Do you think its right to...

[kittyhazelton]

I understand on the last part. But I do think there should only be RARE and very special circumstances for doing it. If you legalise it everyone can then keep venomous snakes.

Why own one if you don't want to put up with the venom?

There are so many beautiful snakes out there that are alternatives.

That's like saying "why own a dog if you don't want to clean up poo" It's not even close in comparison as far as the risks and work involved.
I'm not advocating it per say, but I'm just saying that in MOST circumstances, the HAZARD of owning one and being prepared for the inevitable is often even far beyond the EXPERIENCED keepers reach. If you have thousands of dollars saved up to cover medical costs, and a very good life insurance policy that will cover you in such an event, then more power to yah.
But for even an experienced keeper that can be a stretch. I'm not trying to advocate venomoids being available to the average Joe, but for those who are otherwise capable of keeping said animal and providing for it in EVERY OTHER WAY?
Hell, if most of the more popularly kept venomous reptiles were only somewhat dangerous and didn't pose such a HUGE RISK of DEATH I would probably be more inclined to say "absolutely not!" as far as the orriginal question was concerned. It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter SAFETY in a possible life or death situation. And keeping such animals is not just a risk to the keeper, but to anyone around that person both financially, and litterally.

 

[Jessica Dring]

sorry but hots are not to be compared to cats but they are to dogs?
Dogs craps cannot kill you. Its just a bi product of feeding them. Comparing hots to that is more like saying 'why own a snake if you don't want to clean its poo'

Or look after it for that matter.

Irts unreasonable to compare dog poo and snake venom. Snake venom is what makes the snake what it is in the food chain, as a dog is with its teeth and hunting skills (well its ancestors;wolves).

Don't want a hot?
Don't buy a hot. Because its exactly that; a hot.

Don't want a dog 'cause of its teeth?
Don't buy a dog. Cause it's exactly that.

The 'poo' example goes for any animal. They all crap.

 

[Jessica Dring]

Another example is large constrictors and people wanting to stunt them.

Don't want a 18 foot constrictor, don't get it, cause thats what is it. If you really want it, but don't want the size, get the dwarf version. Don't stunt it.

Why alter what animals are for our pleasure?

People can handle extremely large constrictors 'safetly' to a degree, like experts can safetly (to a degree with all the right equipment AND money incase things DO go wrong) a hot.

 

[kittyhazelton]

Another example is large constrictors and people wanting to stunt them.

Don't want a 18 foot constrictor, don't get it, cause thats what is it. If you really want it, but don't want the size, get the dwarf version. Don't stunt it.

Why alter what animals are for our pleasure?

People can handle extremely large constrictors 'safetly' to a degree, like experts can safetly (to a degree with all the right equipment AND money incase things DO go wrong) a hot.

Maybe we should all just not keep any of them at all, because after all, we are altering their lifestyles to suit ours. Dog, cat, iguana, turtle, snake, whatever. A captive reptile is not free by any means at all. Sure we can provide care to keep it "confortable" in captivity. but nomatter what we do the animal is no longer "wild" under our care. Dog breeds were bred for certain traits that SUITE PEOPLE. Corn snakes are bred for colors THAT PEOPLE WANT. Birds are kept in cages so that PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT THEM. This ENTIRE forum wouldn't even exsist if people weren't controlling/keeping/breeding animals for HUMAN PLEASURE. Nomatter how you look at it, and nomatter how much care you think you are providing your "pet" we're all guilty of taking an animal and putting it in a COMPLETELY unnatural little glass box. So when you look at it, is devenoming a snake really that much more morally wrong than everything else we as humans are doing to this entire planet?

 

[loconorc]

Maybe we should all just not keep any of them at all, because after all, we are altering their lifestyles to suit ours. Dog, cat, iguana, turtle, snake, whatever. A captive reptile is not free by any means at all. Sure we can provide care to keep it "confortable" in captivity. but nomatter what we do the animal is no longer "wild" under our care. Dog breeds were bred for certain traits that SUITE PEOPLE. Corn snakes are bred for colors THAT PEOPLE WANT. Birds are kept in cages so that PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT THEM. This ENTIRE forum wouldn't even exsist if people weren't controlling/keeping/breeding animals for HUMAN PLEASURE. Nomatter how you look at it, and nomatter how much care you think you are providing your "pet" we're all guilty of taking an animal and putting it in a COMPLETELY unnatural little glass box. So when you look at it, is devenoming a snake really that much more morally wrong than everything else we as humans are doing to this entire planet?

There is a line that needs to be drawn, and personally I think devenoming is crossing it.

Does it matter if theyre in a cage? They really dont care, they get fed and cleaned up after, and a good portion of them get plenty of you know what.

A lot of people WANT to help the enviornment, but that does mean we shouldnt? Keeping and learning about animals can teach us about ourselves. I mean on a personal level and on a grand scale of human nature as well.

Breeding for corn snake colors doesnt hurt them. Devenoming does.

Not to mention no matter how animals or kept or what we do to them for better or worse, PETA will always be ready with a few pretty vegetarian celebrities to "help".

 

[Jessica Dring]

Yes. Because there is changing things slightly for human satisfaction..then their is taking it too far. Like you said, snakes are being bred so much for colour..why not just pick a snake that isn't venomous and has the same colour...


When we breed snakes to look a certain way, we aren't altering their ability to eat/kill properly like they would in nature.

Same as with dogs.

However there ARE breeds I PERSONALLY don't agree with. Bulldogs, english bull terries etc, as they have more differculty breathing. Thats were I draw the line. Your THEN altering what they could do in the wild, if they were there.


The argument of keeping them in glass boxes is one of its own. But a burmese python in a glass box with a rat/chicken or whatever...it can still kill and eat it.

Yes your right, we are taking theyre freedom. But there is taking it and then there is altering it from how they would be in the wild. If I'm right in thinking colour/moprhs don't have much to do with it. You find albino royals in the wild...

 

[kittyhazelton]

Yes. Because there is changing things slightly for human satisfaction..then their is taking it too far. Like you said, snakes are being bred so much for colour..why not just pick a snake that isn't venomous and has the same colour...


When we breed snakes to look a certain way, we aren't altering their ability to eat/kill properly like they would in nature.

Same as with dogs.

However there ARE breeds I PERSONALLY don't agree with. Bulldogs, english bull terries etc, as they have more differculty breathing. Thats were I draw the line. Your THEN altering what they could do in the wild, if they were there.


The argument of keeping them in glass boxes is one of its own. But a burmese python in a glass box with a rat/chicken or whatever...it can still kill and eat it.

Yes your right, we are taking theyre freedom. But there is taking it and then there is altering it from how they would be in the wild. If I'm right in thinking colour/moprhs don't have much to do with it. You find albino royals in the wild...

There are also certain traits and color morphs (not just in reptiles) that are produced by severe inbreeding (the white tiger fiasco comes to mind) which often has very ill effects on said animals. So yes, animals can still be harmed in those cases.
I suppose, in the end there is a LOT of grey matter surrounding the various aspects of pet keeping (ESPECIALLY in exotics) but I suppose we need to just do the best we can for our OWN animals and try to educate those who don't..... and hope that those who don't listen get eaten by their own pets.

 

[Jessica Dring]

I know. albino turtles are something I don't agree with because of blindness occuring (and albino tortoises) as tortoises need to see to eat. Thats taking it too far. Thats stopping the way they eat. Which is the same for hots. Not to mention its just their defense. Like taking a turtles shell away from the turtle really..

 

[kittyhazelton]

I know. albino turtles are something I don't agree with because of blindness occuring (and albino tortoises) as tortoises need to see to eat. Thats taking it too far. Thats stopping the way they eat. Which is the same for hots. Not to mention its just their defense. Like taking a turtles shell away from the turtle really..

Though, I would also suppose that if you're TECHNICALLY a truly responsible owner, you wouldn't be feeding your snake live anyway, thus the snake wouldn't necessarily NEED to have venom glands to hunt in a captive environment I've read that while it is speculated that the venom aids in digestion, there have been no observed difficulties in venomoids eating..... but I'm done with that argument.
If only there was a way to breed a trait in certain venomous snakes so that they either don't produce venom, or that the venom is milder and less deadly to humans. But that's a whole new subject all together.

 

[Ophiuchus]

Dear God, this thread really took off! Like 3 hrs ago, it was only 3 pages...now its 6! Not that I'm truly surprised; this issue always triggers lengthy debates.

Anyway, just to add my $.02...I really don't agree with venomoids at all. According to my research in the matter and reviewing a lot of Dr. Fry's material, to properly do this procedure, the venom glands (which produce the venom) have to be removed and the ducts (which carry the venom to the fangs) have to be surgically closed. Both of these must be done, and even then, according to Dr. Fry, some elapids will regenerate them back (so far, I dont think any vipers have regenerated them).

But even so, I dont agree with it, even for educational purposes, because it will give the false impression that these snakes are handleable.

Now, Dr. Fry mentions that many venomoids learn to dispatch live prey without any issues at all, so I don't think the argument that they are unable to catch food without venom is too solid. Nevertheless, the removal of their venom is at best, a temporary procedure, and any intelligent person would still treat them as hots, this negating the whole process void anyway.

On the whole, there's no legitimate reason for this to be done. The only reason people do it is for a quick and easy way to enlarge their ego. It's just like telling everyone that you're a black belt in karate...but you're really not. One day, a real black belt will challenege you...and then what are you gonna do?