Quote:
Originally Posted by adder
My own company operates in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, where under the OH and S Act it is illegal not to have venomoid snakes for displays.
|
This appears to be yet another delusion from Fantasy Island. The following excerpts are part of Hoser's failed crusade to legitimize his belief that voids should be treated as non-venomous:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/v...2008/2035.html
Quote:
Conditions of a Wildlife Demonstrator Licence
(1) It is a condition of a Wildlife Demonstrator Licence that the licence holder must –
(a) ...
(f) display wildlife in circumstances that minimise the chance of escape of any wildlife; and
(g) display wildlife in circumstances that minimise the risk of injury to any person; and
(h) not allow dangerous or venomous wildlife to be handled by persons other than the licence holder or a person who is the holder of a relevant Assistant’s Licence, without obtaining the prior written approval of the Secretary; and
(i) ensure that wildlife held in conjunction with this licence is under the direct supervision of the licence holder or a person who is the holder of a relevant Assistant’s Licence at all times while the wildlife is being demonstrated.
Under s 22(3)(b)(ii), such licences are subject to conditions issued by the Secretary. With effect from 30 June 2007, revised conditions applying to all Commercial Wildlife (Wildlife Demonstrator) Licences were issued. The licences are now subject to 22 conditions. Three of those are relevant for this proceeding. As I understand it, these three conditions are new conditions which came into effect from 30 June 2007.
Condition 12 - Venomous snakes (whether or not the individual specimen is capable of a venomous bite) must not under any circumstances be handled or touched by any person other than the holder of this licence or their licensed Assistant without the prior written approval of the Secretary.
Condition 13 - Possession and demonstration of wildlife under this licence must be conducted in a manner and proximity which minimises the risk of injury to any person. Where venomous snakes (elapids) are involved, the demonstration must not be conducted closer than 3m to the audience, except where the licence holder is working in a pit which ensures that members of the public cannot approach, touch or handle the snakes.
Condition 14 - Where venomous snakes (elapids) are involved, only one venomous snake must be demonstrated at a time and all other venomous snakes (elapids) not being demonstrated must be confined to secure enclosures constructed to prevent escape, injury to the public and access by unauthorised persons, except where the licence holder is working in a pit which ensures that members of the public cannot approach, touch or handle the snakes.
|
Notice that at no point is there any stated prohibition regarding venomous snakes which haven't been surgically butchered. In fact, they don't even make a distinction between the two. In their eyes, voids are the same as intact venomous, and are to be handled accordingly, during demonstrations.
Quote:
|
Contrary to the Applicant’s claims in his application, the Respondent has no record of any written documentation from any registered veterinary practitioner stating that the snakes which have had their venom glands removed are clearly safe, that the removed tissue will not regenerate under any circumstances and that there is no risk to the Applicant, his assistants or the general public associated with potential bites from his devenomised snakes. Accordingly, all snakes that the Applicant claims to be devenomised must be considered venomous or potentially venomous and therefore dangerous to the public
|
Quote:
In his oral evidence Mr Waters reiterated that he was concerned about people being taught how to handle venomous snakes, with ones that Mr Hoser says are not dangerous when what they need to learn is how to capture and manage ones in real life that are venomous and dangerous. He said people need to leave these courses with a sense of confidence about handling really dangerous snakes. He was concerned that if they were practising on ones that were not, they may gain a false sense of confidence.
In his opinion, it was not necessary for Mr Hoser to use his venomoids. Other courses are conducted using venomous snakes. Aside from those matters, he thought that if Mr Hoser were authorised to use his venomoids, it would send the wrong message given the recent amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act making it an offence to remove the venom gland. He was concerned about the perception, were he authorised, that his venomoids were endorsed by the Department, which they are not.
|
If anything, those speaking on behalf of the OH and S don't appear to be too keen on the idea of venomoids. Their only stipulations appear to be regarding their mandate that venomoids be
treated no differently than fully intact venomous snakes, thus applicable to the same regulations which govern the use of venomous snakes during demonstrations. Care to prove me wrong, Hoser? Let's see it. I'd love to see some proof that the laws were changed in the way that you're claiming.