Venomoids, the right and the wrong.

Well I shall answer the above question,.
So far in 2013, there have been seven people killed from venomous snake bites in Australia, which is a jump on the yearly average we used to have of 1.5. Five of these killed by bites were snake handlers including two who did reptile shows, kids parties, school incursions and the like.
All were bitten by normal venomous snakes.
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.
As a result there have been no deaths here.
I hope this answers your question.
All the best

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

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.

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

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.

Well Dan, you are the one on fantasy island.
The judgment you quote from was overturned as incorrect on 8 June last year. It has been quashed!
I am sure you are well aware of this, but true to your dishonest form, you like to pretend otherwise.
You are at war with me and the first casualty of your war is the truth!
BTW That is why we remain in business and educating people about reptiles with accurate information.
Now in terms of what I said previously in the last post, I draw your attention to section 32 of the OH and S Act 2004 as well as the report on venomous snake shows by Worksafe Officer Phil Fisher dated March 2006 that made it clear that ONLY venomoid snakes were to be displayed in public.
Bye for now!

As per usual, your claims have no apparent basis in reality. The excerpts I posted are from 2008. It's clear, at that point, that there were no distinctions made between voids and intact venomous. As such, whatever you claim was said in 2004 or 2006, has zero relevance, even on the off chance that it does exist and happens to support the drivel you're currently spewing. The 2008 ruling would supersede that which came before it.

Now, back to the relevant topic: the 2008 ruling and your claims that it was overturned. Not surprisingly, I'm finding no records of this having happened. Surely, after such a monumental reversal of policy which worked in your favor, you'd be able to provide a link that backs up your claims. If such a thing actually happened, I'm sure that you'd have a huge printout blown up and framed. There'd have to be a public record of the law's revision, so let's see a link.

Oh, and you're in business simply because you're capitalizing on the public's ignorance and general love of buffoonish spectacle. You basically amount to clown shoes.

Dan, you obviously want to show everyone here you are the idiot at the party. The information you claim to be unable to find is in fact here http://www.snakebusters.com.au
As a question to you, surely you have better things to do than troll sites with lies and hate?

Still digging, but haven't found the revisions you're claiming. I did, however, find this ruling from last year, where your license suspensions were upheld:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...=0&query=hoser

Some interesting excerpts:

On credibility

Mr Mirtschin gave evidence for the Respondent at the 2008 Tribunal Hearing. The Applicant claimed that Mr Mirtschin subsequently retracted his evidence by e-mail to him. However, the Applicant did not produce the subject e-mail
The Applicant claimed that Dr Zelesco had tested his elapid snakes and certified them as de-venomised and safe. In his Witness Statement, Dr Zelesco states
I have never advised Mr Hoser in writing or verbally that his de venomised snakes are completely safe.
I have never advised Mr Hoser in writing or verbally that the removed venom gland tissue will not regenerate under any circumstances
I have never advised Mr Hoser in writing or verbally that there is no risk to Mr Hoser, his assistants or the general public (including children) associated with potential bites from the ‘devenomised’ snakes
I have never certified, signed off or approved Mr Hoser’s ‘devenomised’ snakes as safe.

Bearing false witness... Seems to be a bit of a pattern there. It'd appear that perjury comes naturally to Hoser:

(k) The Applicant made the following false or misleading statements in an e-mail to Mr Vincent dated 21 October 2011, concerning his elapid snakes:

That Snakebusters is the only legal venomous snake show in Victoria with all locally occurring deadly species and world's top five deadliest - guaranteed safe with vet certified and micro-chipped surgically de-venomised snakes.

...his venomous snake show is alone in Victoria in that it complies with s32 of the OH and S Act 2004.

I further note that the Applicant’s criminal history includes:
(a) a conviction in the County Court on 4 October 1995 for perjury, for which he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with two months suspended; and
(b) a conviction in the Supreme Court on 6 December 2001 for contempt of court for which he was fined $3000.

As of this ruling, they're still saying that it's an outright lie when you state: your "..venomous snake show is alone in Victoria in that it complies with s32 of the OH and S Act 2004." Interesting.

Revised Conditions to Wildlife Demonstrator Licences

The conditions attaching to all Wildlife Demonstrator Licences [including the Applicant’s] were revised with effect from 30 June 2007. Those revised conditions included the following:

Condition 11 states: Possession and demonstration of wildlife under this licence must be conducted in a manner and proximity which minimises the risk of wildlife escaping or being stolen, stressed or injured in any way.

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 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 any injury to any person. Where venomous snakes (elapids) are involved, the demonstration must not be conducted closer than 3 m to the audience, except where the licence holder is working in a pit which ensure that members of the public cannot approach, touch or handle the snakes.

Condition 14: where venomous snakes (elapids) are involved, only one venomous snake may 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.

As of 3/12, I'm still not seeing any prohibition on using intact venomous snakes for demonstrations. These appear to be the very same conditions that were in place back in 2008, the ones that you violated.

In her detailed Reasons, Deputy President Coghlan:
(a) noted that the Applicant had removed the glands himself; was not a veterinary surgeon or registered practitioner; and has no qualifications;[34]
(b) after viewing the DVD’s of his demonstrations, likened them to:

... a ‘side show’... ‘tricks’... ‘it is entertainment’...It is clearly not aimed at educating the public; but may be imparting some information in an entertaining way...

This Deputy gave a very apt description of your endeavors. Little more than public spectacle, which may incidentally happen pass on some measure of useful information.

There's nothing there to make me believe that they'd suddenly decide that your butchered snakes are to be considered "safe".

Troll Dan, you are too engrossed in your fantasy land to ever want to see the truth.
I am happy for you.
I wrote before:
"The judgment you quote from was overturned as incorrect on 8 June last year. "
You are quoting old and discredited stuff - give up!

Originally Posted by adder

You are quoting old and discredited stuff - give up!

So you say. Unfortunately, there's simply too much evidence that your word counts for less than nothing. Proof, or it didn't happen.

Troll Dan = Idiot

I am NOT the Supreme Court of Victoria! They made the judgment.
You can argue they got it wrong, but that does not make them me!

Bye now!

I'm sure that that must have made sense in your head, which is pretty sad. So....what we should take from your most recent response is that there is no proof to what you're saying, because it never really happened? Got it.