 | mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
| mobile - desktop |
|
|
|
News & Events:
|
| [ Login ] [ User Prefs ] [ Search Forums ] [ Back to Main Page ] [ Back to Snakes - General Forum ] |
Posted by: anuraanman at Mon Apr 13 11:22:14 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by anuraanman ] If the snake was not taken to a vet then I disagree with your decision to euthanize it. As was discussed in your previous thread below there are a few things that quite likely may have been happening with the snake and if feeding the snake more did not help then a vet almost certainly could have fixed it without major capitol input. While I do not personally feel it is appropriate to base care for an animal on whether or not a trip the vet will cost more than the animal is worth, in this case I think the vet bills would have been less than the cost to replace the snake. The bite marks would have cleared up after a couple sheds after the underlying cause was treated. | ||
>> Next Message: RE: did the snake ever see a vet? - HappyHillbilly, Tue Apr 14 01:24:43 2009 >> Next Message: vet wasnt an option because... - goregrind, Wed Apr 15 19:42:17 2009 | ||
<< Previous Message: cal king almost ate himself - goregrind, Sun Apr 12 16:10:53 2009 | ||
|
|
|
|