Reptile & Amphibian Forums

A few wildlife departments have already started having kittens about this. I'd be interested in hearing what people think the fallout is going to be.

The article can be downloaded from the link below.

Cheers
BGF

------------------------------

Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
Department of Pharmacology
University of Melbourne
Parkville, Vic
3010 Australia
Phone 61 3 8344 7753
Fax 61 3 9348 2048

www.venomdoc.com
Snake venom article download link

There is little doubt that the carefully crafted media releases by Fry himself in relation to his latest (badly written) paper will create yet more headaches for private keepers of reptiles.
This will have no discernable impact on either WW or BGF both of whom are professioanlly employed at government institutions, but will serve to eliminate their "competition" who don't rely on government handouts.
Below I quote from Fry's media release and no doubt many keepers across the USA, and Europe will suffer the fallout from this in terms of tougher laws in years to come.
Remember to thank BGF and WW for their contribution to them.
Taking a look at BGF's media release at:
http://www.sciencenow.org.au/fresh/fry.htm
is enough to send shockwaves through the herp community.
Fry says:"My research now shows that the vast majority of the snakes commonly kept as pets are actually venomous."
and
"the discovery will cause shockwaves and a legislative storm in the United States and Europe."and
"However, this dark storm cloud over the pet trade actually has a silver lining – a new resource for biotechnology. The ratsnake venom is an excellent candidate for use as a laboratory tool or even as a scaffold for use in drug design and development."
End quotes - Oh well, it seems that snake keepers are in strife, but BGF will be certain to get his next hand out from the gov't.
Crappy laws - coming your way soon - click here for the Australian Experience!

I must admit I'd rather see tighter control on the potentially more dangerous species than see the backlash to the British hobby of some kids death from a 'harmless' snake. Over here the RSPCA want to ban the whole lot. I think this paper is a usefull tool. No paper = no legislation = risk of death = possibility that RSPCA gets what they want as no-one can say what snakes are safe or potentially dangerous. Paper = quantifiable risk = appropriate control = secure hobby as RSPCA have no ammunition for a total ban. Sure there are downsides to all this, in the future I may have to get a DWA license if I want to keep Coelognathus (or I may not, at least no one can say the snake was thought to be harmless now) but it's a small price to pay. But this is the UK and although our law makers can't be regarded as rational responsible geniuses, from what I can make out they're notably better than many of the redneck, anal retentive FCUKwits found a long swim west of here. It does seem that it's not always what you know but who you vote for. Alas there is very little that can be done about small minded holier than though legislators who as good ignorant Christians know that all snakes are the devil himself (well, not that doesn't carry 25-life anyway). On the whole though I don't think this paper is going to have any major negative repercussions that it is intrisically responsible for. It may be miss-represented, miss-used and miss-quoted but that's not its fault.

That's my thoughts anyway.

Cheers, Lee.