Reptile Ethics, When do we say thats enough

Putting emotions aside and looking at the subject from a pure statistic view 90% of the animals that go under this " UNEEDED" surgery by Unqualified person DIE. That comes out to 10 out of 100 survive hence the high cost for a venomoid.

Now lets look at the safety issue. If the surgery is not done perfectly the animals can again become venomous and fully capable of delivering a fatal bite. I know of one animal that had the surgery done and after a check just off a gut instinct had yellow fluid show on a towel " venom " though it was not conclusive after having numerous mice and rats bitten by the animal they all died in realitively quick order "venom". Now as this was a Paupan Black snake and not by any meens a constrictor or viper with large fangs all i could say is " VENOMOUS".

Concider that animal being sold as a VENOMOID and the person recieving it deciding to play with it and it bit him. He / She would have been dead. This is the biggest problem with venomoids that they can become after time leathol again and kill.Imagine if the buyer had a kid and the kid was bitten and died. Public outcry to ban reptiles would be beyound belief. It would not just be venomous but all reptiles. If you think thats not true your kidding yourself. So now this has put the entire hobby at risk. Care to loose your corns , balls , boas , monitors, geckos???

Many people purchase these animals so they can show off and handle a normally deadly animal. This is a foolish move for the above reason I have handled venomoids myself and always kept a very warry eye on them and no longer do it period for the same reason as well as my belief the surgery is wrong in that no animal should be subject to a surgery with such high mortality rate.

Another reason is that they feel that if they train with a venomoid they will be ready to handle the real thing. This is so far from the truth it makes me laugh when i hear it. First off I have never seen a venomoid after surgery act like a true venomous. Also you will always have it in the back of your head that it is not deadly so you wont show it the proper respect needed. If you do want to keep hots or are thinking about it write on a yellow sticky note every time a snake bites you " today I could have died" at the end of a year see how many times you would have died and then ask yourself if its wourth it.

Many people think they also can not find a true venomous handler to properly train them so they get the voids to learn. I can get the same trainning out of a cornsnake or coachwhip. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A TRAINER WITH REAL VENOMOUS to teach you. Anyone that says they cant find someone is plain lazy and really isnt looking for one. This is a fact I lived in CA and kept native venomous from 1987 till 2000 when i moved to FL where I had to meet all of Florida's laws and regualtions to get a permit for keeping them here which I did. It took me time to find a venomous teacher here but I did it so no one has an excuse in my eyes not to.

Then we have the people who buy one for the same reason they buy a expensive car or get a big constrictor and that is to SHOW OFF. Showing off gets you killed.

Now lets suppose you do get one anyway and it does bite you depending on species you may not be able to get antivenom in time to save your life. This is because you or the hospitol does not carry the AV needed or may not know where to get some from. Also hospitol personal may not know how to treat such a bite. This occurs because a Venomoid keeper does not do near the research on the animal a venomous keeper would do. Nor do they research the proper AV and where to locate it.

As to the surgery and standards of the surgery. Medications are regulated, but more to the point there are federal laws that require proper steryol surgical enviroments as well as a host of other requirements including full medical records on the animals.These subjects would take hours to go in to.

Bottom line is this is a heated emotional debate especially among venomous keepers. But everyone should feel that if any operation to any animal has such a high mortality rate it should be outlawed. These surgeries are preformed at high cost of life to the animals involved and done purely for no other reason than selling the few that do survive at an eaxtremely high price.If you think that is incorrect the wholesale cost for say a Monacle Cobra " Naja kaouthia" in Bulk is about $65.00 per animal. The resale price of a venomoid is $400.00 to $500.00 the cost of surgery through an unqualified person useing substandard equiptment and medications is roughly $50.00 so now the animal is wourth $115.00 add in shipping of $65.00 and a box charge of $25.00 it all comes out to these people doing it ONLY AND SOULY FOR PROFITABLE GAINS. No care for the animals no reguards for the animals safety or well being.

Scott Bice

At the risk of gaining more points, i have nothing to say to that jarbled mess of a reply. I think an IQ test should be administered before handing out FL VR permits.
Jesse Smith

At the risk of gaining more points, i have nothing to say to that jarbled mess of a reply. I think an IQ test should be administered before handing out FL VR permits.
Jesse Smith

Jesse, I really have to ask here... are you illiterate or just outright stupid?

Scott, who is incidentally one of the finest herpetologists I know with an education and level of experience FAR greater than whatever paucity you can personally claim... MADE YOUR POINTS only he made them more clearly and in a manner that was far more appealing to the other hobbiests and professionals who frequent this site.

Understand Skippy? Scott thinks venomoids in general and venomoids created by unqualified people in particular are BAD

Yeesh.

Originally posted by colubridman88
At the risk of gaining more points, i have nothing to say to that jarbled mess of a reply. I think an IQ test should be administered before handing out FL VR permits.
Jesse Smith

You have a lot of audacity, you know that? Your unprovoked attacks are getting rather tiresome, Jesse. You've been warned twice, but you apparently aren't willing to abide by the rules of this site.

Now then, let's talk about garbled messes, shall we? The irony of you attacking a lucid reply is not lost on anyone. Your post which began this thread is anything but coherent? Were you drunk when you mashed it out on your keyboard? It's just a nonsensical bunch of words thrown together with no form or transition from concept to concept. Rather hypocritical of you to critique someone else's reply, especially considering that it was rather lucid and structured.

That being said, the unprovoked ad hominem stops now.

Jesse

You come off as someone who cares about this subject yet throws insults around I am curious to just how much research you have done on it or is it more of emotion?

I have been working on this for almost a full year of my life. I have contacted many people in the reptile trade bussiness to gain information and help and have had hundreds of doors closed in my face as people do not want to risk thier profit from selling these animals to the people who conduct the surgery.Yet for every door closed I persist and try to open a new one. Once in a while someone is willing to help so long as I keep what they say to myself and off the records.

I have contacted all 50 states and Federal goverment agencies that might have some information to aid and help me. Many of the people I have spoke with have no idea about the surgery and many more have had no clue about any laws related or governing reptiles and their rights under the law. Yet again I persisted and continued looking and found some that could help.

With no way to 100% verify the facts that I have gained in reguards to survival rates I still continue to persue this with many critics because I have no hard documented facts on the exact numbers.

These people who do the surgery are not vets and therefore do not keep the medical records a vet must by law keep.That makes it impossible to verify accurate numbers of fatalities and survival.

I understand that I fight a uphill battle everytime I pick up where I left off. All I can do is continue working to stop the surgery on legal grounds of medical ethics and cruelty laws.

I also must walk a fine line as to not stop hot herp keeping because of their inherent danger to the public as many officials see them. One thing I have been able to do is educate many people on Hot Herps and even changed a few opinions on allowing them to be kept with proper training and enclosures.This will only help all of us having officials see that they are not the deadly monsters that will get out and kill the public.

Try doing just a fraction of the research I have done on this subject. Then maybe your insults might make me laugh instead of snicker at you.

Scott Bice

I have contacted all 50 states and Federal goverment agencies that might have some information to aid and help me. Many of the people I have spoke with have no idea about the surgery and many more have had no clue about any laws related or governing reptiles and their rights under the law.

One of my points. No specific law(s) pertaining to this.

These people who do the surgery are not vets

Another of my points. It is pobably very common practice for this "surgery" to be performed by the onwer of the snake. Which would make it a "legal" thing to do until a court rules otherwise.

Ray and Jesse, I'm in agreement w/ you that venomoid surgery should not be done. I'm not in agreement that he has broken any specific law. That's all I'm saying. As to whether it should be illegal to do it yourself or not, I'm not sure yet. I think I could probably read a manual, learn the procedure, and then remove the gland myself IF I HAVE THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT, BOOKS, DRUGS, ETC. My point before was that maybe, he was given the ok to do this by his vet. If so, then there would be no problem. If not, then there would be. Seriously, how many vets do you think actually perform this procedure in vet school? 10% at most would be my guess. Most, probably do it for the first time when a client comes in and wants it done. Removing a gland that is that close to the surface is not major surgery. Treating the complications which COULD arrise might be. But, proper technique, and post-surgical antibiotics could keep those complications from happening.

Brian

Actually there are specific laws pertaining to this as I pointed out in the BOI thread pertaining to the medical conditions required. Unfortuantely many state officials and officers are not aware of them all. However they are there and do apply Below are a few of the exserps<sp> These are all Oregon laws where this particular thread has risen from.


TITLE 16. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 167. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, DECENCY AND ANIMALS

167.310. Definitions for ORS 167.310 to 167.350.
As used in ORS 167.310 to 167.350:

(1) "Animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish.

(2) "Good animal husbandry" includes, but is not limited to, the dehorning of cattle, the docking of horses, sheep or swine, and the castration or neutering of livestock, according to accepted practices of veterinary medicine or animal husbandry.

(3) "Livestock" has the meaning provided in ORS 609.010.

(4) "Pet or domestic animal" means any animal that is owned or possessed by a person, other than livestock or poultry.

(5) "Physical injury" has the meaning provided in ORS 161.015.

(6) "Possess" has the meaning provided in ORS 161.015.

(7) "Serious physical injury" has the meaning provided in ORS 161.015.

(8) As used in ORS 167.325 and 167.330, "Minimum care" means care sufficient to preserve the health and well-being of an animal and, except for emergencies or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the owner, includes, but is not limited to, the following requirements:

(a) Food of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal growth or maintenance of body weight.

(b) Open or adequate access to potable water in sufficient quantity to satisfy the animal's needs. Snow or ice is not an adequate water source.

(c) In the case of pet or domestic animals, access to a barn, dog house or other enclosed structure sufficient to protect the animal from wind, rain, snow or sun and which has adequate bedding to protect against cold and dampness.

(d) Veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent person to relieve distress from injury, neglect or disease.

(e) Pet or domestic animals shall not be confined to an area without adequate space for exercise necessary for the health of the animal or which does not allow access to a dry place for the animal to rest. The air temperature in a confinement area must be suitable for the animal involved. Confinement areas must be kept reasonably clean and free from excess waste or other contaminants which could affect the animal's health.


"""Please Note that it INCLUDED REPTILES.""""

It is interesting that Oregon where this particualr threads orgins are from states the following under. ORS161.015 PAY VERY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO # 7 & 8

161.015 General definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Dangerous weapon" means any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(2) "Deadly weapon" means any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(3) "Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(4) "Peace officer" means a sheriff, constable, marshal, municipal police officer, member of the Oregon State Police, investigator of the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice or investigator of a district attorney’s office and such other persons as may be designated by law.

(5) "Person" means a human being and, where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality.

(6) "Physical force" includes, but is not limited to, the use of an electrical stun gun, tear gas or mace.

(7) "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

(8) "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

(9) "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property.

(10) "Public place" means a place to which the general public has access and includes, but is not limited to, hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, and highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation. [1971 c.743 §3; 1973 c.139 §1; 1979 c.656 §3; 1991 c.67 §33; 1993 c.625 §4; 1995 c.651 §5]


""The surgery does disfigure the animals and certainly does impair a funtion of a bodily organ.""



""""As for just anyone doing a surgery upon an animal'"""

Chapter 686 — Veterinarians; Veterinary Technicians


2001 EDITION

GENERAL PROVISIONS

686.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Animal medical problem" means any wound, injury, disease, discomfort, abnormality, deformity or defect of an animal.

(2) "Board" means the Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board.

(3) "Veterinary college, or veterinary department of a university or college, of good standing and repute," means any veterinary college or department of a university or college, legally organized, which is approved and placed on the accredited list by the board, but in any event the accreditation requirements of the board shall be no more restrictive than the accreditation standards of the American Veterinary Medical Association. [Amended by 1967 c.334 §1; 1975 c.619 §1; 1987 c.651 §1]

686.020 License required to practice veterinary medicine; title and abbreviations usable by licensees. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, no person shall:

(1) Practice veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry, in this state unless the person holds a valid license issued by the Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board and the license is not expired, revoked or suspended at the time of practice.

(2) Affix or append any letters to the name of the person, indicating a degree in medicine, such as V.S., V.D., D.V.S., M.D.C., D.M.C., D.V.M., or use the word doctor, veterinary, veterinarian, professor, animal doctor, animal surgeon, or any abbreviation or combination thereof of similar import in connection with the name of the person, or any trade name with which the person is interested, in the conduct of any occupation or profession pertaining to the diagnosis or treatment of animal diseases or conditions mentioned in this chapter, unless such person is legally entitled to use such designation. [Amended by 1987 c.651 §2]

686.030 Acts constituting the practice of veterinary medicine. A person practices veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry when the person does any of the following in this state:

(1) Diagnoses, treats or prognosticates an animal medical problem.

(2) Prescribes or administers a drug, medicine or treatment for the prevention, cure, amelioration, correction or modification of an animal problem or for euthanasia.

(3) Induces anesthesia in an animal.

(4) Performs a surgical or dental operation or procedure upon an animal.

(5) Performs an embryo transfer or pregnancy, sterility or fertility evaluation.

(6) Gives an instruction or demonstration regarding the acts described in this section, except as an agent or employee of this state or of the federal government.

(7) Advertises or represents in any manner, publicly or privately, that the person is willing to do any of the acts described in this section. [Amended by 1987 c.651 §2a]


Brain you are correct most 1st year Biology students can preform this surgery as can a lay person. However at least in this instance we have law and presidance to say its wrong. Also if anyone does this without the proper training and equiptment and medications it is cruel and unusual.

Scott Bice

Scott, those laws do make more sense (the ones specifically pertaining to what constitutes veterinary medicine). In fact, I am guilty of pretending to be a vet according to those laws. In fact, I bet a bunch of us would be.

(1) Diagnoses, treats or prognosticates an animal medical problem.

How many of us have said, "Sounds like mouth-rot, or sounds like a URI." How many of us have further went on to treat an animal based on our assuption? Plenty.

2) Prescribes or administers a drug, medicine or treatment for the prevention, cure, amelioration, correction or modification of an animal problem or for euthanasia.

I have administed meds to my snakes. So am I guilty of a crime? Yes, the first time I went in to get the meds, a vet saw the animal and told me how to do it. But, I have done it hundreds of times since then, so am I in trouble? That's my point, IF (BIG IF) he is working w/ a vet, you is prescribing these drugs, he is no more guilty than I am or anyone who's given a shot to thier herp is of practicing veterinary medicine.

Brian

I am just as guilty as you or anyone else who has given our animals meds. However So long as the meds were prescribed by a vet then it falls under legal justification. The Key is prescribed by a vet.

Yes I know that us giving our animals meds by deffinition of the law is illegal but as It is not the spirit of the law it is not enforced.

The differance and distiguishing fact is we are attempting to provent undo pain and suffering and are acting in the animals best intrest. No court or DA wants to try a case where someone is trying with knowledge to save or aid an animal.

The people doing this surgery if qualified have nothing to fear however if they are not then they are preforming a surgery without a veterinary license and also preforming an surgery that does cause pain and sufferring to the animal unjustly.

The law does clearly see a differance between a responcible pet owner or animal handler doing what is in the best interest of the animals under their care. Further more the law clearly see's a differance in people preforming a" Surgery for profit " without proper licensing or medication or medical qualifications.

I have no problem with a qualified person doing this operation for legitimate reasons such as research or educational use. My problem is letting a person that has no qualifications or the proper facilities and treatments to do this surgery purely for profit and self gain.

Scott Bice

I have no problem with a qualified person doing this operation for legitimate reasons such as research or educational use. My problem is letting a person that has no qualifications or the proper facilities and treatments to do this surgery purely for profit and self gain.

That I can agree w/. But, let me ask you this, does said qualified person have to be a vet? At this point, I would have to say not necessarily. What's your opinion?