser one, I've just checked an I have already signed it, I think it was from when it was first posted on venomdoc.
> Is it not odd that an Italian chef can be prosecuted by the NSW Parks and Wildlife but the Victorian department turns a blind eye to Australia's self-professed number one herpetologist carrying out operations in his kitchen table. And before you say the chef was Italian and the other person in an Aussie, he isn't he emigrated from our own fair shores as a child.
> Very odd, maybe even immoral or unethical
> 
> Mark


Just to reiterate, if anyone on here thinks that I am 'for' venomoids. Please read my posts again I'm just asking questions, there are plenty of people that will say they are bad, but the reasons given are personal, not scientific. As far as the surgery goes, with the latest methods the snake goes under (not without risks, but most survive, same as with humans), it has a *relatively* minor operation done (glands are close to the skin), receives pain relief afterwards. I AM NOT saying that this is inconsequential but that this image is slightly different from 'having it's glands ripped out', which is what most people seem to term it as. The difference between the two is like having you appendix out normally, or someone tying you to a slab in a pig sty and cutting you open ripping out your appendix and sewing you back up, with out putting you under first. Of course I may have exaggerated slightly there, not being a doctor or a vet, but the images are roughly similar. The second one I think most would disagree with, but the first one, while not maybe being ideal is certainly better.

The morals for having it done are another thing, but that is an individual thing. You can say it is morally wrong to do, but if you say it is morally wrong to do because the animal suffers agony, an it's proved that the animal doesn't then it makes your argument invalid.

Mike


----------



## Ssthisto

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Masticophis and Ssthisto if you have made up your minds that venomoids are “cool”.
> Then what is the point in trying to use fact and logic to explain to either of you that forcibly removing a useful organ from a wild animal for no other reason than human selfish cowardice and twisted entertainment.
> If you are not embarrassed by being macho fakes by retaining a venomoid then stop making silly excuses trying to make yourselves feel better.


Thank you for your amazing faith in the actual words I am saying. My user title is very much applicable.

I don't think venomoids are "cool".
I don't think multiple-generation captive bred snakes are quite the same thing as "wild" animals any more, although they are not "domesticated" either - they're somewhere in between. Some snakes are further along the line than others.
I don't think "it's not natural" is a suitable argument *on its own* when talking about animals that are being kept in artificial environments, under artificial heating and lighting, on artificial or substitute substrates, in captivity. It may well be a suitable argument when combined with others.
I don't think Joe Bloggs should be able to obtain a venomoid as easily as Joe can get a corn snake.
I don't think any animal should be subjected to surgery without anaesthetic on a workbench in someone's garage, and find it morally abhorrent that anyone would do so.
I don't think that all venomous keepers want to keep venomous snakes because they want to show they've got bigger brassier ones than anyone else.
I don't think that all venomoid keepers want to keep venomoid snakes because they want to lie and make themselves look brassier than they really are.
I don't think venomoids are there to be "safe" pet venomous snakes for people who don't already know how to manage their venomous species of choice, even if that's why I personally might want a SPECIFIC animal who just so happens to be venomoid. Wanting ain't the same as getting 

Slippery42: My apologies, what I was saying might not have been clear unless you'd read *all* of my previous posts. What I was trying to say is:

1. If I ever went for a DWA licence, I would be applying to keep species that are slow, relatively manageable and something that I personally could keep safely for myself and for my family - things like Gilas and European viperids, for example - rather than applying to keep things I know I *can't* cope with, like fast and/or arboreal species like the majority of elapids. If I did choose to do this - keep venomous species for which I need a DWAL, and specifically those types of snake - I would not be specifically seeking out venomoid individuals and would be* planning *to keep entire animals, although if I stumbled upon a long-term imported venomoid that was in the right place at the right time I wouldn't necessarily dismiss it out of hand. 
2. The only exception to this - the only case under which I would apply to keep an elapid species on a DWA licence I already had at that point - would be for one specific individual _Naja haje_ - an animal I've already met that I thought was fantastic when I saw him, and who happens to be a long-term imported venomoid. Since the chances are he'll never come up for sale at a time and place in my life when I can afford him AND already have a DWAL AND can get him added to it ... chances are I'll never own that animal, and therefore I will never own an elapid.


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

slippery42 said:


> ?? Whats that supposed to mean??


It means he does not have the balls to keep venomous but would like to be a macho want-to-be. He will then settle for a disfigured shadow of an animal so he can look cool.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*Gypo*

Well Ssthisto, it strikes me that particular Gypo cobra has had a lasting effect on you, you have mentioned him/her so many times, it must be love !

I understand, I was very fond of old Haje and when the tumour was found and he had to be put to sleep I was very saddened, despite the fact he tried to put me to sleep himself once. And I feel equally about my king cobra at WMSP, sometimes individual specimens come along and strike a particular chord.

I must have had dealings with thousands and thousands of reptiles in the field or captivity over the years but only a very few have had that impression on me. Don't get me wrong, I do not disregard the others, it is just that a very few are special. My first Corucia was special in the same way as was my first snake, Escapist the grass snake (who did, often, when I was half VL's age) and a particular red-sided gartersnake and a Florida kingsnake from way back in my youth. Ah fond memories!
These are the specimens that earned names, a sign that they are that bit more special.

With than in mind I hope you are able to obtain and keep your wishlist serpent, although for me its lack of glands would simply make it incomplete, not the whole snake.

Mark


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

masticophis said:


> ...know it may well be different in SA but here all snakes are kept in viv's or tubs, so they are captive snakes, not wild animals.


Mike sorry mate but please take note. In South Africa, U.K or were ever in the world you want to be. All snakes no matter if captive breed and kept are classed as wild animals.


----------



## Ssthisto

Snakes Incorporated said:


> It means he does not have the balls to keep venomous but would like to be a macho want-to-be. He will then settle for a disfigured shadow of an animal so he can look cool.


Given that I'm female I'd be surprised to discover I have balls at all.

And since I wouldn't be owning the animal for bragging purposes - especially since I wouldn't be bragging about owning it - how does it make me look macho or cool? Heck, I mostly keep corn snakes... if I wanted to brag surely I'd have a Burmese python or a retic or something by now!



Mark O'Shea said:


> Well Ssthisto, it strikes me that particular Gypo cobra has had a lasting effect on you, you have mentioned him/her so many times, it must be love !


Yes indeed.

Before meeting him, although I SUPPORTED the right of people to apply for DWA licences and felt that it was only fair that they should be able to keep the species they love... I didn't UNDERSTAND why someone might want to keep them.

After seeing that snake, I *could* understand it on an emotional level and not just an intellectual one.



> With than in mind I hope you are able to obtain and keep your wishlist serpent, although for me its lack of glands would simply make it incomplete, not the whole snake.


As I said, I don't think it's the *species* for me - it's the *individual*. 

I wouldn't contact VenomoidsInc and ask them to obtain a _Naja haje_ for me and remove its venom glands - I don't want just any _N. haje_, I want *that specific* one, and the fact that he's already a venomoid makes him more practical and possible for me to keep safely for myself and for the people and pets around me.


----------



## nitro

Ssthisto said:


> As I said, I don't think it's the *species* for me - it's the *individual*.
> 
> I wouldn't contact VenomoidsInc and ask them to obtain a _Naja haje_ for me and remove its venom glands - I don't want just any _N. haje_, I want *that specific* one, and the fact that he's already a venomoid makes him more practical and possible for me to keep safely for myself and for the people and pets around me.


Brilliant point


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Ssthisto said:


> Given that I'm female I'd be surprised to discover I have balls at all.


Balls means guts doll and you are quite aware what I am saying. In short stick with corn snakes if you have no guts to work with venomous with all its anatomy.


----------



## masticophis

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Balls means guts doll and you are quite aware what I am saying. In short stick with corn snakes if you have no guts to work with venomous with all its anatomy.


That is quite a macho statement. Possibly something there that has been alluded to earlier. I know you are obviously passionate about some aspects of snake keeping, but it would help if you could try to restrain yourself and not be quite as brusque. (please note that is not an insult, just an observation on the tone). This is supposed to be a discussion, not an argument.

Mike


----------



## leecb0

from reading this thread am i right in saying that all the anti venomoid people Hold a DWAL and keep venomous snakes or work with them regularly and those that, i wont say "are" pro venomoid. but are arguing the point, are people who do not hold a dwal or work with the animals or keep venomous snakes????
If so why is this????


----------



## kelboy

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Balls means guts doll and you are quite aware what I am saying. In short stick with corn snakes if you have no guts to work with venomous with all its anatomy.


Ssthisto has never stated that she doesn't have the "guts" to work wit DWA animals, in fact I've read on several occasions, including on this thread, that she may be applying for one in the future, to keep _Heloderma sp_. lizards and maybe some European viper species, but wouldn't feel confident with her reactions to work with the majority of elapids. She is merely saying that she has become "attached" (for want of a better word) to a certain cobra, that happens to be venomoid. The attraction to her is NOT that the snake is a venomoid, rather that the snake itself has a certain personality she is attracted to. The fact that it is a venomoid though, would make it possible for her to keep it safely. Ssthisto, as far as I have read, has never said she is pro-venomoid, but the fact that she hasn't said she is against it seems to make you immune to comprehension. 

Just an observation.......carry on.


----------



## Lamprophis

Ssthisto said:


> If I get bit that's one thing. But I don't want my family to have to pay for my mistakes, either. And I don't just mean my HUMAN family.


 
If you're not prepared for the possibility of a "mistake" then stick with non venomous animals. To get a venomoid for your own comfort/ peace of mind/ safety is an entirely selfish thing to do, even if you dress it up as protecting those around you...


----------



## kelboy

leecb0 said:


> from reading this thread am i right in saying that all the anti venomoid people Hold a DWAL and keep venomous snakes or work with them regularly and those that, i wont say "are" pro venomoid. but are arguing the point, are people who do not hold a dwal or work with the animals or keep venomous snakes????
> If so why is this????


Good observation, although, when I started reading this thread, I was anti-venomoid, and as yet, haven't read anything compelling to change my mind. Obviously, I have no DWAL.


----------



## masticophis

leecb0 said:


> from reading this thread am i right in saying that all the anti venomoid people Hold a DWAL and keep venomous snakes or work with them regularly and those that, i wont say "are" pro venomoid. but are arguing the point, are people who do not hold a dwal or work with the animals or keep venomous snakes????
> If so why is this????


It does depend on how you view 'pro-venomoid' Neither Ssthiso or myself have said we are 'pro-venomoid' . I have no intention of keeping DWA snakes because I personally don't want to take the risk and why get a venomoid when I can find other types of snakes off DWA that I like to keep. I have been around venomous snakes and at one point I did think I'd like to keep them, but having seen them I think I can be perfectly happy with non DWA., that way I can handle mine without huge risk and without getting a venomoid.
I am trying to understand the facts behind making and keeping venomoids. If you speak to most people they tell you it is barbaric and harms the snakes, that most die and ops are done in appalling conditions. Yes if you look at hosers work they are right, but then I could any AR site with much the same descriptions and facts on general reptile keeping, pictures of imported snakes dead in boxes. Do I blindly accept that they are right or do I look into it and find that say most of their points are valid but not all, or that most of their points are invalid.

So far I haven't seen a good medical reason against venomoids done properly. Morally yes it may well be wrong to do the op, but physically it doesn't seem to do much harm. But why the outcry when everyone says it is bad for the animal then won't substantiate it, apart from digging up stuff about hoser.
The only real arguments for not having it done seem to me to be that for one there is no good reason to do it, and that ethically it isn't right. all the other arguments seem to not have a basis. If people would stick to these two or find another one that seems good then I'd be quite happy. Knowledge is advanced by asking questions, not all answers are right, not a are wrong, but you have to ask the question to find an answer.

Mike


----------



## HABU

taking the venom glands out of a rattler or something may be arguably wrong, immoral or fine... whatever...


what's clear in my mind is that it's stupid... beyond a doubt...

what kind of person is motivated by this?

what's the point?


it's just stupid... but if that's how someone gets their kicks then so be it...

like having a knife blade's edge ground down so it won't cut anything...

dumb...

like putting a govenor on a ferrari so it won't go over 45 m.p.h....

pointless.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

'


masticophis said:


> So far I haven't seen a good medical reason against venomoids done properly. Morally yes it may well be wrong to do the op, but physically it doesn't seem to do much harm.


As I said earlier, perform surgery and you run the risk of introducing air into the blood vessels which can cause disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, leading to blood clots reaching the lungs, heart, or brain, which can cause death. 
Plus bacterial infection.... etc, etc.


----------



## naja-naja

so far, i am (c) undecided, leaning towards (a) until i find something which says that there are downsides to the snake, if ther are downsides, i will change my mind to (b) so untill then...

*C*


----------



## terciopelo_dave

naja-naja said:


> so far, i am (c) undecided, leaning towards (a) until i find something which says that there are downsides to the snake, if ther are downsides, i will change my mind to (b) so untill then...
> 
> *C*


Are you completely stupid?
Read about the risks involved with surgery when it's necessary, then apply what you learn to surgery that isn't.
I get the impression that you've made up your mind, and no matter what you're told you won't listen, so why ask in the first place. You've been told why it's wrong numerous times but you insist you've not heard a "con". The reason for that is that you aren't listening. If you won't listen, then don't ask. Instead you could try just :censor:ing off.


----------



## lordbiggles

leecb0 said:


> from reading this thread am i right in saying that all the anti venomoid people Hold a DWAL and keep venomous snakes or work with them regularly and those that, i wont say "are" pro venomoid. but are arguing the point, are people who do not hold a dwal or work with the animals or keep venomous snakes????
> If so why is this????


No DWA here currently....and not for the forseeable future either, just to qualify the remark.


----------



## exoticsadmirer

i'm against venomoids entirely and am planning on getting DWA animals when i move out.


----------



## naja-naja

terciopelo_dave said:


> Are you completely stupid?
> *Read about the risks involved with surgery when it's necessary, then apply what you learn to surgery that isn't.*
> I get the impression that you've made up your mind, and no matter what you're told you won't listen, so why ask in the first place. *You've been told why it's wrong numerous times* but you insist you've not heard a "con". The reason for that is that you aren't listening. If you won't listen, then don't ask. Instead you could try just :censor:ing off.


i am reading and trying to find out.

no, i've been told why its wrong from peoples points of veiw, i want to know exactly why it's cruel, which was the pointof this thread, but i see it turning into a slagging match soon, so i'll just leave it.


----------



## AmyW

naja-naja said:


> i am reading and trying to find out.
> 
> no, i've been told why its wrong from peoples points of veiw, i want to know exactly why it's cruel, which was the pointof this thread, but i see it turning into a slagging match soon, so i'll just leave it.


 
It's cruel because an animal is being changed for a human's benefit.

I do not know the risks involved in surgery for this procedure nor do I own venomous or wish to, so can't comment from that point of view.

In my frame of mind this and other forms of animal 'mutilations' I can only liken to tattooing my child because I like it or it suits me!

Just so, so wrong...


----------



## slippery42

naja-naja said:


> i am reading and trying to find out.
> 
> no, i've been told why its wrong from peoples points of veiw, i want to know exactly why it's cruel, which was the pointof this thread, but i see it turning into a slagging match soon, so i'll just leave it.


I can understand terciopelo_dave's frustration. There have been posts stating facts from some serious players and you just aint listening.

Just because its possible doesnt mean its right!


----------



## HABU

i'm just glad there isn't any dwa stuff here...

people just want to hold a mamba bare-handed or something?


----------



## nitro

slippery42 said:


> I can understand terciopelo_dave's frustration. There have been posts stating facts from some serious players and you just aint listening.
> 
> Just because its possible doesnt mean its right!


Some would say the same for keeping snakes in captivity full stop : victory:


----------



## kelboy

naja-naja said:


> i am reading and trying to find out.
> 
> no, i've been told why its wrong from peoples points of veiw, i want to know exactly why it's cruel, which was the pointof this thread, but i see it turning into a slagging match soon, so i'll just leave it.


Does it really matter what the specific risks are? It doesn't take a medical professional to know that carrying surgery carries more risks than not carrying out surgery.


----------



## Onissarle

After reading this thread, and seeing all the arguments go back and forth, something occurs to me that doesn't appear to have been mentioned. It relates to the keeping of dangerous animals such as venomous snakes as _pets_, which is what the vast majority of DWA holders do.

I've pondered going DWA myself for a couple of years now. After thinking it through many times discussing it with others (including a DWA keeper I know), I have decided against it for the time being. The rooms in my house aren't suitable for conversion into a secure and safe to operate in "Hot room" in my opinion due to layout issues (at least in regards to venomous snakes). On those grounds, I won't be applying for a licence any time soon and therefore will not be keeping DWA species.

I'd always thought that was pretty much the norm. You got a licence and kept DWA species or you decided not to (or couldn't obtain one) and didn't keep DWA species as pets. I thought unlicensed keepers were few and far between so was quite surprised when a recent documentary indicated that compliance with DWA licensing is probably below 10%.

With that in mind, consider this:

If 90% or so of DWA species being kept as pets are unlicensed, that means that they are not registered. There is no record of who owns those animals or where they are being kept. No emergency services have been notified of their existence.

Joe Bloggs has an unlicensed Cobra which bites him during maintenance and he collapses. Eventually someone finds him and raises the alarm or someone wonders why Joe hasn't taken his milk in for three days. What happens when the emergency services enter that house, that room? How many people are bitten and potentially die or suffer lasting harm before the snake is contained (or worse, killed)? Worst case scenario is they go in and the snake slips out unnoticed, becoming a serious threat to the public. I would have thought that many unlicensed keepers don't follow the same standards of security and hot room procedure that licensed keepers do, making such a scenario more likely in an unlicensed collection.

If you accept that it is reasonable to keep venomous snakes in private collections as _pets_ (as opposed to for research, etc), and acknowledge that the existing DWA legislation is close to useless for keeping track of these animals, doesn't it make some degree of sense that a venomoid might have value in the lower risk it poses to the _public_ if things go wrong, rather than to the keeper. After all, the legislation that's in place is designed to protect the public rather than the keeper of the animal who chooses to accept the risk.

If all venomous snakes intended for private sale as pets were routinely made venomoid (unless the procedure would cause quantifiable detriment to the animal) before they could be legally sold to a private keeper, it would entirely remove (or at least substantially reduce) the threat that animal can pose to the public.

I'm not saying I agree with this, I just think it's an interesting point that has been overlooked considering we are indeed discussing the keeping of these animals as pets in domestic conditions for the most part rather than as scientific specimens in dedicated facilities.

Of course, if your point of view is that snakes with medically significant venom should not be kept as pets at all, the point is moot from your point of view. However, I don't see many people objecting to the keeping of venomous snakes in principle, only to the idea of removing their venom production glands. 

Personally, I think that the best way to crack down on illegal ownership is to place the responsibility with the seller to ensure the buyer has the appropriate licence and to enforce severe penalties for not checking or knowingly selling to an unlicensed keeper. They do it that way around with alcohol sales, so why not deadly animals?


----------



## nitro

How do the authorities know that 90% of Venomous snakes kept in captivity are kept illegally?


----------



## salvatoruk

nitro said:


> How do the authorities know that 90% of Venomous snakes kept in captivity are kept illegally?


It is purely a guess. Noone knows the actual numbers.


----------



## slippery42

*IF* there were are many unlicensed keepers with as many illegal venomous species as has been suggested in some quarters surely there would have been more incidents etc etc.

90% seems to have been plucked from the sky!


----------



## Onissarle

nitro said:


> How do the authorities know that 90% of Venomous snakes kept in captivity are kept illegally?


Personally, I don't know but I can't think of anyone better to ask than Chris Newman...



Chris Newman said:


> The suggestion that there are five illegal keepers for every legal keeper is probably an underestimation, truth be told. Government accepts that non-compliance with the DWAA is possibly as high as 90%! Which is precisely the reason for the latest review of the DWAA – to generate compliance.


----------



## terciopelo_dave

Onissarle said:


> After reading this thread, and seeing all the arguments go back and forth, something occurs to me that doesn't appear to have been mentioned. It relates to the keeping of dangerous animals such as venomous snakes as _pets_, which is what the vast majority of DWA holders do.
> 
> I've pondered going DWA myself for a couple of years now. After thinking it through many times discussing it with others (including a DWA keeper I know), I have decided against it for the time being. The rooms in my house aren't suitable for conversion into a secure and safe to operate in "Hot room" in my opinion due to layout issues (at least in regards to venomous snakes). On those grounds, I won't be applying for a licence any time soon and therefore will not be keeping DWA species.
> 
> I'd always thought that was pretty much the norm. You got a licence and kept DWA species or you decided not to (or couldn't obtain one) and didn't keep DWA species as pets. I thought unlicensed keepers were few and far between so was quite surprised when a recent documentary indicated that compliance with DWA licensing is probably below 10%.
> 
> With that in mind, consider this:
> 
> If 90% or so of DWA species being kept as pets are unlicensed, that means that they are not registered. There is no record of who owns those animals or where they are being kept. No emergency services have been notified of their existence.
> 
> Joe Bloggs has an unlicensed Cobra which bites him during maintenance and he collapses. Eventually someone finds him and raises the alarm or someone wonders why Joe hasn't taken his milk in for three days. What happens when the emergency services enter that house, that room? How many people are bitten and potentially die or suffer lasting harm before the snake is contained (or worse, killed)? Worst case scenario is they go in and the snake slips out unnoticed, becoming a serious threat to the public. I would have thought that many unlicensed keepers don't follow the same standards of security and hot room procedure that licensed keepers do, making such a scenario more likely in an unlicensed collection.
> 
> If you accept that it is reasonable to keep venomous snakes in private collections as _pets_ (as opposed to for research, etc), and acknowledge that the existing DWA legislation is close to useless for keeping track of these animals, doesn't it make some degree of sense that a venomoid might have value in the lower risk it poses to the _public_ if things go wrong, rather than to the keeper. After all, the legislation that's in place is designed to protect the public rather than the keeper of the animal who chooses to accept the risk.
> 
> If all venomous snakes intended for private sale as pets were routinely made venomoid (unless the procedure would cause quantifiable detriment to the animal) before they could be legally sold to a private keeper, it would entirely remove (or at least substantially reduce) the threat that animal can pose to the public.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with this, I just think it's an interesting point that has been overlooked considering we are indeed discussing the keeping of these animals as pets in domestic conditions for the most part rather than as scientific specimens in dedicated facilities.
> 
> Of course, if your point of view is that snakes with medically significant venom should not be kept as pets at all, the point is moot from your point of view. However, I don't see many people objecting to the keeping of venomous snakes in principle, only to the idea of removing their venom production glands.
> 
> Personally, I think that the best way to crack down on illegal ownership is to place the responsibility with the seller to ensure the buyer has the appropriate licence and to enforce severe penalties for not checking or knowingly selling to an unlicensed keeper. They do it that way around with alcohol sales, so why not deadly animals?


In a word, no.
I did a brief stint unlicenced when I moved house and my security protocols remained unchanged. The fact that "the man" doesn't know what you keep is unimportant. I live in the same house as my hots. If they escape, I get bit first, ergo, they don't escape. It's safe for the public on purely selfish grounds. I am sure all other hot keepers feel the same. If your snake escapes, you die first. So the public are safe by proxy.


----------



## HABU

people should know and accept the risks before hand...

... all kinds of ways to die... at least with hots you have control...

sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you...


----------



## terciopelo_dave

HABU said:


> people should know and accept the risks before hand...
> 
> ... all kinds of ways to die... at least with hots you have control...
> 
> sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you...
> 
> 
> image


How cool are it's ears!


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*Surgery*

Surgery is sometimes necessary but after the experience with my king I would think twice about unnecessary surgery. She needed a small lump removed and biopsied from here back. A combination of two anaesthetics were used, one reversible, the other, ketamine, not until it wore off. It takes a few hours with lizards and tortoises (the last being a surprise) but a lot longer with a snake. It took the king FOUR DAYS to come out of it, with on-the-hour tail-tweaking to wake her up. Eventually she was back to her usual form but it was a worry.

Would I put her through that to venomoid her, certainly not even if I believe in it as a viable and morally/ethically acceptable procedure.

Mark


----------



## Ssthisto

Snakes Incorporated said:


> Balls means guts doll and you are quite aware what I am saying. In short stick with corn snakes if you have no guts to work with venomous with all its anatomy.


I have tried to avoid being offensive to you as a person, Snakes Inc... I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy, whether or not you agree with my *questioning* the idea held by the group that "Venomoids are wrong". 

Note: "_Questioning _what makes it wrong" is not the same thing as "_insisting _it is right". 

I don't need "guts" I don't have to be comfortable owning and working with fast-moving, agile and semi-arboreal venomous snakes - what I need and don't have is "speed" and "fast reaction times". 

I'm not young, I've always been a fairly sedentary bookworm who was crap at Phys. Ed. and got hit in the face with various sport equipment more times than I'd like to count, not least because I have depth perception rather like a horse and peripheral vision like a blinkered one*. I haven't gotten any better as I've aged. 

Just to address the "people want venomous/venomoids to make them look more macho" misconception... I'm thirty years old, short, chunky and look like a librarian (heck, I was one until I moved over to web design) and the most "macho" or "fringe" thing about me is the fact that I've got two piercings in one ear and none in the other. I probably couldn't pull off macho if I had a cobra attached to my face and rattlesnakes sitting on both shoulders... and I wouldn't care to try that to find out, either.

I just *like* some venomous species. I like them enough to want to keep them - and believe it or not, I like them enough not to want to have one surgically altered on my behalf just so that I CAN keep them, too.



leecb0 said:


> from reading this thread am i right in saying that all the anti venomoid people Hold a DWAL and keep venomous snakes or work with them regularly and those that, i wont say "are" pro venomoid. but are arguing the point, are people who do not hold a dwal or work with the animals or keep venomous snakes????
> If so why is this????


It's an interesting observation. Additional experience and information is always welcome to shape my opinions of the world. I question things because I want to know the whys and wherefores, and I want to see things from as many angles as possible BEFORE deciding what my long-term viewpoint is... and I reserve the right to move to a different viewpoint if what I learn changes what I understand to be true.

As far as it goes, I haven't been saying I am "pro venomoid" - just that I am not completely "anti venomoid" and that I am interested in quantifiable reasons to change my current stance of "it shouldn't be done on demand so that Ssthisto can have a 'safe pet cobra' but there are certain applications involving the reduction of risk to the public that might make it reasonable to consider; any surgical alteration of any animal is something that should be carefully thought out before doing."



kelboy said:


> Ssthisto has never stated that she doesn't have the "guts" to work wit DWA animals, in fact I've read on several occasions, including on this thread, that she may be applying for one in the future, to keep _Heloderma sp_. lizards and maybe some European viper species, but wouldn't feel confident with her reactions to work with the majority of elapids. She is merely saying that she has become "attached" (for want of a better word) to a certain cobra, that happens to be venomoid. The attraction to her is NOT that the snake is a venomoid, rather that the snake itself has a certain personality she is attracted to. The fact that it is a venomoid though, would make it possible for her to keep it safely. Ssthisto, as far as I have read, has never said she is pro-venomoid, but the fact that she hasn't said she is against it seems to make you immune to comprehension.


Thank you for your understanding of what I was trying to say, Kelboy. 

I do indeed want someday to take a serious look at getting a DWAL for the aforementioned species - the sort of animals that, as I jokingly mentioned earlier, could be contained in an emergency by use of a broom and a bin. 

In general, although there are many fast-moving species I think are beautiful and wish I could own, if the choice is between:

A - I get into a species I think is great, but that's over my head and get my family, friends, pets or the public hurt because I screw up;
B - I don't keep them at all because I'm not confident in my ability to react fast enough to deal with something that can go from arm's length to in-your-face VERY quickly;
C - I order the snakes I want from the 'States and have them surgically altered before they come over here and observed for long enough to ensure they're "safe" ;

THEN I would say B.

If the cobra I met hadn't been a venomoid, I wouldn't have gotten to see him as up-close as I did, and I would never have had any idea what his personality was actually like; it would never have occurred to me that any cobra would be so similar in personality to a kingsnake (but apparently a lot more going on between the eyeballs), for example. But I liked that individual snake - not necessarily the species, not necessarily the snake type - but that individual animal. Just as, when I kept more leopard geckos, there were two individuals that stood out above the others, that were special favourites. 

I liked that cobra - but I wouldn't want to gamble on any other venomoid being *just like him* nor would I want particularly to own just any unaltered _Naja haje_. Speaking of which... is "_Naja_" correctly pronounced "Na-jah" with a J sound, "Na-gah" with a G sound or "Na-ha" with an H sound?

Incidentally, just to clarify where I draw the line personally... 

I don't think it is *right * to surgically alter ANY animal, domesticated**, wild or anywhere in between *all* of the time or indeed even *most* of the time.
I don't think it's *wrong **all* of the time either.

The reasons for doing so - the benefits to the keeper AND the animal - must be weighed carefully against the risks of doing it to the animal AND against the benefits of not doing it at all. If the benefits of doing the surgery outweigh the risks and the benefits of not doing the surgery put together, then it is reasonable to CONSIDER having it done.

Because I feel that's what should be done - carefully weigh up the consequences, good and bad - before considering it - I know that I personally would never have a venomoid made for me. My lack of confidence in my reaction times is not *enough* reason to surgically alter that animal, and if that means I cannot keep that species, then I won't.

If there's one that already exists, that's one thing (and, as I pointed out, it's one specific individual animal that is already a venomoid that makes me feel that way) - but I would never intentionally cause the surgery to be done to a snake at my personal request in order that I can keep a venomoid snake.

I can't answer B to the original poll because I do believe there are certain cases where it might be appropriate - and I can't in good conscience answer A either, because I don't believe that performing venomoid surgery on ALL snakes is a good thing. But I can't answer C either, because I'm not indifferent or undecided. I know exactly where I stand - and I'll stick by "D: Case by Case" - leaning towards "it will never be done to an animal because *I* asked for it."

* i.e. "Nearly None". No proper depth perception because my left eye is significantly more nearsighted than my right, and no proper peripheral vision because I'm pretty darn nearsighted in BOTH eyes and my glasses don't wrap all the way around.

** Incidentally, I've seen a lot of people say "It's OK to surgically alter domesticated animals for whatever reason we as humans want to do it but if you're talking non-domesticated wild animals it's wrong." What makes domesticated animals somehow "less animal" than wild ones? Are they less deserving of the same consideration before we start lopping bits of them off? To me a life's a life, and I do think that people should explore the training and socialisation methods of reducing unwanted domestic-animal behaviours BEFORE they jump to surgical means!


----------



## Onissarle

terciopelo_dave said:


> In a word, no.
> I did a brief stint unlicenced when I moved house and my security protocols remained unchanged. The fact that "the man" doesn't know what you keep is unimportant.


There's a distinct difference between a responsible keeper who has the right training and has previously held a licence and someone who wants venomous snakes and doesn't think they should have to bother with all those pesky security requirements, etc.

It would be interesting to know how many unlicensed keepers do hold themselves to the same standards as those who have the appropriate experience and have passed inspection on their facilities in the past.



> I live in the same house as my hots. If they escape, I get bit first, ergo, they don't escape. It's safe for the public on purely selfish grounds. I am sure all other hot keepers feel the same. If your snake escapes, you die first. So the public are safe by proxy.


In a properly set up hot room, there should be strict security procedures in place, emergency protocols to follow and the relevant authorities are aware of the presence of dangerous animals. Not least because you should have signs up alerting emergency services to the presence of venomous animals in most cases. From what I understand, the basic security measures taken by most DWA keepers makes the actual escape of animals pretty much impossible and the potential risk to the public is minimised.

In an unlicensed collection that has not passed any inspection for these standards and may be trying to actively hide the presence of the animals, the keeper may well die _first_ ...but in the worst case scenario, who dies second, third......?

That is the point I was trying to make. There is a world of difference between someone who follows all the correct procedures and protocols regardless of whether or not they have a licence and someone that doesn't hold themselves to the same standard.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*DWA and venomoids*

Hi Oni
If every venomous snake sold to a private keeper was venomoid it would not solve the problem since if they bred they produce venomous offspring.
The doco you refer to is probably the one I presented for BBC Inside Out, and we made the point the Act is there to lay down requirements for compliance with the law. Those councils that make a DWA a possibility for a sensible fee and an even playing field can look forward to more compliant keepers applying for licenses and therefore maintain a list of species and numbers in their area.
Those that say simply No way are fooling themselves into thinking the problem will go away. 

A crack down is not the answer, that would force it deeper underground and while a UK pet shop might be expected to ask to see a DWA licence before selling a venomous snake, there should be no reason a Dutch or German trader at Houten or Hamm should ask, not being aware of the laws of this fair isle. After all, do you know the laws pertaining to venomous snakes in Austria and if not would you sell and Austrian a venomous snake ?

I like the analogy with alcohol, everyone knows prohibition didn't work in the US, some people got rich, some people got dead and everyone got hammered.

Mark


----------



## pythondave82

All,


I do agree with Mark in respect that on rare occasions it is accepted for safety reasons, for example when working in movies (although I’m sure there are plenty people out there who would be willing to help and work with a fully loaded venomous snake), and maybe for venomous handling courses for beginner keepers or snake awareness safety sessions, like the one that Bryan Fry is currently conducting in Pakistan (Bare in mind there are no official venomous training courses in the UK).

After looking at the pro’s and con’s from every angle possible, the only reason I can come up with for carrying out the procedure, is a money spinner for the surgeon who performs the operation. For the keeper, it can only be because they lack the confidence in keeping a venomous snake that can potentially do them some serious damage. There are plenty of beautiful non-venomous snakes out there; you can hardly say they are all drab!

It’s is a risk we take when keeping venomous snakes, I’m sure no matter how much caution we take, we are all in the mindset that the dreaded can happen at anytime – if you cant handle the facts, don’t keep them.

Cheers,

Dave


----------



## kelboy

Ssthisto, I've wondered the same in the past as to the pronunciation of _Naja_.I have heard it said as both na-ja and na-ha. I don't know the answer, but would lean towards the "h" sound, which is how I say it in my head when reading, purely because that sounds right to me. I know that na-ga, or nga-ga is the Thai for a serpent god (taken from the Thai for serpent), sa-nga which is usually represented as a cobra, and that may be the correct pronunciation, but I have only ever heard that spoken by Thai people.


----------



## SiUK

kelboy said:


> Ssthisto, I've wondered the same in the past as to the pronunciation of _Naja_.I have heard it said as both na-ja and na-ha. I don't know the answer, but would lean towards the "h" sound, which is how I say it in my head when reading, purely because that sounds right to me. I know that na-ga, or nga-ga is the Thai for a serpent god (taken from the Thai for serpent), sa-nga which is usually represented as a cobra, and that may be the correct pronunciation, but I have only ever heard that spoken by Thai people.


I always pronounced it Ni-ya


----------



## kelboy

SiUK said:


> I always pronounced it Ni-ya


There's another option to make it even more confusing, and now you've written that, I think I may have heard it.

EDIT:Just found this with an audio pronunciation. Completely different to how I've ever heard it (nay-ja). http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/naja


----------



## Ssthisto

Mark O'Shea said:


> After all, do you know the laws pertaining to venomous snakes in Austria and if not would you sell and Austrian a venomous snake ?


I'll never get rich - my answer to that question would be "If I don't know the laws in the country the animal's going to AS WELL AS my own country's laws... then I would err on the side of caution and refuse the sale unless the buyer could provide me with a copy of the relevant legislation."

Completely impractical, I'd never sell anything at a show, and that's why I wouldn't personally choose to breed venomous snakes either 



> I like the analogy with alcohol, everyone knows prohibition didn't work in the US, some people got rich, some people got dead and everyone got hammered.


I think Oni's alcohol analogy was aimed more at the UK alcohol laws - where, for example, if the cashier at Sainsbury's doesn't ask someone for ID in order to buy a bottle of wine ... then it's Sainsbury's that gets in trouble if they're selling alcohol to a minor. The incentive is there to ask EVERYONE for ID just to make sure.

In that respect Oni isn't suggesting an outright ban on the public sales of DWA species, but "proof of licence required for purchase". Many sellers of DWA species in the UK that I am aware of already ask for proof of licence but I can't see that it would *hurt* to have it be a legal requirement to see proof in order to sell the animal.


----------



## masticophis

terciopelo_dave said:


> '
> 
> As I said earlier, perform surgery and you run the risk of introducing air into the blood vessels which can cause disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, leading to blood clots reaching the lungs, heart, or brain, which can cause death.
> Plus bacterial infection.... etc, etc.


Could I just ask..
By 'risks' o you mean what could happen on a very rare occurrence, or what is fairly likely to happen ? 
I'm not having a dig, or looking to argue. I was only wondering as if you look on any off the shelf pain killer for humans the list of possible risks, but most of the time none of them will happen.

Only wondering as to how likely the animals are to die in surgery or because of the surgery. Also this would need to be percentages or whatever on relatively healthy snakes.

Thanks

Mike


----------



## HABU

once you get past the fear of dying, everything gets better...

is skydiving any safer?... moutain climbing?

you likely need a license there for those things too.

yahoos deserve what they get... experienced keepers know the risks....

... we're grown-ups remember?


----------



## Onissarle

Mark O'Shea said:


> Hi Oni
> If every venomous snake sold to a private keeper was venomoid it would not solve the problem since if they bred they produce venomous offspring.


A fair point, if only there were a reliable, low risk method of spaying and/or neutering snakes...

Out of interest, would you consider that to be an acceptable procedure to be performed on a captive bred pet snake?



> The doco you refer to is probably the one I presented for BBC Inside Out,


Indeed it was. Unfortunately, I didn't know it had been aired until an hour after they removed it from iPlayer. I was absolutely gutted that by the time I read about it on the forum, it was too late to see it. As such, I've had to make do with other people's commentaries.

I don't suppose you know if there are any plans to re-air it in the foreseeable future? I even have family in the right region that could tape it for me. One of them keeps telling me about how she's seen you going shopping *chuckle*.



> and we made the point the Act is there to lay down requirements for compliance with the law. Those councils that make a DWA a possibility for a sensible fee and an even playing field can look forward to more compliant keepers applying for licenses and therefore maintain a list of species and numbers in their area.
> Those that say simply No way are fooling themselves into thinking the problem will go away.


I'm completely behind that. While researching the various DWA requirements for myself, I found out what some councils charge as "administrative fees" and almost had a heart attack. Luckily mine is on the reasonable end of the scale. Although, from what I have been told, they had no registered DWA keepers when I last checked.

Unfortunately, they recently found the partial remains of a small alligator (presumably dumped before being found by a dog) a few miles from my house so there must be keepers in my area that aren't complying to legislation.



> A crack down is not the answer, that would force it deeper underground and while a UK pet shop might be expected to ask to see a DWA licence before selling a venomous snake, there should be no reason a Dutch or German trader at Houten or Hamm should ask, not being aware of the laws of this fair isle. After all, do you know the laws pertaining to venomous snakes in Austria and if not would you sell and Austrian a venomous snake ?


Indeed, trying to ban things does have the habit of making them worse. What I'd like to see is more comprehensive legislation that pays more attention to the sale, trade and transit of dangerous animals as well as the requirements for ownership. In that sense, it could also cover the import of such animals if people wanting to bring them into this country required some sort of licensing to do so.


----------



## Tehanu

Boy this topic got tiresome and abstract...



masticophis said:


> Could I just ask..
> By 'risks' o you mean what could happen on a very rare occurrence, or what is fairly likely to happen ?
> I'm not having a dig, or looking to argue. I was only wondering as if you look on any off the shelf pain killer for humans the list of possible risks, but most of the time none of them will happen.
> 
> Only wondering as to how likely the animals are to die in surgery or because of the surgery. Also this would need to be percentages or whatever on relatively healthy snakes.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike


I am personally suprised by how many people believe anaesthetic to be "dangerous" or "risky" thing for reptiles in particular.
The greatest risk during anaesthesia is respiratory collapse followed by cardiac arrest if not corrected. In birds the time you have to identify that there is a problem and correct it may be literally seconds, in mammals you may have a couple of minutes, in reptiles the chances are fairly slim of you being incompetent enough to fail to monitor the animal, miss the signs and leave it long enough for critical effects to occur from hypoxia. 

In the last two weeks I have assisted in the anaesthesia of two snakes and an iguana, all of which were very simple. Yesterday I held a 7' female jamaican boa and administered a shallow anaesthetic (Isofluorane) to allow our veterinarian to perform an ultrasound without resistance. The animal took 10 minutes to recover to fully coordinated strike mode once back in her enclosure 
Last week we anaesthetised another female snake, this one weighs 150g, more heavily for surgery to remove a kidney tumour. The snake took 30 minutes to fully recover after surgery. 

My point is that anaesthesia, although always a risk, is not as hit and miss as people seem to think. 
I'd imagine a competent veterinarian could perform the surgery fairly easily with minimal stress to the animal, if that can be said in relation to unnecessary surgery!?!

I am 100% anti-venomoid. As I said much much earlier in the topic; whether you have the most fit and healthy animal, the most competent vet, the safest anaesthetic, the most sterile surgery, the most complication free recovery, no negative effects on digestion. 
None of this makes it acceptable or justifiable in my mind. 


God knows how some people have ended up discussing neutering of mammals here, it's not relevant and no one supposed to be holding "double standards" suggested that they are pro-neutering/spaying at any point in the discussion. The things we do to mammalian companion animals are only perceived as "acceptable" because the majority accept it, don't get me started on the unsuitability of cats and dogs as pets for x amount of British people keeping them, we'll be here all week and it will still be completely irrelevant to the issue of Venomoids.


I don't need to try and convince anyone else here that Venomoiding is pointless, selfish, mutilation of animals. I hold my own view that it is ethically abhorrent and the law of this country is in agreement with that. That's good enough for me.


----------



## Mark O'Shea

*various comments*

1. We've missed Nigel Marven's Florida python film, damn, on earlier.

2. Naja comes from Naia, the Sanskit word for snake, and it the latinised version, and of course naga is also snake, there is even Nagaland, a province of northeast India (wow, gotta go there, almost did once). So if we were all Latin scholars we could argue this point but it is more important to know how to spell the name, after all Crotalus is it pron.: Crow-talus, Crot-alus or Cro-talus? Now get to work on Elaphe! An example: The malarian mosquito in Brazil is Anopholes darlingi which we know is from the English surname Darling ("don't slouch Darling", BA4) but it is amusing to hear Brazilans refer to the mossie as Anopholes darlin-jeei, they do not know the surname and pron. it phonetically, as we do with Naja or Crotalus or Elaphe.

2. Many UK buyers by abroad at the shows, more species and more specimens to peruse, and less chance of hassle, but I agree Ssthisto, in the UK dealers should ask to see proof of a licence, but not overseas, too much to expect.

4. Yes I know Oni's alcohol comment was UK based, and we have not had prohibition, but who is to say it would not work out the same as in the US. Ban something and folks find a way around it, and the wrong people profit. As for ID for 18yrs olds to buy booze, workable because there are millions of <18s but since Councils may issue non-standard licences for DWA where is the ID document to waive at the seller. You should see my driving licence, tatty piece of pink paper with no photo and yellowing sellotape, yet legal to hire a car, and overseas I just smile sweetly (well I don't really, I thump the desk) and say "well they are all like this where I come from". 10mins later, car ! We can only have proof of licence when the Act is administered centrally using the level playing field method.

5. No, Oni, not spaying snakes too, a whole new subject! Are you asking if I consider spaying/neutering or venomoiding acceptable on a captive snake. No need to respond, no to both. If you don't want them to breed, do not keep pairs together (that works amazingly) and if you don't want a venomous bite, at the risk of being repetitious, don't keep venomous.

6. Inside Out - I was told it may go Inside Out W.Mids or Inside Out England in the New Year - I do not know for sure and I won't be getting paid residuals (that is the presenter/performer version of royalties by the way).

7. There are keepers everywhere who do not comply and there always will be, but most DWA fans want to be legal and would, give the chance and sensible options/fees. The trouble with herps is a few bad apples brand us all. Yet not other groups, have you heard anyone shouting abuse at dog walkers, calling them social outcasts, yet a small boy died of dog attack the same night Inside Out was transmitted.

Phew, is that it!

A plea, guys, some folks including people I know as good snakemen, have been going at this discussion a bit strong. If we all agreed on everything life would be boring, imagine all supporting the same football team. Discussion is positive, argument is negative. Respect others views and they may respect yours, even come over to your point of view. Slagging them off does the reverse. I am in the public eye, you all know who I am, what I look like, what I do, and coming onto forums like this I am putting myself up and I suppose being asked to be shot at. I happens, sometimes, but such is life, but when I say something I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. I am not saying you should all use your real names, I am saying because you are anonymous does not give you the right to say things that hurt someone with an opposing argument (provided they are qualified to have an opinions and are not johnny-come-latelies with no experience and no background to comment in the first place). Someone said (I forget who) we are all adults, and I think all the contribs here now are adults so lets keep acting like them.

Struth mate, I meant to close 100words back.

Mark


----------



## Tehanu

Mark O'Shea said:


> No need to respond, no to both. If you don't want them to breed, do not keep pairs together (that works amazingly) and if you don't want a venomous bite, at the risk of being repetitious, don't keep venomous.


Humans are incredibly fond of backwards logic to solve "problems"... :whistling2:


----------



## slippery42

Onissarle said:


> There's a distinct difference between a responsible keeper who has the right training


Please define right training. Who is responsible for determining that?


----------



## HABU




----------



## Mark O'Shea

*another species*

I forgot another serious S.American snake, not one in trade, Tachymenis peruviana. I will pull some back-fanged data together and post it when I have a moment.

Mark


----------



## Piraya1

It's cruel because the snake is experiencing pain through means of people who play god and say "No, you're not having venom around ME mr. snake, I'm not taking a bite from YOU". 
Snakes are not on the earth for us to disfigure, alter or inflict pain, they're here, sharing their life with us even if they resent it.


----------



## mark elliott

Haven't read every post on this thread, so apologies if I repeat anything, just wanted to give my opinion. Many hundereds of years ago, all dogs were wild, but man took them in and domesticated them, and used them as guard dogs for castles, and other purposes of the like. But, as far as i am aware, they never once had their teeth removed. Not that I see a dog in the same light as a venomous snake, but a dog can be just as dangerous as any other animal, and like a venomous snake, is just as capable of killing a human.
After all is said, if you feared being bitten by a dog, rather than have its teeth extracted you would probably decide not to keep one, so perhaps one should apply this philosophy to venomous snakes and other creatures of the like. I personally don't agree with venomoids...I never have and I never will...just my opinion.


----------



## kettykev

Mark, sorry to go slightly off topic but what sort of response was there to the recent request for unlicensed collection details to be submitted anonymously.


----------



## Chris Newman

Onissarle said:


> Personally, I don't know but I can't think of anyone better to ask than Chris Newman...


The 90% figure was not an arbitratory figure plucked out of thin air, what we looked at was the number of DWAA species imported via Heathrow in a year and then how many animals Local Authorities had issued licensees for – their was a gaping hole! Obviously this was not an entirely accurate assessment, merely an indicator. As an example if I recall correctly something like 300 spectacle caiman had been imported, but only 10 or so DWA licenses issued! The 90% non-compliance didn’t just relate to venomous snakes, but all DWAA species in general, for example there are probably quite a few Buthidae scorpions kept unlicensed, again large numbers imported but virtually no licenses issued!

Fundamentally we can safely say there is a very significant issue with non-compliance, weather its 90% or 50% is irrelevant - it’s significant, that is all that matters. Therefore the questions are why? And what can we do to address this? These are the important issues!


----------



## Ssthisto

Mark O'Shea said:


> Now get to work on Elaphe!


I've heard "ella-fay" and "ell-aff" and "ell-aff-ay", but at least in reference to the species I keep I pronounce it "_Pantherophis_" or "_Coelognathus_" 



> Many UK buyers by abroad at the shows, more species and more specimens to peruse, and less chance of hassle, but I agree Ssthisto, in the UK dealers should ask to see proof of a licence, but not overseas, too much to expect.


Which is fair enough. As I said, my own personal "If I were at a show overseas and someone tried to buy from me" rules aren't the same as someone else's might be. Doesn't make either set of rules wrong, just different. But absolutely UK sellers (I won't say "dealers" because that implies business - I'm also talking about John Q Public who's bred his rattlers and wants to sell the babies) should be legally required to ask to see proof of licence. I don't know that I'd go so far as being legally required to retain a copy of the licence with the sales receipt in the case of a shop.



> since Councils may issue non-standard licences for DWA where is the ID document to waive at the seller.....We can only have proof of licence when the Act is administered centrally using the level playing field method.


And I do hope that happens soon. A standardised licence (and even better one that's valid UK-wide - imagine getting a driver's licence that's only valid in Kirklees!) that has clearly set out standardised fees and a standard set of requirements that have to be met for each "category" of DWA species ... 

I wouldn't mind paying significantly more than our council currently asks for the licencing fee if I could read the requirements beforehand, make sure that our enclosures are what they need to be for our chosen group of species - and know I have a reasonably good chance that an application that meets the "checklist" upon inspection would be accepted. I was actually quite surprised to discover that Kirklees doesn't have *any* licenced holders at the moment - I'd have thought there'd be one or two, though I don't have any concrete basis for that assumption. Which makes me wonder if they have a low fee but a habit of routinely refusing applications.



> No, Oni, not spaying snakes too, a whole new subject! Are you asking if I consider spaying/neutering or venomoiding acceptable on a captive snake. No need to respond, no to both. If you don't want them to breed, do not keep pairs together (that works amazingly) and if you don't want a venomous bite, at the risk of being repetitious, don't keep venomous.


Playing devil's advocate a little bit (more!) here ...

Imagine that you as a hobby breeder of snakes have hatched out a couple of snakes in one clutch that have a physical defect. Because it's more than one snake in the clutch, but not all of them, it's possible that the defect is genetic. It's not serious enough to prevent the animal from eating and growing so far, but you as a breeder believe the defect should not be perpetuated; you have already decided to retire the animals who produced those offspring and will not be breeding them again. 

What do you do with those offspring - the healthy ones that are "possible het" for the defect AND the ones who visibly show the defect? 

The problem is this:

If you sell the healthy ones, even if you (responsibly) won't sell them as pairs, there is still the chance they'd be bred and spread the genetic defect throughout the population, especially if your buyer sells pairs of the offspring they hatch.
If you sell the ones showing the defect, there is no guarantee that the buyer - or another buyer down along the line, since not everyone keeps the animals for the duration of their lifetime - will not decide to breed the animal anyway, or will not wind up with an accidental breeding for reasons of cohousing/mistaken sex identity/etc.

As I see it, a _responsible _breeder has a couple of choices as technology stands now:

1. Keep all the offspring at the expense of the space they'd otherwise have for their breeding program. (Only takes a couple of clutches before a breeder just won't have space to breed any more!)
2. Humanely cull all the offspring - apparently healthy AND visually showing the defect - and use them as feeders for a snake-eating species. (*gasp* What, I'm suggesting we use cute little baby snakes to feed kings, corals and cobras? How very dare me!)

If there were a way to *chemically* castrate the animals permanently (I can't imagine someone actually successfully spaying a hatchling corn snake), that would give a third option:

3. Have the animals "neutered" so that they are unable to pass on the genetic defect and can be homed as pets without worry that you, as a breeder, are contributing to the spread of a deleterious trait.

Precisely this discussion has come up on another forum regarding the "Stargazer" recessive trait in corn snakes. Unlike Spider royals, who do not seem overly affected by the crawling upside-down and sideways, baby stargazer corns don't generally thrive without a LOT of human interference.

I don't like option 4.

4. Sell them anyway, rehome the ones with the defects, don't say anything about it or maybe say "this healthy-looking animal had some borked siblings, I don't recommend breeding it" and hope for the best.



> 6. Inside Out - I was told it may go Inside Out W.Mids or Inside Out England in the New Year - I do not know for sure and I won't be getting paid residuals (that is the presenter/performer version of royalties by the way).


Would they tell you if it's being re-aired - and if it is, could someone please give Oni and I a PM and let us know before it disappears off iPlayer again? 



> when I say something I am not hiding behind a pseudonym.


Incidentally... neither am I  Middle names are a wonderful thing.

And now that I've gone dreadfully off topic, I have to go to work. If the buses are running. So if you see a decidedly non-macho librarianly looking person walking forlornly around Holmfirth shivering in the snow on Christmas Eve please be nice to me and offer me a lift  I promise I won't suggest that you surgically alter anything anywhere at any time...


----------



## Onissarle

Mark O'Shea said:


> 5. No, Oni, not spaying snakes too, a whole new subject! Are you asking if I consider spaying/neutering or venomoiding acceptable on a captive snake. No need to respond, no to both. If you don't want them to breed, do not keep pairs together (that works amazingly) and if you don't want a venomous bite, at the risk of being repetitious, don't keep venomous.


I respect your consistent opinion and I more or less agree with you on most points. Just to clarify a little, I'm personally against the venomoiding/neutering/docking/cropping/etc of any animals unless there is a well justified reason for doing so. I'm very much of the same opinion as ssthisto, that although I don't agree in general, I think there may be specific examples and instances where it could be considered appropriate.

I know this is a little off topic, but would you equate the de-scenting of skunks as more closely equivalent to the removal of venom in snakes?



slippery42 said:


> Please define right training. Who is responsible for determining that?


Well, specifically, I was referring to experience working with venomous snakes in a controlled environment before being able to obtain a personal licence. I don't think just any Tom, Dick or Harry should be able to get a licence to keep a Cobra without ever having actually handled one.

I've always thought it would be a good idea to have some sort of apprentice arrangement as part of the licensing requirements, so to obtain a licence you have to have clocked up so many hours working with someone who has held a licence or worked in an equivalent facility for a given number of years.

This is wandering far off topic though, so I'll leave it there.



Chris Newman said:


> The 90% figure was not an arbitratory figure plucked out of thin air, what we looked at was the number of DWAA species imported via Heathrow in a year and then how many animals Local Authorities had issued licensees for – their was a gaping hole! Obviously this was not an entirely accurate assessment, merely an indicator. As an example if I recall correctly something like 300 spectacle caiman had been imported, but only 10 or so DWA licenses issued! The 90% non-compliance didn’t just relate to venomous snakes, but all DWAA species in general, for example there are probably quite a few Buthidae scorpions kept unlicensed, again large numbers imported but virtually no licenses issued!
> 
> Fundamentally we can safely say there is a very significant issue with non-compliance, weather its 90% or 50% is irrelevant - it’s significant, that is all that matters. Therefore the questions are why? And what can we do to address this? These are the important issues!


Thankyou for taking the time to explain, that is very enlightening. Were there any more estimates made about the non-compliance in regards to venomous snakes specifically, based on the information that was reviewed?


----------



## slippery42

I wondered if the calculation on non compliance and the numbers of imported DWA's through ARC takes into account deaths etc of wild imports?


----------



## terciopelo_dave

masticophis said:


> Could I just ask..
> By 'risks' o you mean what could happen on a very rare occurrence, or what is fairly likely to happen ?
> I'm not having a dig, or looking to argue. I was only wondering as if you look on any off the shelf pain killer for humans the list of possible risks, but most of the time none of them will happen.
> 
> Only wondering as to how likely the animals are to die in surgery or because of the surgery. Also this would need to be percentages or whatever on relatively healthy snakes.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike


Hi Mike, the likelyhood may not be huge as you correctly point out, but it is most certainly present, and much more likely than side effects from over the counter medication.
Since this procedure is not performed by vets (in this country anyway) the chance of complications is higher than with surgery performed by trained professionals.
If the surgery was being performed to save the animal's life then the benefits would outweigh the risks, but since it isn't it simply exposes the animal to risks needlessly.


----------



## ScottGB

*Venonoid????*

Hay Mark, 
count me as a NO to venomoid.
An for those who reckon its ok, check this out

YouTube - Venomoid cobras give venom

I know this has been on a thread before but i thought it would be relevant.
And I wouldn't take the gamble.

Oh I can only think of one real pro for the argument, and i think it has been mentioned before, even if it hasn't on this thread and that's for training with out the trainee's knowledge. Because thats the only way I can think you could replicate the fear someone would feel using a hood on a venomous snake for the first time. But I still think it should only be done for medical reasons for the snakes health. 

Happy Christmas everyone if i don't get to post anything ells before tomorrow


----------



## masticophis

terciopelo_dave said:


> Hi Mike, the likelyhood may not be huge as you correctly point out, but it is most certainly present, and much more likely than side effects from over the counter medication.
> Since this procedure is not performed by vets (in this country anyway) the chance of complications is higher than with surgery performed by trained professionals.
> If the surgery was being performed to save the animal's life then the benefits would outweigh the risks, but since it isn't it simply exposes the animal to risks needlessly.


Thankyou for the reply.

The only disagreement, or sticking point for me here is...

If the procedure is carried out by a non licensed person in their backyard, like hoser for example. Then yes IMO is more than wrong and there are much higher risks. I know this practice does go on, though I think it is in a minority.

If the practice is carried out by a person who is a licensed vet, with all the appropriate are care then I think the risks will be drastically reduced.

I would be very, very surprised if anyone in this country carries out a venomoid operation, especially as they could order a snake form venomoid inc, who do use a licensed practitioner.

Whilst I am not saying that it should be done, I am concerned that people should view the two different methods as completely different, yes the outcome is the same but if you object to one then you should view the other as a separate item. I personally would have no problem having my appendix removed at the local hospital by a qualified surgeon at an NHS hospital but somehow I think I would stay well clear of someone who wanted to stick me in a freezer for a while, then tie me to a kitchen worktop then remove my appendix, without putting me under, then sew me back up and kick me out on the street. I think anyone here will agree that these two methods whilst maybe both being an appendix removal can not be lumped together and must be considered separate items.
This is one of the reasons I try to get people to look into venomoids more, as over 90% of people view the two different ways of operating as one. They should be viewed as two separate methods and the decision should be made on separate evidence. I still don't expect people to agree that it must, or can morally be done, but I would like to see some of the knee jerk reactions dispelled.

Latest surgery involves making an small incision in the roof of the mouth, the gland is then removed and if wanted a silicone implant is cut to shape an inserted, recommended is to put either small meta plates or a transponder in as well, so it can be shown to have had the surgery done. The animal is put under with isoflurane anesthesia. Perioperative antibiotics are usually given with a broad spectrum antibiotic.follow up surgery is not needed. After surgery the snake is not fed for several weeks to help facilitate the healing process and minimize the chances of infection.

This is by a licensed specialist reptile vet in the US, the information came from a well known medicine and surgery book so not from some backyard butchers website.

Mike


----------



## kelboy

It's all well and good saying that they are two completely different methods, and that the professional method has greatly reduced risks. But, if there are ANY risks at all, why would you want to even consider carrying out an operation that is NOT required at all? That's like removing a baby's tonsils at birth. No, they don't need the operation, but they could cause some problems at a later date if they get tonsilitis. 

OR

No, it doesn't need the operation, but it could cause problems at a later date if it tags me.

It's purely selfish in my opinion. 
I'm pretty sure that venomous keepers will limit the amount of interaction they have with their animals as much as possible, so to say that it will lower the amount of stress placed on the snake by making it possible to free handle it, rather than hooking etc. is a stupid argument that I read somewhere (not on this thread), because, having a venomoid snake will probably draw people to handle that snake on a more regular basis, thereby increasing stress placed upon that snake.

Sorry if I'm rambling, xmas eve drinks and all that.


----------



## southwest vipers

There is an easy answer to whether or not you would own a venomoid. Firstly, would you pay £500 for a venomiod puff adder when you could buy a "fully loaded" one for about £50. 
Secondly, would you happily free handle a venomoid puff adder knowing it has 2cm long fangs and will bite you at every opportunity and all you have is a paper certificate stating that the venom glands have been removed.
Obviously the answer to both questions is , NO. Therefore owning a venomoid snake is pointless and redundant.


----------



## snakekeeper

Can't find the post but someone wrote that they might, if ever considering DWA, go into European vipers and/or Heloderma suspectum. Well I keep a trio of Gila monsters and various vipera ammodytes and believe me, the horned-nose vipers are far from being slow and sluggish. A friend of mine was bitten by a young v.ammodytes not so long ago while herping in Thessaloniki and spent 14 days in hospital, of those, 7 were in intesive care, 3 of which he was in a coma. So I am not quite sure that all European vipers would be a good starter snake for a DWA collection. I certainly wouldn't say that they are slow or sluggish. I have one particular female v.ammodytes which darts out of her viv. as soon as she senses the doors open and believe me, hooks are just a warm up for her. As for gilas, I have to check behind every rock, under every log prior to cleaning out their viv and changing their water. Only once did I leave my guard down and almost got tagged by one pretty p:censor:d off gila. Slow? Perhaps in motion but when it comes to turning and tagging it seemed pretty fastish to me. 

My point is, never let your guard down no matter what venomous reptile you chose to keep. Most venomous reptiles are ambush creatures and they seem to tag many animals which are a lot quicker and agile than us clumsy humans. Just think, if they can tag a mouse or rat which are not exactly the slowest of creatures, they could easily tag us, especially if we are not alert. 

As to the venomoid issue, I am still sticking to my B vote. I haven't heard or read a single post which has convinced me otherwise. It is cruel and absolutely stupid. As someone pointed out, it can be compared to owning a pit-bull without its teeth, or even a macaw without its beak or claws. I mean what would be the point? Pure selfishness. If you can't handle, or are affraid of a pit-bull then buy yourself a Yorkshire terrier and the same goes for the macaw - if you don't feel confident or are affraid of owing a macaw then buy yourself a budgie.


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

It does not matter if the venomoid operation is back-yard or professional, the idea of creating this is is wrong. 
People that try to stand on the preverbal fence and say that they are not sure are afraid of public condemnation and are no better than the quack with a scalpel. 
Any keeper having a venomoid is ethically guilty by providing a market for this barbaric trade.


----------



## masticophis

So to sum up the last few items...

The process of freehandling a DWA snake is more stressful than hooking tubing ? Well if so then I would like to know if this is just DWA, or encompasses all species of snakes ? If it is only DWA why ? What is it that happens which part of the venomous apparatus causes that to happen ? 

Secondly, the process is cruel. Why because the animal may suffer a tiny bit (on the proper op), well I hope all you keepers out there at the very least don't keep any WC or LTC animals, as I dread to think of the cruelty they will have suffered being shipped over.

Again and again people don't seem to be able to grasp the most basic of concepts here. I think we are agreed that it is on the whole a pointless and morally/ethically wrong thing to do (on the whole as some of us say it MAY be right or at least less wrong to do in some cases).
But why all these claims of cruelty, I've now even been told that performing an op without anesthesia is the same as doing an op with it. REALLY ? Well you lot are bloody sick. There IS a difference, it may still be wrong but there is a world of difference, if people cannot grasp this amazing basic concept then really I do worry.

Mike


----------



## HABU

Blank Gun Store :: Fully Automatic Blank Firing Machine Guns :: ASI - MAX-UZI - Blank Firing Machine Gun


same thing...


----------



## Snakes Incorporated

Help put an end to this practice - Please sign this petition

Help put an end to this practice - Please sign this petition


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> The 90% figure was not an arbitratory figure plucked out of thin air, what we looked at was the number of DWAA species imported via Heathrow in a year and then how many animals Local Authorities had issued licensees for – their was a gaping hole! Obviously this was not an entirely accurate assessment, merely an indicator. As an example if I recall correctly something like 300 spectacle caiman had been imported, but only 10 or so DWA licenses issued! The 90% non-compliance didn’t just relate to venomous snakes, but all DWAA species in general, for example there are probably quite a few Buthidae scorpions kept unlicensed, again large numbers imported but virtually no licenses issued!
> 
> Fundamentally we can safely say there is a very significant issue with non-compliance, weather its 90% or 50% is irrelevant - it’s significant, that is all that matters. Therefore the questions are why? And what can we do to address this? These are the important issues!


Oh look this jem again Chris can you put up anything to back this up as it all sounds abit like b:censor:ks.
300 spec caimans imported and only 10 or so DWA's issued :lol2: I think my brother can have 110 on his licenses so that statement is total s:censor:


----------



## Chris Newman

I am not aware a DWA license has ever been issued for a 110 crocodilians in private hands!


----------



## salvatoruk

Chris Newman said:


> I am not aware a DWA license has ever been issued for a 110 crocodilians in private hands!


I have seen more than one PSL with this number or even unlimited on the schedule though...

I really struggle to believe in this figure of 90% if I am honest. Too often statistics are bent to favour the opinion of who has come up with it. For example as someone briefly mentioned on here in response to your point on the number of DWA listed species imported being too high to be spread amongst UK legal keepers how many of these WC fresh imports firstly are dead on arrival and secondly dead in the first month? A large percentage of them is the truth. In the past I have imported WC DWA listed species and out of them all I would say under 10% are still alive and in the UK. I know where they all went and a fair few died in the first couple of months and most the rest ended up in Europe. But if we were to use your method of calculation you would count all those I imported as being in the UK now, making you over 90% incorrect.

I can not see how we will ever even get close to knowing the truth of how many unlicensed keeper the UK has though.

Laurie


----------



## Chris Newman

Interesting, it’s not lawful for an LA to issue an unlimited DWAA Licence, the licence MUST state the number [and species] of animals kept – not proposed to be kept! 

The bottom-line to this is that we do not know how many unlicensed keepers there are and we never will. What we can say with some degree of certainty is that non-compliance with the Act is high. I am not certain why everyone is so hug up on the figure of 90%!


----------



## slippery42

Chris Newman said:


> Interesting, it’s not lawful for an LA to issue an unlimited DWAA Licence, the licence MUST state the number [and species] of animals kept – not proposed to be kept!
> 
> The bottom-line to this is that we do not know how many unlicensed keepers there are and we never will. What we can say with some degree of certainty is that non-compliance with the Act is high. I am not certain why everyone is so hug up on the figure of 90%!


Chris,

Surely a simpler way to put it would be to state the number of actual legal keepers there are and thus the number you feel are keeping DWA's illegally

Back to you.


----------



## Chris Newman

slippery42 said:


> Chris,
> 
> Surely a simpler way to put it would be to state the number of actual legal keepers there are and thus the number you feel are keeping DWA's illegally
> 
> Back to you.


Bizarre as it sounds we do not know how many, or even what species, are kept legally in private hands in the UK – there is no central register of DWA species kept! You would think this would be a starting point, however, the ‘powers that be’ disagree!! This is one [of many] reasons that I advocate the DWAA should be removed from the remit of Local Authorities and placed under the administration of central government.


----------



## slippery42

Chris Newman said:


> Bizarre as it sounds we do not know how many, or even what species, are kept legally in private hands in the UK – there is no central register of DWA species kept! You would think this would be a starting point, however, the ‘powers that be’ disagree!! This is one [of many] reasons that I advocate the DWAA should be removed from the remit of Local Authorities and placed under the administration of central government.


I'm not a legal expert but cant you request numbers of DWA licences issued by each LA?

Freedom of information etc?

Also if know one knows number of licences issued or species being kept doesnt that have a direct impact on the "guesstimated" 90% figures stated?


----------



## nitro

Maybe if you could search the public register this would be seen as a security risk to the keepers, as some idiots could and would abuse the system as I am sure most keepers prefer to keep what they own under there hat.

I think that must be the only reason why there isn't a public register of DWA licence holders. I have a licence issued by Walsall council, and I am on a public register for all to view online, fair enough it's not for DWA animals, but my information is still on there for all to view.


----------



## Chris Newman

slippery42 said:


> I'm not a legal expert but cant you request numbers of DWA licences issued by each LA?
> 
> Freedom of information etc?
> 
> Also if know one knows number of licences issued or species being kept doesnt that have a direct impact on the "guesstimated" 90% figures stated?


You are quite correct, this can and indeed has been done in the passed FOI [Freedom of Information Act requests]. Unfortunately passed enquires have not been conducted very well, wrong questions or no follow ups when the LA’s neglected to respond. In the New Year one of the more responsible broadsheets is doing just this and I am working with then to ‘hopefully’ do it just this and try and get some good data. Should be interesting!

I wish people wouldn’t get so hung-up on the figure of 90%, it is a gestimate nothing more, as you rightly say without know how many legitimate keepers there are it is impossible to know the number of illegitimate keepers. Historically there has been much speculation about the level of non-compliance and one of the FOI requests looked at the number of DWA licences issued and the number of DWA scheduled animals imported via Heathrow, the numbers were very surprising. 

Ultimately the issue is “is the DWAA working” – is it doing what it is suppose to be doing – protecting the public? Well since the introduction of the Act no member of the public has been killed or seriously injured by a DWAA scheduled species. But then again nether had there been such an incident in the 100 years prior to the ACT! Various ‘nutcase’ organisations, such as the RSPCA, have been advocating that the keeping of species should be banned altogether, or at the very least the requirements made more stringent. The counter to this argument is founded in the generally accepted argument of non-compliance. If people are ignoring the Act currently would making it tougher make any difference – answer no 

The flip side to this is if it is so widely ignored, but no serious injuries should the Act be repealed! My persona view, and this is entirely a personal view is no. I think the ‘intent’ of the DWAA is worthy, I would rather see the Act made workable.


----------



## slippery42

Chris Newman said:


> You are quite correct, this can and indeed has been done in the passed FOI [Freedom of Information Act requests]. Unfortunately passed enquires have not been conducted very well, wrong questions or no follow ups when the LA’s neglected to respond. In the New Year one of the more responsible broadsheets is doing just this and I am working with then to ‘hopefully’ do it just this and try and get some good data. Should be interesting!
> 
> I wish people wouldn’t get so hung-up on the figure of 90%, it is a gestimate nothing more, as you rightly say without know how many legitimate keepers there are it is impossible to know the number of illegitimate keepers. Historically there has been much speculation about the level of non-compliance and one of the FOI requests looked at the number of DWA licences issued and the number of DWA scheduled animals imported via Heathrow, the numbers were very surprising.
> 
> Ultimately the issue is “is the DWAA working” – is it doing what it is suppose to be doing – protecting the public? Well since the introduction of the Act no member of the public has been killed or seriously injured by a DWAA scheduled species. But then again nether had there been such an incident in the 100 years prior to the ACT! Various ‘nutcase’ organisations, such as the RSPCA, have been advocating that the keeping of species should be banned altogether, or at the very least the requirements made more stringent. The counter to this argument is founded in the generally accepted argument of non-compliance. If people are ignoring the Act currently would making it tougher make any difference – answer no
> 
> The flip side to this is if it is so widely ignored, but no serious injuries should the Act be repealed! My persona view, and this is entirely a personal view is no. I think the ‘intent’ of the DWAA is worthy, I would rather see the Act made workable.


Thanks for the update Chris, I'm sure many will be interested once info becomes clearer.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> I am not certain why everyone is so hug up on the figure of 90%!


Not sure why everyone is so hug up on 90% :devil: Why do you think? Your 90% is just crap and again you cant back it up why is it no one ever questions what you say when your the one thats given groups like the RSPCA the ammo buy saying your 90% as they will probably see this and say it must be right cos Chris Newman said so. 
My brother can I think have 110 crocodilians on his 2 PSL's so how can you posabaly say that what you said about the 300 that havent turned up on DWA's your satements just dont add up.
Post the findings on here so we can all see them. Scanned copys of the documents will do just so we can see them. Umm some how I dont think you will :devil:


----------



## Chris Newman

Jabba the mentor said:


> Not sure why everyone is so hug up on 90% :devil: Why do you think? Your 90% is just crap and again you cant back it up why is it no one ever questions what you say when your the one thats given groups like the RSPCA the ammo buy saying your 90% as they will probably see this and say it must be right cos Chris Newman said so.
> My brother can I think have 110 crocodilians on his 2 PSL's so how can you posabaly say that what you said about the 300 that havent turned up on DWA's your satements just dont add up.
> Post the findings on here so we can all see them. Scanned copys of the documents will do just so we can see them. Umm some how I dont think you will :devil:


Perhaps this will interest you:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WP01013_3997_FRP.pdf


----------



## Chris Newman

This might also be of help:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/em/ukdsiem_9780111480984_en.pdf


----------



## blood and guts

Wow feels like the old cview days, chris jabba remind you of any one??


----------



## Chris Newman

blood and guts said:


> Wow feels like the old cview days, chris jabba remind you of any one??


Could be....


----------



## terciopelo_dave

masticophis said:


> Thankyou for the reply.
> 
> The only disagreement, or sticking point for me here is...
> 
> If the procedure is carried out by a non licensed person in their backyard, like hoser for example. Then yes IMO is more than wrong and there are much higher risks. I know this practice does go on, though I think it is in a minority.
> 
> If the practice is carried out by a person who is a licensed vet, with all the appropriate are care then I think the risks will be drastically reduced.
> 
> I would be very, very surprised if anyone in this country carries out a venomoid operation, especially as they could order a snake form venomoid inc, who do use a licensed practitioner.
> 
> Whilst I am not saying that it should be done, I am concerned that people should view the two different methods as completely different, yes the outcome is the same but if you object to one then you should view the other as a separate item. I personally would have no problem having my appendix removed at the local hospital by a qualified surgeon at an NHS hospital but somehow I think I would stay well clear of someone who wanted to stick me in a freezer for a while, then tie me to a kitchen worktop then remove my appendix, without putting me under, then sew me back up and kick me out on the street. I think anyone here will agree that these two methods whilst maybe both being an appendix removal can not be lumped together and must be considered separate items.
> This is one of the reasons I try to get people to look into venomoids more, as over 90% of people view the two different ways of operating as one. They should be viewed as two separate methods and the decision should be made on separate evidence. I still don't expect people to agree that it must, or can morally be done, but I would like to see some of the knee jerk reactions dispelled.
> 
> Latest surgery involves making an small incision in the roof of the mouth, the gland is then removed and if wanted a silicone implant is cut to shape an inserted, recommended is to put either small meta plates or a transponder in as well, so it can be shown to have had the surgery done. The animal is put under with isoflurane anesthesia. Perioperative antibiotics are usually given with a broad spectrum antibiotic.follow up surgery is not needed. After surgery the snake is not fed for several weeks to help facilitate the healing process and minimize the chances of infection.
> 
> This is by a licensed specialist reptile vet in the US, the information came from a well known medicine and surgery book so not from some backyard butchers website.
> 
> Mike


Hi Mike,
I agree absolutely that if done properly then the risks can be lessened to such a degree that they are virtually non-existant, however I still see no need for it to be done. I can see no reason whatsoever for a snake to be made venomoid. If it is unsafe to have a venomous snake in a given environment, then don't have one. Don't opt for a "sterilized" version.
No-one would ever pre-empt appendicitis by removing a healthy appendix, so why pre-empt a bite with venom gland removal?
You could argue that the example I just cited is spurious and irrelevent, and I don't wish to fall out over it, but my point is that they are both unnecessary surgical procedures, and no matter how safe they may be, the crucial word is "unnecessary".
And to reiterate, no matter how small you make the risk, it doesn't go away entirely.
As Mark said earlier in the most overlooked, yet grossly obvious statement ever, if you don't want babies, don't keep pairs, if you don't want biting, don't keep hots. It really is that simple.
Dave


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> Perhaps this will interest you:
> http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WP01013_3997_FRP.pdf


Well this is from 2001 and you missed this bit out 

Also recorded was a total of 312 caimans imported under CITES permit in 1999 and 2000.
Although the number of caimans imported far exceeds the numbers licensed, we do not believe that
non-compliance with the DWAA is the reason for this. It is our opinion, and that of ARC and
reptile organisations, that caimans require specialised husbandry and care and it is extremely
unlikely that the majority of animals imported for the pet industry survive to reach adulthood.
Many may be re-exported to the EC.​

So the caiman bit you came out with is just a croc.​


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> This might also be of help:
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/em/ukdsiem_9780111480984_en.pdf


Will have to look through this later


----------



## Chris Newman

Jabba the mentor said:


> Well this is from 2001 and you missed this bit out
> 
> Also recorded was a total of 312 caimans imported under CITES permit in 1999 and 2000.
> Although the number of caimans imported far exceeds the numbers licensed, we do not believe that
> non-compliance with the DWAA is the reason for this. It is our opinion, and that of ARC and
> reptile organisations, that caimans require specialised husbandry and care and it is extremely
> unlikely that the majority of animals imported for the pet industry survive to reach adulthood.
> Many may be re-exported to the EC.​
> 
> So the caiman bit you came out with is just a croc.​


As you wish……


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> As you wish……


:lol2: Thats all you could come up with for that then


----------

