The Most Dangerous Snake in the USA? Rattlesnake Study Provides Clue

I know you guys (Frank and Greg) have said you are leaving this subject, so I don't mean to beat a dead horse;
I think the topic of venomous snakes being kept in the private sector is something that reptile keepers should keep as an open discussion. Whether we agree with each others opinions or not, I think that is what makes it such an interesting and lively topic for friendly debate. I encourage more people (hot keepers or not) to participate. I feel that there are a great number of perspectives to be learned and considered; overall, communication and cooperation is what will make the entire reptile community stronger in the long run.

On the subject of negativity being the focus: As I see it, the problem is really human nature; the media finds no excitement in things going right, they love the drama of disaster. There are entire TV series based on things going wrong. What I am saying is, people love to gossip.
Now if the teen bitten in NC been in his 30's and everything was being kept legally, would that have been as interesting a story to the media? Probably not, unless the bite victim died.

I really agree with both of your perspectives: Greg's being that most venomous keepers are very responsible and diligent with regards to safety, legality, etc; and Frank's being that the private keeper is not able to adequately prepare for the accidental bite and that there is no way to assure a bite will not occur.

My questions would be:
What is your perception of the laws restricting venomous snake ownership, say California (exotics restricted, natives not*) and Texas or Florida with lax restrictions on exotic hots; and would there even be a benefit to a complete ban? (Personally, I feel CA has the right idea in some ways, but feel a complete ban would hurt the reptile community in the long run).
Do you think there is any sort of criteria that could be created for the private sector that would make venomous ownership by private collectors acceptable? (personally, I feel a licensing program would be the way to go; kind of like earning a class A drivers license).
What sort of precautions would be necessary in the private sector? (this would probably be extensive and costly).
Why not just keep non-venomous? In other words, why would you want to keep something that can hurt, maim or kill you? (I feel there is a certain unique appeal to some venomous herps, and when properly housed and cared for with the right safety protocols they would be very rewarding as an observational specimen; this is why I would keep one anyway, I just do not at this point for various reasons).

*red diamond rattlers are protected; local restrictions vary

Originally Posted by j_dunlavy

I know you guys (Frank and Greg) have said you are leaving this subject, so I don't mean to beat a dead horse;
I think the topic of venomous snakes being kept in the private sector is something that reptile keepers should keep as an open discussion. Whether we agree with each others opinions or not, I think that is what makes it such an interesting and lively topic for friendly debate. I encourage more people (hot keepers or not) to participate. I feel that there are a great number of perspectives to be learned and considered; overall, communication and cooperation is what will make the entire reptile community stronger in the long run.

On the subject of negativity being the focus: As I see it, the problem is really human nature; the media finds no excitement in things going right, they love the drama of disaster. There are entire TV series based on things going wrong. What I am saying is, people love to gossip.
Now if the teen bitten in NC been in his 30's and everything was being kept legally, would that have been as interesting a story to the media? Probably not, unless the bite victim died.

I really agree with both of your perspectives: Greg's being that most venomous keepers are very responsible and diligent with regards to safety, legality, etc; and Frank's being that the private keeper is not able to adequately prepare for the accidental bite and that there is no way to assure a bite will not occur.

My questions would be:
What is your perception of the laws restricting venomous snake ownership, say California (exotics restricted, natives not*) and Texas or Florida with lax restrictions on exotic hots; and would there even be a benefit to a complete ban? (Personally, I feel CA has the right idea in some ways, but feel a complete ban would hurt the reptile community in the long run).
Do you think there is any sort of criteria that could be created for the private sector that would make venomous ownership by private collectors acceptable? (personally, I feel a licensing program would be the way to go; kind of like earning a class A drivers license).
What sort of precautions would be necessary in the private sector? (this would probably be extensive and costly).
Why not just keep non-venomous? In other words, why would you want to keep something that can hurt, maim or kill you? (I feel there is a certain unique appeal to some venomous herps, and when properly housed and cared for with the right safety protocols they would be very rewarding as an observational specimen; this is why I would keep one anyway, I just do not at this point for various reasons).

*red diamond rattlers are protected; local restrictions vary

Hi, Thanks... "that certain unique appeal" is what has caused most of the deaths and injuries that I've had the misfortune to attend...there are thousands of unstudied non venomous species in need of our attention. I cannot support licensing because, again, it's not a matter of training, care and so on - I do not have the time to go into specifics, unfortunately, but due to the nature of the antivenin supply industry and the steps that must be taken in the event of a bite, a private owner cannot arrange for proper treatment; it's not merely a question of finances (which in any event would rule out the vast majority of private owners)..it simply cannot be done in a home situation. Political beliefs re government regulation, beliefs in one';s own abilities etc. always arise in discussions of this nature, but they are of no concern to me, I just go by practical realities and facts, thanks, best, Frank

Originally Posted by zookeeperfrank

Hi, Thanks... "that certain unique appeal" is what has caused most of the deaths and injuries that I've had the misfortune to attend...there are thousands of unstudied non venomous species in need of our attention. I cannot support licensing because, again, it's not a matter of training, care and so on - I do not have the time to go into specifics, unfortunately, but due to the nature of the antivenin supply industry and the steps that must be taken in the event of a bite, a private owner cannot arrange for proper treatment; it's not merely a question of finances (which in any event would rule out the vast majority of private owners)..it simply cannot be done in a home situation. Political beliefs re government regulation, beliefs in one';s own abilities etc. always arise in discussions of this nature, but they are of no concern to me, I just go by practical realities and facts, thanks, best, Frank

Frank has presented some really excellent and highly informed points on the cons of keeping venomous snakes. The preparation for the moving of the black mamba in one of his articles (http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatre.../#.UyCR0IXmf3E) tells how much planning can be necessary for some bites. There is no way the private sector can be that prepared.

The issues surrounding treatment of the accidental bite (should one occur) is one of the reasons behind me sticking to harmless varieties; I hope to have kids and the safety of the people around me is a concern. The "certain appeal thing" is about the best reason I can come up with to keep them myself and it is not a good enough reason to take the risk with something deadly.

The fact of the matter is that even with prompt and proper treatment, most bites are devastating. The reality being that most medical facilities are not equipped to quickly treat the bite of an exotic hot like a death adder; this makes for a very grim reality for the person on the wrong end of the fang.

On the flip side, for the sake of argument, private captive breeding programs, if done properly, can support rare species that are not as widely represented in zoos and institutions. This is one reason I would support a licensing program.

Just for the record, I am not making an effort to change anybody's opinion about private sector venomous keeping, I am more interested in having an active discussion on the pros and cons of the subject. Any other reptile enthusiasts care to join?

Oh boy... where to start. I do not have time for this, yet at the same time I feel compelled to voice my opinion.

I disagree 100% and wholeheartedly in regards to Frank's statement that a private individual cannot have the capability to keep venomous safely. Or what to do in case of a bite.

Many people in the private sector are professionals. Professionally built buildings just for venomous, professional enclosures, professional tools, professional protocols. Permitted for exotics, they keep the proper antivenin on premises. Get invited to do talks, etc. at seminars and even to major universities that specialize in veterinary practice. Isn't this person capable? Of course he/she is.

Others in the private sector are also professionals... curators at zoos for example. That also keep venomous in their private residences. Again, perfectly capable.

Some zoos are private. I know a couple that specialize in venomous and they are world class and renowned as such. Would the people here be capable? Yes.

Some in the private sector are merely hobbyists. That use professional enclosures, tools, protocols. Here in Ca., hobbyists are only allowed to keep native crotalids (except for crotalus ruber, as of last year). The hospitals keep the antivenin which is the same for all the native crotes here.. If a hobbyist knows what he/she is doing, has all the proper equipment, training, protocols in effect then a bite should never happen. And if one was to happen, the protocol is the same as any professional would do. Capable.

Obviously there are a lot of people who shouldn't have venomous. But there are people who should not drive a vehicle, own a firearm, or even walk the streets freely. These are NOT the type of people I am talking about.

Everyone needs to know their limitations, as with anything in life. But to state that nobody in the private sector can safely and properly possess venomous is just plain untrue.

Regards,
Greg

Originally Posted by g.spencer

Oh boy... where to start. I do not have time for this, yet at the same time I feel compelled to voice my opinion.

I disagree 100% and wholeheartedly in regards to Frank's statement that a private individual cannot have the capability to keep venomous safely. Or what to do in case of a bite.

Many people in the private sector are professionals. Professionally built buildings just for venomous, professional enclosures, professional tools, professional protocols. Permitted for exotics, they keep the proper antivenin on premises. Get invited to do talks, etc. at seminars and even to major universities that specialize in veterinary practice. Isn't this person capable? Of course he/she is.

Others in the private sector are also professionals... curators at zoos for example. That also keep venomous in their private residences. Again, perfectly capable.

Some zoos are private. I know a couple that specialize in venomous and they are world class and renowned as such. Would the people here be capable? Yes.

Some in the private sector are merely hobbyists. That use professional enclosures, tools, protocols. Here in Ca., hobbyists are only allowed to keep native crotalids (except for crotalus ruber, as of last year). The hospitals keep the antivenin which is the same for all the native crotes here.. If a hobbyist knows what he/she is doing, has all the proper equipment, training, protocols in effect then a bite should never happen. And if one was to happen, the protocol is the same as any professional would do. Capable.

Obviously there are a lot of people who shouldn't have venomous. But there are people who should not drive a vehicle, own a firearm, or even walk the streets freely. These are NOT the type of people I am talking about.

Everyone needs to know their limitations, as with anything in life. But to state that nobody in the private sector can safely and properly possess venomous is just plain untrue.

Regards,
Greg

As mentioned, much, much more to it than having antivenin...even if available...zoos no longer allow treatment on site, as possibility of anaphylactic shock too high (allergies to horse serum very common; serum varies greatly by batch in it's ability to cause reactions), as well as the chance for innumerable other complications that neither I nor other non-medical professionals are aware of or can deal with; need trained people on site to begin first aid, transport to hospital (standard procedure in reputable zoos is to ring alarm and lie down in safe location), capture/kill snake if needed; need access to cutting edge research due to venom evolution concerns (this bears on comment that hosp. keep antivenin that is same for all natives); impossible to count on hosp. supplies in any event as as antivenin will be shipped to where needed when a bite occurs and may not be available at time; and so on...but, again as mentioned, I've been down this road many, many times over many many years, have heard all of the justifications raised thus far, and many more, and have no illusions re the possibility that my experience and education will do much to dissuade the average person intent on keeping venomous snakes; I'll try to send a link, if I can locate it, to another forum where I wrote at greater length (then threw up my hands in frustration!), but if the above is not sufficient then I don't feel there;'s much point in my going on further. best, Frank

I am very aware of more to it than having antivenin. It's all part of protocol. No need to ever kill/capture snake either. That info can easily be given. Again, part of protocol. Same thing with having a person there. Protocol. Here in Ca CroFab is what is used for all native Ca crotalids. No need to have an exotic antivenin shipped in. If the hospital is in need of more they can get it rather quickly from another hospital or zoo. And when a victim is in the ER getting treatment they are not going to "need access to cutting edge research due to venom evolution concerns". At that point it's just a matter if the treatment available is going to work. They cannot NOT work on the victim while they send off sample to the lab..... Which is why I fully support all the work scientists are doing with venom.. but that's another story. But not in conjunction with a person needing medical treatment on the spot.

Will it work? the antivenin on hand? Maybe, maybe not. But that has nothing to do with the snake being kept in the private sector. It has everything to do with the person who was bit and the individual animal. What if the person bit was in the field on a hike? Again, depends on the individual if he/she is allergic and also on the individual animal. Much more likely of a worse bite in the field though as it is far more likely that it will take a LOT longer to get medial treatment.

Why is it ok for the individual professionals to work with these animals at their respective places of employment but not at home? Are you just assuming they do not have the proper protocols, tools, enclosures, etc. in effect? It's absurd. I mean, wouldn't you have them in place if you were keeping them? Of course you would. And if you couldn't you wouldn't keep them. Well the same goes here. And for the people I know and have been talking about. If a police officer is off duty, is he still capable of possessing a firearm? Assuming he/she is not under the influence wouldn't it be safe to assume that yes, they are capable?

Frank, I am not looking for an argument, debate, or anything of that matter. I was just trying to point out some open-mindedness and facts and was truly thinking you would agree that yes, some people are capable of keeping them in the private sector. And if you still wish them not too that is completely fine. I understand your convictions. I always try and look at both sides, regardless of the issue.

Best,
Greg

Originally Posted by g.spencer

I am very aware of more to it than having antivenin. It's all part of protocol. No need to ever kill/capture snake either. That info can easily be given. Again, part of protocol. Same thing with having a person there. Protocol. Here in Ca CroFab is what is used for all native Ca crotalids. No need to have an exotic antivenin shipped in. If the hospital is in need of more they can get it rather quickly from another hospital or zoo. And when a victim is in the ER getting treatment they are not going to "need access to cutting edge research due to venom evolution concerns". At that point it's just a matter if the treatment available is going to work. They cannot NOT work on the victim while they send off sample to the lab..... Which is why I fully support all the work scientists are doing with venom.. but that's another story. But not in conjunction with a person needing medical treatment on the spot.

Will it work? the antivenin on hand? Maybe, maybe not. But that has nothing to do with the snake being kept in the private sector. It has everything to do with the person who was bit and the individual animal. What if the person bit was in the field on a hike? Again, depends on the individual if he/she is allergic and also on the individual animal. Much more likely of a worse bite in the field though as it is far more likely that it will take a LOT longer to get medial treatment.

Why is it ok for the individual professionals to work with these animals at their respective places of employment but not at home? Are you just assuming they do not have the proper protocols, tools, enclosures, etc. in effect? It's absurd. I mean, wouldn't you have them in place if you were keeping them? Of course you would. And if you couldn't you wouldn't keep them. Well the same goes here. And for the people I know and have been talking about. If a police officer is off duty, is he still capable of possessing a firearm? Assuming he/she is not under the influence wouldn't it be safe to assume that yes, they are capable?

Frank, I am not looking for an argument, debate, or anything of that matter. I was just trying to point out some open-mindedness and facts and was truly thinking you would agree that yes, some people are capable of keeping them in the private sector. And if you still wish them not too that is completely fine. I understand your convictions. I always try and look at both sides, regardless of the issue.

Best,
Greg

Please see earlier posts,..I'll try to send link mentioned if possible, good luck with all, frank

Greg does make some excellent points about people being capable of responsibly housing and maintaining venomous snakes in the private sector.
I also fully agree with Greg that not everybody who wants to keep venomous should be allowed to keep them.

I do still feel that there will always be a great risk, much of which is touched upon by Frank, regarding preparedness. I however, feel that even in a professional (non-private) setting there are similar risks, it just seems like more people are involved in the emergency response system, making it more efficient. Even in a zoo, if someone suffers a bad bite from a black mamba or tiger snake, there is a high risk of death. I feel that private keepers, if properly trained and equipped, should also be allowed to maintain venomous collections, as the risk is similar. If someone is fully aware of all aspects of the risk, then I think they should be able to get a license to keep them if they are properly equipped and have appropriate protocols in place.

The one thing I feel should be different is the licensing requirements. I feel that all venomous snakes should require a license to keep. The fact that (in most counties) native CA venomous (ruber aside) require no permit, yet copperheads require a state permit is kind of crazy. Essentially without a permit it would be legal to keep SoPac or Mojave rattlers but illegal to obtain a copperhead.

The bottom line is that keeping venomous snakes is dangerous and, if not done properly, can be fatal. 99% of venomous keepers fully understand this. I think the biggest issue is the sale of these snakes; how can a breeder be absolutely sure the buyer is qualified? It really comes down to looking at the buyers with a microscope just to keep the snakes out of the wrong hands, something that can prevent serious problems, even if it is a pain in the butt.

We don't all have to agree, but a constructive debate can often allow us to expand our understanding of each others perspective. I have a lot of respect for both of your perspectives.

Originally Posted by j_dunlavy

Greg does make some excellent points about people being capable of responsibly housing and maintaining venomous snakes in the private sector.
I also fully agree with Greg that not everybody who wants to keep venomous should be allowed to keep them.

I do still feel that there will always be a great risk, much of which is touched upon by Frank, regarding preparedness. I however, feel that even in a professional (non-private) setting there are similar risks, it just seems like more people are involved in the emergency response system, making it more efficient. Even in a zoo, if someone suffers a bad bite from a black mamba or tiger snake, there is a high risk of death. I feel that private keepers, if properly trained and equipped, should also be allowed to maintain venomous collections, as the risk is similar. If someone is fully aware of all aspects of the risk, then I think they should be able to get a license to keep them if they are properly equipped and have appropriate protocols in place.

The one thing I feel should be different is the licensing requirements. I feel that all venomous snakes should require a license to keep. The fact that (in most counties) native CA venomous (ruber aside) require no permit, yet copperheads require a state permit is kind of crazy. Essentially without a permit it would be legal to keep SoPac or Mojave rattlers but illegal to obtain a copperhead.

The bottom line is that keeping venomous snakes is dangerous and, if not done properly, can be fatal. 99% of venomous keepers fully understand this. I think the biggest issue is the sale of these snakes; how can a breeder be absolutely sure the buyer is qualified? It really comes down to looking at the buyers with a microscope just to keep the snakes out of the wrong hands, something that can prevent serious problems, even if it is a pain in the butt.

We don't all have to agree, but a constructive debate can often allow us to expand our understanding of each others perspective. I have a lot of respect for both of your perspectives.

Hello, please understand that what one believes or feels is not material here...facts, based on real research, by professionals involved in the field, in research, with appropriate education and experience, offer the only reasonable guidelines. Debate for debate's sake is fine if that is of interest to certain people, but opinions should not replace fact unless they are based on the considerations above. For example, the risks involved in private sector collections are in no way, shape or form similar to those in a professional zoological park collection. This has been documented for decades, worldwide. Private keepers who are seriously interested in researching this further would be well advised to subscribe to relevant professional journals, i.e. Toxicon, related Working Groups of the American Zoo Association, etc.

Originally Posted by zookeeperfrank

Hello, please understand that what one believes or feels is not material here...facts, based on real research, by professionals involved in the field, in research, with appropriate education and experience, offer the only reasonable guidelines.

While facts are facts, beliefs or feelings are very much relevant in whether and how much risk should be assumed by various parties that might come into contact with a venomous critter kept in an enclosure, professionally in a zoo/business or privately.

I have said before that those who are irresponsible represent a great risk to the public and especially to children who are naturally curious and tend to pick up critters who may have escaped inadequate housing. I do not believe the innocent and unaware should bear any risk from the actions irresponsible keepers.

How to arrange that is another can of worms, but that is what I believe.

On the other hand, those adults who are capable, who have professional grade enclosures and rooms set aside for housing would seem to risk only themselves.
People go skydiving and step out of perfectly good airplanes for fun. I think that is insanity (we are not talking military, we are talking for fun) and I would never do that in a zillion years but I am not prepared to tell an adult that they can't skydive because their parachute might not open.