Venomoids, the right and the wrong.

Just curious as to how many venomoids cause death or harm compared to venomous?

Considering that there are relatively few voids in circulation, I'd have to think that there hasn't been a whole lot in envenomations from snakes that received botched surgeries.
Here's a Youtube video where 2 out of 3 supposedly venomoid snakes actually produce venom. If you'd look around, I'm sure you'd find many more references of this happening.

Despite the self-serving nonsense that Hoser likes to spew, the surgery is obviously not foolproof. And when the surgery is done by a fool, I'd have to think that the odds of success are even slimmer.

Originally Posted by aliensnakeman

Just curious as to how many venomoids cause death or harm compared to venomous?

Would the answer really be germane to the topic? Not being a smart butt here but I really don't think so.

Given the fact of such a small portion of all venomous snakes have been voided to the whole population (captive or not), I think it may be safe to concede that venomous is your answer.

Of course for venomid to kill it was actually venomous anyway.

Regardless, I think the very strong opinions against venomoids isn't about removing all human risk and ease for the caretaker.

Which ever way you come down on this topic, it is a minor point to the opposing beliefs, IMO.

Talking about botched surgeries, regeneration, deaths from both are bullet points to the debate, not the main focus of those debating.

If today there was procedure that guaranteed if performed on all venomous snakes they were in fact rendered non-venomous for life and were easily identified, the objections would still be resounding for many.

Is it still right?

I would say to you whether its right would depend if one is pro or con.I can see from the responces that both sides are not likely to switch there beliefs.I totally agree about the botched surgeries and the dangers that lurk from them.Both sides have some good responces I don't collect/work with either venomous or venomoid so I was just curious as to how strongly others felt

Well for the benefit of Dan Troll, we were back in court today against our enemies and guess what? - We remain in business!
The court decided that to close us down would put the public at risk and the three judges were correct!
Our clients remain safe and none need to take the risk with illegal venomous snakes shows that risk serious bites with venomous snakes.
Dan, maybe time for some taxonomy lessons as well!
Lets see if you can identify the three species of highly venomous snakes that the girl is holding as well as the three on the magazine covers and guess which of the six is a species I have named at the species level and which of the six is of a genus I have named at the genus level and which of the six is oif a family I have named at the family level and the names for each.
By all means give me the closest (alternative) match if you don't wish to use "Hoser names".
Cheers!

Originally Posted by adder

Well for the benefit of Dan Troll, we were back in court today against our enemies and guess what? - We remain in business!
The court decided that to close us down would put the public at risk and the three judges were correct!

Can't help noticing that you're still dodging my request for verification of your claims; as well as continuing to shamelessly exploit a child.

So, as of 3/12, your license revocation was upheld, as well as the courts continuing to make no distinction between required handling protocol of voids and intact hots. Then - according to you - in 6/12 the courts magically overturn something that you've been flailing to fight for years, effectively doing a 180 degree turn. Now, you've supposedly just been in court, where they were again deciding whether or not to shut you down.

If you're the only demonstrator who's in compliance of OH and S regulations - regarding your counterintuitive contention that voids are suddenly the only legal venomous that can be displayed in front of the public, why would there be any need for you to appear in court? As usual, your story isn't holding any water.

Also, for your claims to be true, wouldn't there have had to be yet another amendment to the 2012 revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 - Section 3 (f), which states:

(f) the procedure of removing the venom sacs of a reptile, unless the procedure is done by a veterinary practitioner for the purpose of having a therapeutic effect on the reptile; or;

There doesn't seem to be anything "therapeutic" about an operation which only benefits the owner. Perhaps you could link me up with the newly revised version of the aforementioned Act? The one I just quoted, from 12/12, is the most recent I could find. You wanna shut me up? All you have to do is either provide verifiable evidence that supports your claims, or simply admit that you're lying. Either one would work for me.

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/you-d...521-2jy2y.html

So lets get it right....today you were given an adjournment so you get get a lawyer as your appeal would get thrown out! Not a reprieve, just extra time.

There is no section of the OHS act that endorses venomoid snakes, section 32 as you like to quote states:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v...04273/s32.html

Now where does it say anything about venomoids, so long as the demonstrator follows their permit conditions then they are within the rules.....technically placing an untaped crocodile on a persons head is a violation of the act though!

Now let me start your reply....troll Sean........

Can you provide the names of the people who were demonstrators of wildlife in Australia who have died in the last 12 months.....or even bitten please.....I would be very interested to know....it's shocking to have such incidents....please name and shame with references please.

No decisions have been overturned, you have appealed them and they are currently in the courts, you have a month to find a lawyer.....NOTHING overturned.....simply appeal after appeal after appeal.....that's not overturned.......if it has been please point us all to a website that is not one of yours to give us clear and concise evidence that your claims can be independently verified!

Troll Sean,
Firstly you are breaking the law illegally stalking me and posting rubbish and hate on the web.
Secondly you are unlawfully in breach of two separate undertakings you made in court to cease and desist.
Thirdly, you have been given the answers to the questions you posed above previously.
Fourthly your legal comments are incorrect and you would know this if you read your own licence conditions, although I note that you have published a claim yourself that you break the law and are immune from prosecution, which may in part explain your ignorance of the law.
Now please disappear!