Quote:
Originally Posted by adder
Thanks to the previous poster for illegally using my video to substantiate the fact that venomoid snakes are in fact A/ Not mutilated and in excellent condition and B/ Unable to regenerate venom and C/ That our educational displays comply with the OH and S Act in our legal domain.
|
That's comical. That video shows little more than a worthless excuse for a father putting a young girl in harm's way just to further his own ends.
You've had the last 48 hours to view this thread as a "guest", and that's the best you could come up with? While my past few posts clearly substantiate several things, my list is a bit different than yours.
A)
Quote:
Definition of MUTILATE
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
|
The picture of your (
illegal) surgical hack-job, is the exact definition of what it is to "mutilate" something.
Quote:
|
In 2007 the Victoria state government amended the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 to ban the removal of venom glands from snakes unless performed for a therapeutic reason by a registered veterinarian
|
B)
It shows nothing more than those particular snakes ostensibly had their entire venom gland successfully removed, thus, apparently removing their capacity to generate more venom. Even an egotist with a god complex, such as yourself, is capable of botching a surgery for which you have no professional certification.
C)
I find myself wondering if your daughter is a licensed snake handler. I'm no expert in the intricacies of the law, but if she's not, I believe that puts you in violation of the following decision, as it happened in 2011. I think that the following court decision tells a much different story than your self-serving boasts, regarding just how "compliant" that the DSE found your display practices to be.
Sorry for the LOOOONG post.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Some noteworthy excerpts:
Quote:
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.
Mr Hoser is aggrieved that those conditions have been imposed. On 31 January 2008, he made a request to the Director, Department of Sustainability and Environment, for authorisation under s 28A of the Act for the following :
1 – Permission to hold more than one snake at a time of any taxa, when demonstrating provided that neither the handler nor the public is placed at undue risk.
2 – Permission to approach the public closer than three metres when demonstrating venomous species of snake, provided that neither handler or public is placed at undue risk.
3 – Permission to hand non-venomous reptiles to the public to be handled, including those that have been de-venomised permanently (venomoid) and are therefore also non-venomous and certified by a veterinary surgeon as same, provided that the handler or public is not placed at undue risk.
Clause 3 above also extended to include venomous species with venom intact to persons who 1/ Have signed an appropriate indemnity form, removing liability from ourselves and DSE, 2/ Are over the age of 16 years old and being taught specifically how to handle such snakes, either as a catcher, keeper or practitioner and 3/ Have been appropriately instructed prior to being given the said snakes, as per an application form filled for DSE as sought by them on a new form issued in July 2007 and filled in and filed on or about 31 January 2008.
Section 28A of the Wildlife Act permits the Secretary to give written authorisation to do any of a number of specified things, including to display wildlife if the Secretary is satisfied that the authorisation is necessary for specified purposes. The only sub-section of relevance in these proceedings is s 28A(1)(d) which states :
(d) for the purposes of the management, conservation, protection or control of wildlife or for the purposes of education about wildlife, research into wildlife or scientific or other study of wildlife; or
His request for authorisation was refused. So far as his application to conduct venomous snake handling courses is concerned, authorisation has been given under s 28A(1)(d) subject to conditions. By the end of the hearing only condition 4 was in dispute. It says :
Only those reptiles which are held under Commercial Wildlife (Wildlife Demonstrator) Licence No 12387349-DE may be used in snake-handling courses. Snakes which have been rendered non-venomous by surgery (‘venomoid snakes’) must not be used for snake-handling courses under any circumstances.
Section 86C of the Wildlife Act enables Mr Hoser to apply to this Tribunal for review of the decisions not to grant the authorisations he seeks.
On review, my powers are limited to deciding afresh his requests for authorisation. I have no jurisdiction to review or alter either the prescribed conditions referred to above or the imposition of conditions 12, 13 and 14 on the Commercial Wildlife licences.
My task is to decide on all the evidence and material put to me at the hearing whether I am satisfied that the authorisations Mr Hoser seeks are necessary for purposes set out in s 28A(1)(d).
|
Quote:
While the demonstration of snakes with their venom glands removed could potentially reduce safety risks for the Applicant, his assistants and members of the public attending his shows, the Delegate has concerns regarding the manner in which the glands were removed and the legality of the procedures detailed by the Applicant on his website ... Indeed, any authorisation to allow Mr Hoser to handle multiple venomous species of snakes that have been notionally rendered non-venomous through potentially illegal procedures or to allow members of the general public to approach, touch and handle these snakes could be construed as Departmental endorsement of this practice.
He goes on to refer to procedures Mr Hoser carried out on his venomoids and to the history of legislative amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act referred to earlier.
In Mr Waters’ opinion :
Given that the Applicant does not have formal training or qualifications in surgical or veterinarian procedures (ie tertiary level training) and is not a qualified or registered veterinarian, the Delegate cannot be assured that the operations successfully rendered his snakes non-venomous and completely safe. Also, the Delegate cannot be assured that the removed tissue will not regenerate .... This could potentially result in the animals either retaining or regaining their venomous capabilities, exposing the Applicant, his assistants or members of the public to the risks of venomous snake bite.
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.
|
Seems pretty clear that you've been in violation of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 - SECT 36