Venomoids, the right and the wrong.

[adder]

Reptile show party handler snake bite deaths

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

 

[Fangthane]

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/vic/VCAT/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.

 

[adder]

Correction of lies

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!

 

[Fangthane]

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.

 

[adder]

Go here

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?

 

[Fangthane]

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/s...T/2012/264.html?stem=0&synonyms=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".

 

[adder]

Again...

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!

 

[Fangthane]

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.

 

[adder]

Troll Dan = Idiot

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!

 

[Fangthane]

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.

 

[aliensnakeman]

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

 

[Fangthane]

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.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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?

 

[aliensnakeman]

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

 

[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!
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!

 

[Fangthane]

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.

 

[Snakehandler]

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/you-...eal-after-daughter-bitten-20130521-2jy2y.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/vic/consol_act/ohasa2004273/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........

 

[Snakehandler]

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.

 

[Snakehandler]

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!

 

[adder]

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!