Something I learned as a small boy. Honesty only works if the rest of the world is honest. In a perfect world I would agree with you Wolfgang. I was one of the people that was bitten by Rhabdophis (and by luck did not get envenomated) so your point is not lost on me.

However, we are in a time when powerful groups (particularly in the USA) are looking for reasons to take away our right to keep reptiles. These people are not above using your information as ammunition to prove ALL SNAKES are dangerous,and should not be in private hands. The problem being, that most people (and politicitians too) lack the education and/or desire to properly interpret what the paper says. In this country a boy gets bitten by a common gartersnake and almost dies...It made national news back in the seventies. Somehow the fact the thousands upon thousands get bitten by the same species with no ill effects whatever was never reported.

There is no doubt that knowing which snakes are potentially harmful is important, but having read the paper you would need a strong background in Toxinology to be able to pick those from the rest. At that, many of the snakes with dangerously potent venom lack the ability to deliver sufficiant quantities to make them worthy of concern.

If you really wanted to accomplish your motive then I suggest that you go back and do the research as to which snakes actually do present a threat of serious envenomation, because as it stands now, people who have heard of that paper are asking me if a 8" ringneck is dangerous! I also have seen several comments injected refering to that paper (by it's authors) refering to 3 finger venoms but not qualifying on a case by case basis the actual danger potential of the species discussed (namely,whether it can even deliver that venom).

The arguement about only having been bitten twice... only applies to the rarest of species. I have been bitten (with minimal effect) by dozens of so called dangerous rearfangs repeadedly over the last thirty odd years. Makes me wonder when someone plays up their danger..

I do not favor repressing knowledge. But here is the flip side of the blessing. I am sure the people who did the first research on Atomic energy did not antisipate it's use as a weapon. Wisely, every effort has been made to suppress that knowledge. It is a question of motives. Gun powder was first used to make fireworks for amusement.

Scientists seek knowledge for the sake of learning and frequently it is coupled with the desire to improve man's lot. But knowledge has consequences and too frequently the scientist does not consider that issue. I do not say that it was wrong to write the paper...But the sad truth is that the publicity in this case IS doing more harm than good. And that is my point and the simple truth of it.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

[ Show Entire Thread ]