Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Before this rediculous pissing contest started, my intent was to find out how interested the private sector was to find some common ground with the feds on keeping venomous snakes. I am a curator at a major reptile zoo in South Dakota( my opinions are purely my own), and was contacted by the Federal Fish and Game to assist in an illegal venomous collection confiscation in Colorado of over 100 snakes, as well as several others in neighboring states. During this confiscation I spent several days with this Federal agent, who frankly is really pissed off at people keeping snakes illegally and immorally. After several days with him we came up with several good ideas for both sides of the coin, I wanted to test the water with you people on this. You people are far to defensive to hear anything other than your rights are being infringed upon. My point is all of the bites and "illegal" activity this year has really gotten the feds attention. If we all want this hobby to be here in 5 years something must be done! Access to av is a number 1 step. Florida has an av bank which is O.K. but not accessible to 49 other states (realistically) they fly serum all the way to Ohio, yet it is not needed because the zoo's in the area already supplied the serum and had much more on hand. My point is, why do zoo's have to be responsible for your mistakes? A gentleman bitten in Ohio ( or somewhere close) by his "pet" cobra required serum, the local zoo supplied the serum, their keeper was soon after bitten by a Suphan Cobra, had no more serum, so it was borrowed from another zoo, now they have no serum. See... because of one persons inablility to be prepared for a bite has put many more people at severe risk!! it's a dominoe effect! see...
So my point was to help you figure out a reasonable way to make everyone happy. No one is interested in helping themselves, so I am no longer interested in offering any help in your name, my ability to work with these wonderful animals is not at risk. Yours is! So drop the defensiveness and help everyone out. After all this crap in this thread from everyone, I am not sure how I will respond to the feds when they ask me " should private people keep venomous snakes"?
P.S Budman I have no respect and do not condone your behavior, however it is yours to be proud of, Please try some legitamate documented research in the future and actually accomplish something that may or may not be of future value to all.

Why do u have no respect for a man that can beat death? A man that is the king of survival, w/ ophidian protein. Since he's started, thousands have died, and he has the answers. Bite free is great, but u don't have the answer for survial, he does. If your here to help, how can the private person get AV? Please teach me Mr. curator, I'm just starting out in this hobby and could use your help. Please use your real name. Many thanks brother.TF

ahhh Tim Fried,
I wondered how long it was going to take for you to get involved...
I don't intend to get into it with you too,my last post was a good intentioned one, if anyone would seriously like some info on serum. I would be happy to help, you can email me privately if you want help or if you want to bit__ and moan. Obviously you are not capable of speaking with wisdom or truth since you try to tell me that you are new to the hobby.
If you want to piss and moan ( and this goes for all) please email me privately, as Frank mentioned "let's talk about snakes here"
Signed
Terry A. Phillip (see the conection Tim ...taphillip)

A "How To" pdf file with a little more specific info on the procedure for getting A/V (BB-ind acquisition, USDA permit, etc) has been posted at www.venomousreptiles.org in their file library. I put it together after learning the hard way the intricacies of obtaining A/V. It's really a painless process.

I agree, having it should be requirement number 1 for issuing permits for hots (along with attending a handling course for hots). Even though most kids learn how to handle firearms from their grandfathers before the age of 12, they still must pass Hunter safety to get a hunting license).

I've had many people tell me they had trouble getting their physicians to act as sponsors for the IND. While it may be a difficulty, that does tell me that if for some reason those keepers are not coming across as competent individuals to their own physicians, then maybe there's merit to why they shouldn't have hot snakes? Something to Ponder.

Matt Harris
Saugerties,NY

I'm not involved, just wanted your name. Best of luck

I'm not involved, just wanted your name. Best of luck

ahhh Tim Fried,
I wondered how long it was going to take for you to get involved...
I don't intend to get into it with you too,my last post was a good intentioned one, if anyone would seriously like some info on serum. I would be happy to help, you can email me privately if you want help or if you want to bit__ and moan. Obviously you are not capable of speaking with wisdom or truth since you try to tell me that you are new to the hobby.
If you want to piss and moan ( and this goes for all) please email me privately, as Frank mentioned "let's talk about snakes here"
Signed
Terry A. Phillip (see the conection Tim ...taphillip)

Have taken the time to print your post for review. I think we're in agreement in some cases but there is a little meat I'd like to pick from the bones. Spousal unit advises a 24 hour moritorium, and I feel that to be wise. I don't want to get in a urination contest with anybody on this forum. You all have unique and diverse levels of experience. I can and do learn from all of you.

I'll cogitate and reread your post and reply in a day or so. Stay tuned.

Regards,
Jeff Nichols

you have to be joking once a friend had sex with his python with telling his sidwinder baha ha ha
hoser plays the {PAN } flute also . get it
Good day
bud

You really need to translate for some of us that aren't "on the sauce". Seriously.
Kevin

here is a better one are you a a immoral redneck if you sleep with a python but dont tell your sidwinder about the affair?
immoral?
explain immoral snakes

N/p

Since I don't normally follow the "pissing contests" on here, I haven't read the replies to your message (and probably won't), but I did just go back and reread YOUR message, and maybe you should do the same. If you didn't mean it the way it sounds, I can understand that, it happens, but when a large part of your first post on this board is dedicated to insulting the people here, I'm not sure what you expected, and I don't think you have any right to be indignant about people laying into you for it. Your post sounds much more like an attempt to stir up flames than a legitamate question or suggestion. Maybe you should start over.
-----
Larry D. Fishel
Side effects may include paralysis
and death but are generally mild.

I think you will find that we both mentioned some very good points to this whole discussion. They are at the very bottom of the thread, so feel free to read them and respond, I would be very interested in what your comments or opinions would be.
Thanks
Kevin

It sounds like some B rated movie The FEDS called you to help out steal[confiscate]someones snakes so this makes you a great athority? code name snake 2.0 lol
And due to the fact you are the only person to give a opinion on this is almost as comical as the Iraqi information minister.
I saw a james bond movie does this help?
so just what do you call a imorally owned snake?
when did morals come into the picture?
and when did you make it or them illegal
you sound like fingerless jim H still mad about the tounge
lashing he got
go away we dont need help like yours anybody can get av so take the pie hole and go to the mouse fourm.

That is what I am wondering. Why did they take the snakes? Was there neglect involved? Or did this fellow just happen to have them int he wrong state? I think these laws are a bunch of crap. I live in Oregon and I know that their laws are a bunch of crap, you can have a redneck spitter, but no black necks(if I remember correctly), you can have rhinos or gabbies, but no puffs? That makes about as much sense as gilas being protected federally when they are one of the most abundant creatures their extremely large range. I wonder about the working with the feds thing, sounds a little shady to me.
just my opinion,
Kevin

Personally I am allways against added legislation....But the thought hit me...If you couldn't make something illegal outright, wouldn't it be the next best thing to make the requirements so difficult that it accomplishes much the same purpose?
Frank

The term "redneck" spitter is a misnomer most often coined by importers to refer to Naja nigricollis (maybe they think it sounds more expensive than the somewhat cheaper blacknecks?), the same species that the name blackneck spitter applies to (this is why common names are bad). There are a couple different subspecies of N. nigricollis, but the nominal species is general uniformly black as an adult with some red coloration on the throat. Naja mossambica is fairly closely related to nigricollis, however overall smaller. So, if you are referring to mossambica as a "redneck" spitter then the law might make sense because I suppose they could be considered somewhat safer. However, no mossambica I've ever seen has ever exhibited any red coloration on its neck. The one I currently have is an adult male and looks exactly like a blackneck but for his dark brown body coloration instead of black and cream-colored throat instead of red. So anyway, I guess all getting down to is the point that if your state does not allow what most people refer to when they say blackneck but does allow what most people refer to when they say redneck, then they don't allow nigricollis but they do allow nigricollis... Confusing? I thought so too. But then again no one ever said laws have to make sense. Just out of curiosity, in their laws if they get so specific as to list species then please reply to this post with the Latin names of the animals they are referring to. Thanks.
-Chance

what species were mentioned on that topic, I only remember that it was somewhere along those lines. The laws in Oregon really have no method to their madness. You can't keep alot of aquatic turtles, but for example, a chicken turtle is perfectly legal. How about the bitis, you can keep rhinos and gabbies, but not puffs??? Even wagleri are on the list of prohibited species. Try and explain that? it doesn't make sense from a danger standpoint, neither does it makes sense from any other standpoint. As far as people working with the officials, just ask someone who lives in Multnomah county in Oregon. They found themselves being turned into criminals overnight, not for only venomous, but a large list of other snakes,turtles,and lizards. Then take a guess at what type of individual helped draft the law in that county. IT WAS A BREEDER AND WHOLESALER OF REPTILES THAT LIVED OUTSIDE THE COUNTY WHOSE BUSINESS FELT NO AFFECT FROM THE LAW PASSED. Explain that, I would love for someone to say that this guy was anything but a greedy scumbag when he helped draft that law. Now guess who gets the animals when the fish and game takes them most of the time? And guess who is free to sell all of the species on the list? Hmmm, what is that situation really all about???
Kevin

When feds take animals and place them, there are restrictions to what you can do with them, selling them certainly is not on the list! you do have to care for them out of your own budget though.

the selling part was not referring to the animals confiscated, it was referred to the animals banned on the list that he helped draft. I was simply giving this as a testament to his character.
Kevin

Hello people....knock knock anyone home...anyone at all.
Working with the feds?? Yes I do, when I am contacted to house feed and care for all of the animals in this area, which just so happens to be 5 state region that are kept illegally by private people that don't have the sense to obey the laws whether you like them or not...they are still the laws! Period. What would you have me do say no. They would have destroyed every animal as it sat in the cage, probably with a shotgun. This gentleman that had them, by the looks of his animals was well qualified to have them, he was just not smart enough to do it in a state where it is legal. In CO. You must have a permit to have venomous animals and they flat just don't issue the permits. I think 3 places have these permits period. Why would you have a collection that probably valued at 35 thousand dollars in a state where they become confiscated therefore Federal property. Stupid.. Don't think I am shady, I do things by the letter of the law so I don't have to worry about any of it. makes sense huh! It is you fools that think the laws are there to annoy you, I don't like a lot of the laws in this country regarding these animals either, but until you people start behaving like responsible adults with your hobby. The feds will keep taking them and I have to house the damn things forever, I don't want this crap, I already have the species I want, I don't need 15 more cobras or C. atrox or mambas
I do it because it is my responsibility, my obligation. Quit fighting every frickin thing and start doing something about it..
Act like a group of adults intelligent ones, just because you own a pet cobra doesn't mean you are qualified open your mouth and accuse me of anything.
As far as I am concerned we'll see you at the admission gate to our local zoo's when you no longer are able to own these animals.
End of postings end of conversation grow up and help yourselves. It's sickening to think you people represent this hobby and profession! Good luck.

Sounds like you are in a very Backward state. It is not fair that you get dumped on because of your local fools.....Perhaps if you moved to Florida it might improve your outlook. Things are not perfect, but they are obviously not as insane as where you are.
It is not fair to call us(as some of us are) in Florida fools (inspite of the more colorful rhetoric...of some of our individuals) just because we don't share your viewpoint. We are not a bunch of wildass kids and dumb rednecks. We try to maintain an intelligent communication with our legal authorities that works most of the time.
Instead of condemning us for being stupid...Maybe you ought to come down here and see first hand how we see it before shooting off wild statements....Which in an Email to you I said would do no good. I told you people who are attacked fight back...What do you expect?????
Frank

I don't live in CO. I am just the closest zoo that is willing to work with the types of snakes people are keeping nowadays.
I didn't attack anyone, All I did was point to the obvious, Be prepared, which for all but a "chosen few" is the realistic treatment, anti-allergins and anti-venom and offer some possiblities for change. People don't like the laws but all they do is stand and bit-- about them and then hide from them, instead of offering up an alternative to illegalizing the hobby. More and More states are leaning towards this, I offer up the possibilty to improve. And all I heard was......"serum is too expensive, it's too hard to get" quit the whining and at least look at it for what it was...a possibility....not an attack.
This whole thing is rediculous, We'll just wait and see what laws come up next!!!
Don't think Florida is exempt either....

I have tried to impress upon you the need to watch your language when dealing with issues like this. Suggesting anti-V is not an attack. Making profound statements and calling people names IS...(and yes I know you were'nt the only one)...It makes people real defensive to the point they fight back rather than listen...Even Budman suggested the wisdom of Anti-V availability (when we all thought the arguement was over). People tend to listen to common sense when it isn't prefaced by an insult (your very first post was inflammatory).
We do not have our heads in the sand in Florida. We have an active Leauge of Herpetolgical societies here that communicate and try to face our probs with a united front. If you want educated minds...The Gainsville society has some of the top herp minds in the country. Mayhaps you should visit.
I just think for reasons listed above that adding an anti-V requirement for possesion of venomous...opens the door to further abuse by the authorities. And is not a realistic solution to the problem as it will make anyone who cannot afford to buy it, have to give up their snakes or become illegal. Even at the prices you quote that is a hard pill to swallow and the FDA is allready trying to jump on Non-American medications. There has also been controversy about anti-V from outside the US. (My wife is a Toxinologist and corresponds with some of the top in that field...so the source is pretty reliable). It's not as simple as you are trying to make it...But you are making a bad mistake when you think no one is listening.
Frank

Frank,
I am really not specifically addressing Florida, they already have at least a system to keep people alive..
I'm talking about the other 40 some states that have no regulation. Not every state is going to supply serum for it's keepers. Why should they. the zoo's will do it? right?
Just out of curiosity, what happens in Florida when someone who is legal with permits etc. uses some AV from the AV bank but never pays the hospital bill or for the use of the serum? non-herper taxpayers pay for it.....a bad King cobra bite can cost hundereds of thousands of dollars. Ask Van Horne..
So basically we are back to not being responsible for ones own actions. I'm not saying my post is all that pleasant to hear. But it is the most realistic....maybe everyone should pay 250.00 per year to have access to the AV bank there as part of the permit system. Is 250.00 out of everyones means? then how do you pay for snakefood? If everyone paid 250.00 x 1000 hot keepers, at least it would pay for itself?
Just an afterthought.

They just jacked up the price for V permits to $100. a 2,000% increase. Where do you think that money went?...not to what you might think. We can't even keep our lottery money (supposed to be for schools) in the right place. (see even Fla has probs). Drunk drivers kill thousands...But they don't ban alcohol. Who pays the bills on that? The idea of a venom bank is a good one. legislating new regulations is not. As far as the rest of the country goes...I've been to Hell (Georgia).
Frank

Ahhh but are we drunkards??? some of us maybe.. sometimes. I have been know to spill a few on my shirt.
Look at the oposition against drunkdriving... the biggest problem there is that the opposition can not convince a drunk person that driving while drunk is a bad idea. Do we want everyone out there thinking that we as sober, intelligent individuals can not see that venomous snakes need to have some safeguards against the worst? or people who don't have car insurance etc etc etc. Why should the normal person be responsible for yet another irresponsible group of individuals?
Yes the AV bank is a good Idea, but the people that use it are still not being responsible for their own actions. So it needs to be fine tooned yes, I'm glad you are addressing some of those problems. We don't live in a perfect world so there is no perfect solution. but we must try!!!!

Agreed we do need to try...But to back up a little. There is no ban on alcohol because the state makes big money on liquor revenues. Anything that costs the state (and us) money is Relevant. I don't drink..yet my taxes and car insurance pays for those who do. I don't smoke yet the same holds true. That is why I do not think your point about snake bites costing the state money is valid. Personal responsibility sounds noble...So if I am to pay for your drink...You should contribute to my antienom. That is fair. Frank

>> Just out of curiosity, what happens in Florida when someone who is legal with permits etc. uses some AV from the AV bank but never pays the hospital bill or for the use of the serum? non-herper taxpayers pay for it.....

Usually the same thing as when a parachutist or skateboarder racks up a huge bill and can't pay. The tax payers eat it but parachutes and skateboards don't scare people who aren't on them, so noone cares.

>>A bad King cobra bite can cost hundereds of thousands of dollars. Ask Van Horne..

That's because doctors and trial lawyers have more political clout than we do, not because a respirator actually costs anything to run...

>>maybe everyone should pay 250.00 per year to have access to the AV bank there as part of the permit system. Is 250.00 out of everyones means? then how do you pay for snakefood? If everyone paid 250.00 x 1000 hot keepers, at least it would pay for itself?

Yes, this is a great idea as opposed to your other idea of each keeper buying $10,000 worth of antivenom every few years. This is how the South Florida antivenom bank started out, but guess what? Non-members (including non-herpers) took most of the bites, and the bank couldn't very well withold antivenom from a non-member who was going to die without it, so poof, there goes all the money and all the reason to become a member. Personally I would gladly pay $250 a year to have access to AV but this could only be done by the state. What we get from the state instead is huge increases in our permit fees for NO increase in service.
-----
Larry D. Fishel
Side effects may include paralysis
and death but are generally mild.

Both of you Zoo types side stepped my earlier post. You complain about the state having to pay for a snake bit person who can't pay their hospital bill (insurance is not likely to cover it). Drunk Drivers cause millions in damage and kill or maim thousands. Who pays their bills? Who's insurance bill gets increased? Non Drinking folk like me! You can go down a long list of things people do that put them in harms way and we the tax payer fill in the gap. Your comments about the UNFAIRNESS of the public footing the bill for snake bite is prejudicial at the least. I agree with the concept of a venom bank...and the state should use the 2,000% increase we just got in Florida towards it. Or...to be fair...Maybe you who drink should pay me back what I spend because of you. Also by the way...Is your job tax aupported? I know that Zoos are on the bottom for state funds (an unfair situation)...and isn't the real reason your [bleep]ing is that your limited resources are being tapped by this instead of the state raising the resources elsewhere? Something to think about.....Frank

sorry Frank, but I work for a privately owned for profit institution, so get off that soap box.
Where did all of your past "reasonable" statements go?

I missed that part about "privatly owned"......This is all about money coming out of your tourist attraction (your salary?). At the bottom of this is Personal Profit...Not Personal responsibility. That explains your passionate protests...Frank

"Allow me to show you how to cross the river..." the crocodile said. "I know the best way for all..."

Frank,
These are the posts I am talking about, We have dealt with confiscations for decades, I am not a stock holder, I don't share the profit I don't care about any of that. I would have liked to see the guy live in a state where it was legal, he had the best cared for animals and the most incredible setup, it was a shame. I do have to work late 2 or 3 times per week to clean 100 more animals but that takes me 2 or 3 hours more, so that is the only personal connection I have to it. Please don't resort to a pissing contest, I don't have the energy for another one. Read the post's as they are written, there are no hidden messages, no hidden agenda's. Relax,

>>Both of you Zoo types side stepped my earlier post.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood my post, replied to the wrong post, think I'm someone else or all of the above...
-----
Larry D. Fishel
Side effects may include paralysis
and death but are generally mild.

That was aimed at taphillip. read my next couple and you will see how I tried to be helpful when this guy chose to make Dramatic accusations instead of trying to express himself reasonably and politely...I even corresponded by Email with him about how to better make his point. .. I am not totaly down on him for what he is saying...I agree with part of it...But I think when I post a reasonable question I deserve a polite reasonable answer.
Frank

In a perfect world, everybody would be responsible for the financial consequences of their own screwups. We don't live in a perfect world, but we (the venomous keeping community) can at least try to set a good example of responsible behavior.

Yes, there are many people who are irresponsible. Some of them drive drunk and cost other people money or even their lives. Some of them handle illegally kept snakes while they are drinking. We don't want to act like these irresponsible people. We want to be ethical and responsible, and that does mean keeping our own antivenom, maintaining proper permits and using professional quality secure housing and safety protocol with our animals.

No, it ain't fair that people can be idiots with horses and dogs and cause 100X more injury and accident than snakes ever do, yet these animals are not in danger of being banned or more strictly regulated. We don't live in a fair world. We live in the real world, and we need to demonstrate that we are *more* professional and responsible than the average pet owner. It might not be fair that we are being held to much higher standards of responsibility than horse or dog owners, but I hope we can set a good example by rising to the challenge and improving our standards of safety and professionalism.

At least you made a good stab at it. The bottomline is those animals won't be banned because 1) The state makes Big money off them (licenses, gambling...shows etc.... 2)they have a large enough following No politician would stick his neck out to propose such a law. 3)It is easier to get people worked up against reptiles. sad commentary, when political correctness will not allow us to do anything about the most destructive (enviromentaly) force we have in FLA.
Frank

I will repeat something I said earlier....If you can't make something illegal...You can accomplish the same thing by making it too expensive. Follow the logic and you will see that is how the question I have posted came to be.
Any time a Tax/fee is set in place by the government...It becomes inevitable that it will increase as the state tries to raise funds for other purposes. Witness the 2,000% increase in the cost of venomous permits in Florida. this was done mainly because the herp community does not have the power to vote it out.....Sad world.
Frank

I actively suggested and encouraged Fish and Wildlife officers to raise the fee on venomous permitting for the simple reason that $5 did not even begin to cover their actual costs of paperwork let alone physical inspection. I think that regular inspections of licensed venomous facility by knowledgeable officers is is a very good idea to improve keeper standards of safety and husbandry. Frankly the funds to do this simply did not exist before the fee was raised, but at this time they are forming and training a new inspections division which should be a lot more active.

Serious thought and consideration on the matter, beyond "I don't wanna pay more than a token fee for my license", should lead any responsible person to the conclusion that the $100 fee is much more reasonable to actually cover the costs of the administrative agency.

Sure, I don't want to be overcharged for my licenses and permits, but it is not fair for me to expect F&W to bear the burden of what it actually costs to license and inspect me. I want to pay my own way fairly and responsibly, and that is why I support the fee increase.

As a state agency F&W does not directly pay for their inspections. It is out of our taxes that they recieve their budget. I could justify what you say if that money went to F&W (I don't think so...). I beleave you will find that it goes to the state treasury from where it is alotted to various government agencies. Fish and wildlife no more directly benifits from those Fees than the Florida lottery goes (100%)to education. What you are justifying is another 4,500% (adding the proposed antivenom fee $250.?)to the current license fee making it $350 a year for a hot license in Florida with No guarentee that the state would use it for such (again look at the lottery)... Plus creating a new source of revenue for the state to add on to at will.... Not such a simple answer as they would have you beleave.
I am a responsible person. I have been licensed for over 25yrs. My personal choice bans Cobras and other large elapids as well as large viperine species from my home...which is why my venomous collection consists Only of animals that are small, easily contained and moved (and only moved) if necessary...and I Loudly campaign for education before ANY involvement with these species...I resent being told by some here on this forum that I am a member of an irresponsible group.
Frank

I am no expert on what goes on internally at F&W, I just talk to my inspecting officer now and then. But from what I gathered, the new and more active inspections division being formed had a direct relationship to increased revenue from the raised permit fees.

Again, you may want to confirm this directly with your own inspecting officer or with someone in authority at F&W as it is possible that I could have misinterpreted what I heard during a casual conversation with one F&W officer.

That new division is funded by state revenue that is alotted to their budget by the state. Fees and fines collected by them do not go directly into financing the agency. They go to the state treasury and are divided and dispersed according to the budget requirements submitted and accepted by the state. So that increase that you backed did nothing to help F&W. It just cost all of us more money.
Frank

If you can't afford the hobby don't play in the hobby.
It would be like a skydiver skimping on his parachute and using a trash bag, because he couldn't afford the parachute!

The same to you...unless fools like you price us out.
Frank

Okay, if you have a confirmed source of information on that I'll believe you - but please don't try to tell me that the people making the budget decisions don't look at a department and consider how much revenue they are bringing in from permitting and licensing fees vs how much they actually spend to issue said permits.

The additional money from increased permit fees might not be a direct funnel into the new inspections department that will be spending more time and money to administer these permits. It might be more complex than that. Bureaucracy generally is. But there's still a connection.

I would not consider complaining because a permit I formerly got for an unfairly low fee that did not cover the administrative agency's expenses has now been raised to a fair price that does cover their actual cost. Unfair is unfair, even if I happen to be the person benefiting from it.

Depriving Florida Fish and Wildlife of revenue is not a good idea if you care at all about conservation. They perform some very necessary functions to help our environment. I don't agree with every decision they make, but to their credit they do try to make those decisions intelligently for the benefit of our wildlife. I don't want to shortchange them and I really don't think anybody else should either.

you sound like one of those New Yorker's that come down here and complain the taxes aren't high enough. I have no objection to paying a fair amount for a license. $50 strikes me as reasonable considering that in it's self is a 1,000% increase. As I said if the money was actually going to improve the department (F&W) I could justify it. The fact that you think it is, shows that you are obviously a nice person but way too trusting. After 40 years of living in this state I know better. In politics the squeaky wheel gets the grease...if it is politically important to those who make the final call on budgets. Do you really think that (F&W) is that high on the list of a statehouse that just delayed the Everglades clean up by 25 years?? Something to think about.....
Frank

Larry,
I would be happy to answer, but I believe I am not sure what question you asked. I reread this post above and I only discern information offered( good info too) not a question, if you would redirect me to your question I would be happy to answer it.

>>I would be happy to answer, but I believe I am not sure what question you asked.

That's because I didn't ask a question. I was just rebutting some of you arguments (or possibly your retelling of "the Fed's" arguments?).

To summarize the gyst of my babbling:

1) You suggested that hot keepers tend to run up hospital bills they couldn't and I countered that lots of other people people do the same thing but in general people don't use that as excuse to regulate away thier hobbies/interests.

2) You mentioned how much treating a bite cost and I probably did a bad job of saying that in my opinion the cost is probably 10 times as high as it should be. From the antivenom costing more than it should because of all the regulations to malpractice insurance because people can successfully sue whenever ANYTHING goes wrong whether it was because of a mistake or random chance to hospitals charging a few thousand dollars a day to let you lay in a small bed hooked to an automated machine. The point being that these problems are caused and/or allowed by the same government (just different agencies) that will use this argument to shut us down.

3) You suggested an antivenom bank with a membership fee, which I thought was a great idea but probably wouldn't work. (Not really arguing with you, just lamenting that it wouldn't work.)
-----
Larry D. Fishel
Side effects may include paralysis
and death but are generally mild.

That makes sense, even if that antivenom bank wouldn't work in that simple of a form, all I ever wanted to do was to provide an idea and see everyone help to evolve the idea into a possibility.
I appreciate your suggestions.

Nice to see someone else who shares the same concerns as I do. I, too, am a curator of a very successful wildlife center (that features primarily herps including venomous but we also have raptors and a few oddball mammals). I, too, get sick and tired of people whining about their rights when it is THEY who are ruining the rights of responsible keepers who normally don't frequent this forum (but there are some so this doesn't apply to everyone). In addition to being a professional herpetologist I am also a private individual who keeps and breeds a variety of herps so it isn't an issue of zoos vs people; far from it. Two years ago our entire antivenin supply was wiped out because some idiot was illegally keeping an atrox and decided to show off to his friends while being intoxicated. Lucky for him, we were able to help but is it our responsibility? For months afterwards, while awaiting our shipment of antivenin, we risked our lives because some jerk shows no regard for the hobby and responsible keeping of venomous herps. I see post after post of folks who keep hots and I am sure that most if not all don't carry their own AV supply (not to mention their level of knowledge in responsibly keeping venomous herps). So whose responsibility is it? If you can't afford AV should you still be allowed to keep a venomous snake? I don't know. Is this just someone's right; that is, their right to endanger their own life? Perhaps. But where do we draw the line when that right to own infringes on public safety? I know that if I had a neighbor of questionable background who kept a pet cobra, I for one would be quite alarmed (even though I keep them responsibly myself)...hypocritical? Maybe, but having dealth with so many inept people who keep venomous, it is my right to feel that way. I have ALWAYS been in support of someone's individual rights to own herps; even venomous. In fact, I would love to see my state allow private ownership as long as people are held accountable AND, that they follow strict guidelines of ownership. Same goes for large constrictors, crocodilians, monitors, etc. I know many extremely responsible individuals who keep venomous herps and I truly feel it can be done but when I see the kind of defensive and sarcastic remarks towards professionals who are trying to contribute a positive spin on this issue, I begin to question my own feelings on the sujbect. Well, go ahead folks and blast away.

Rob Carmichael, Director/Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center
City of Lake Forest Parks & Recreation (IL)

Rob,
Man I was starting to doubt my own sanity! These people are harsh. I get caught up in the same junk every week, iguanas, monitors, caimans cobras mambas.....We had to come up with a policy
You bought it, you caught it, you keep it!
Which is terrible but what can you do....I tried to come up with a "possible" solution, even though there is cracks it could work if people weren't so defensive. I see now why all the other Curators/zoo's universities etc. stay out of all this. I'm glad to hear you speak up. trust me though, your gonna get slammed for it. just look at all the crap I got, and I was just trying to help. Go figure.
Let me know if I can help you or your institution.
Terry Phillip

I have a great respect for Zoo's. Last year I visited Ft Worth and Dallas zoo. I was lucky enough to be invited behind the scene, as it were...great experience.
Beleave me...the Macho idiots scare the hell out of me. And they are just the ones that will keep illegal herps when the door shuts.
Antivenom in every keepers home is not practical...What is...is what we are trying to do in Florida (Venom 1). It is not a perfect system but they are trying to keep records of who has what, so the right anti-V is there when needed. The point is...we are working on the problem. There is more than one voice of reason in this forum...and more than one solution...
Frank

I agree absolutely that zoos should not be held responsible for irresponsible behavior from the private sector. Arranging access to antivenom in a financially responsible way should be a legal requirement for keeping venomous reptiles. Some of the possibilities include keeping your own antivenom, pooling with other keepers in a private bank and making prior arrangements with a zoo or other facility to have access to their antivenom (and to replace it immediately when used).

On the other hand, if this is your main beef with venomous keepers in the private sector, you don't have much grounds for complaint about Bud. He is certainly keeping his own antibodies handy, and he is the least likely person I can think of to impact anyone else's antivenom supply. He does actually have some around as I recall, but other keepers are a lot more likely to borrow from him than vice versa.

While I don't approve of all the things Bud posts about, and I think his posts are often not very well thought out, I firmly believe that he has the right to turn his own body into an extreme medical experiment if he chooses. It is not impacting anyone else's health or safety.

mstt,
This is what my post was all about, getting some good input from good people.
Bud Flat attacked my right to participate in this forum. and it went down hill from there. The statement that I made that offended bud was about the bad press as a result of indescretious behaviour. If he did what he does for legitimate research and approached and offered intelligent opinions than your right that's his buisness it's not hurting anyone. No worries, then we would have skipped this whole mess. He had to start pointing fingers and saying " my daddy will beat up your daddy" etc. Then I was into him offering my opinion of it's better to not get bitten than to create this superman persona for the public to see. He thinks he has the answer to snakebite, and that is just not the case. I'm not saying I behaved much better, but I was trying to get some input from people like you while behaving like a jerk.

Hello Tannith, I must have missed the argument involving this "Bud" person. No, my beef is not solely with folks who do not keep antivenin because I know that it just isn't realistic. Hopefully, the private sector will get on the same page to solve this problem (perhaps a venom bank of sorts, kind of like in your neck of the woods). My other beef(s) involve the reckless acts I see that make the many responsible owners of venomous herps look bad...that is what really gets me...no different than what I see with people keeping large constrictors and crocodilians in an irresponsible manner. I just felt that I had to come to my colleagues defense since reason and level headed thinking seemed to go right out the window on this forum. I haven't been here in a while and it is just like a soap opera...never seems to change and I feel like I came back to see the same argument.

Hey Rob, I'm curious to know why you think it isn't reaistic for people who want to keep venomous reptiles to also keep antivenom? Or did I read your post wrong? I make a point of stocking plenty of the stuff in my own refrigerator, even though I live in a state that already has an excellent antivenom bank. Every minute counts and I want the stuff to come with me to the hospital if I ever need it. I don't want to wait for it to be delivered.

Yes, the paperwork is a big pain in the rear, but it's do-able. Also there are legal ways around it - we have purchased and brought in antivenom as "medication for personal use" when travelling to other countries.

Bud annoys a lot of people and I think he doesn't express himself very well in writing. It is a shame because he certainly is something of a medical marvel and a lot could be learned from what he's doing.

Sorry I wasn't clear in my explanation. Based on the cost of keeping just the minimal amount of antivenin, and knowing what the recommended shelf life is on these products, I would venture to say that most private individuals keeping hots will not bother to spend the money to keep them responsibly. Instead, they will rely on hospitals and institutions such as our's to bail them out.

amen

Sure, you can expect to spend at least two to five thousand dollars for a halfway decent personal antivenom supply. Cheapskates (or people who only keep a few species) can get away with stocking 5 or 10 vials of SAIMR, which is not particularly expensive.

My personal opinion is that it is not a very bright idea atall to rely on any antivenom supply other than what you can bring with you to the hospital. In some envenomations every minute really does count. Also we've already discussed at length how unethical it is to use up a zoo's supply and put their keepers at risk because you were not responsible enough to keep your own. It's not just a good idea, it should be the law.

You might want to check with Venom One in reguards to your statement about putting zoo people in danger by using their antivenom. I did. I do not know about how it is in the rest of the country, but at least we are lucky to live in a state (FLA) where we already have an organization in place where medical care (and antivenom) is available without having to take zoo stock. I have read in your posts that you are an advocate of higher responsibility (in part by paying higher fees and also what you just said about a law). I for one am more in favor of supporting (in FLA)the organization we have in place. seems sensible.
MA

The world does extend a wee bit beyond Florida.

We are very fortunate now to have an antivenom bank for keepers in this state, but in other states the nearest source of antivenom is generally the local zoo - and that's what gets tapped. There have been a number of problems caused by private keepers using up a zoo's antivenom and leaving their staff without any.

Twice I asked the question listed above about personal responsibility...Do you Drink? I really would appreciate your take on my questions listed above. I just sent in my latest HUGE car insurance payment (I am a professional driver and have won several safety awards)...That is mainly big because of drunk drivers. I really want to know why it is fair for some idiot to get drunk...and I pay for it in taxes etc..., yet I get bit and I'm being unfair if the state pays for it. Answer that one and maybe I will be more receptive to why I pay for other's stupidity and it's not fair for me to benifit when I goof.
Frank

Lest you think I am prejudicial...Over twenty years ago, I was Lion Country Safari's reptile curator and I actively support Zoo,s as well as having spent a lifetime of doing animal rescue (out of my own pocket). so I am very familiar with the problems Zoo's have.
Frank

Because you should WANT the people who make the laws that you don't like, to think that venomous reptile keepers are more responsible than a drunk driver!

Because hopefully you WANT the people who make the laws that you don't like, to think of venomous reptile keepers as more responsible than a drunk driver!

My reasonable statements as "you" call them-went out the window when I asked a reasonable question and you dodged the answer and accused me of whining. It is not about who is more responsible...It is a question of fairness. When you pour that next Tall cool one...I hope you are safe at home. I have been hit twice by drunk drivers...I PAID for it with higher insurance premiums despite having several safe driving awards and being a professional. Not to mention higher taxes. The comparison is Valid. I am VERY REASONABLE as my posts have shown. I at least have looked at both sides of the issue and even tried to help YOU make your point in a less provocative manner instead of shooting your mouth off which has done nothing except turning a lot of normaly reasonal people into an arguement. So don't hand me that CRAP.
I get the feeling that anyone who disagrees with you on this forum is automatically labeled Unreasonable. I have Zoo experience as I said, have spent a lifetime doing animal rescue funded by ME...Not the State!. I am aware of the costs and my home has doubled as holding area and hospital. Did anyone pay me for that? (LOL)
As I said...I have Never said it is fair that Zoos should have to absorb the cost of snakebites. But why should Venomous keepers be the only group that has to pay for the danger potential of what they do. More people are killed by Horses and Bees in this country...and how about Dogs...No one is saying that they have to raise x amount of dollars to cover their accidents. As BGF pointed out earlier...there are no known records of anyone being envenomated by a captive snake except their owner. can you say the same about Dogs? How about Zoo animals? I say "What is fair for one group is fair for another".
There are words I choose to live by, "Any valid concept should be able to stand up to test of Criticism...or it is flawed." You want to answer my questions or do you choose to insult me? In which case, your credibility just went out the window...And your trivial statement that I am trying to prove that a venomous keeper is more responsible than a drunk is PURE B... S..T! If you are the REASONABLE MAN here, then I am still waiting for that reasonable answer.
Frank

1979 An escaped chimp beat up a small boy at a local Zoo. I was there as part of the group trying to recapture the ape and witnessed the attack. For the record...Zoos aren't that perfect either.
Frank

Most Zoos exchange or trade animals to get rid of excess or aquire new stock. You might want to try Dallas or Ft. Worth.
The animals you are holding should only be held as long as they are evidence in a case, if your laws are like ours. After that they can be a resource instead of a liability.....Besides, While your Zoo budget is being impacted... Is your salary? It gives more room for thought.
Frank

Our group Snake Getters has helped place quite a large number of venomous snakes, ranging from surplus stock from the London Zoo and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine to F&W confiscations to local zoo overstock, non-relocatable nuisance removals and injured/rehabilitated animals from wholesalers.

The recieving institution must pay shipping and veterinary costs if any, provide proof of the ability to provide veterinary care and quality husbandry, and agree to hold the next reciever to the same standards and to contact us if they can no longer house the snakes. Properly licensed private individuals who can meet the same standards may be considered if the snakes cannot be placed with an institution. The snakes may not be sold, traded or subjected to invasive or destructive research.

We have rarely had any difficulty placing snakes in homes that meet these standards.
Snake Getters

see there are options....................Frank

I have worked with zoo's all over this country in animal tranfers. St. louis, San Diego, Dallas Fortworth, Moscow, Australian Reptile park etc.
The main stipulation (here at least) is that responsible, legal owners or not, these animals or offspring are not to be returned to the private sector period.
I know and work closely with most major zoo's in the country and they don't want nor do we want half a dozen sunset cobras or 14 genetic variants of a Western diamondback. Neet looking animals but not very zoolically or exhibitionally interesting!
So we keep them for their lives and refrain from breeding them, thanks for the info though, I do appreciate the helpful posts!
Best Regards,

No offense, but I disagree very strongly with the AZA position on refusing to work with the private sector. There are keepers in the private and commercial sector whose standards of husbandry and veterinary care far exceed anything the snakes would recieve at some of the officially accredited institutions.

Additionally, the commercial demand for venomous snakes is not going to go away whether or not confiscated animals are withheld from the private sector. The animals that are imported to fulfill this demand are taken primarily from wild populations. Many of the snakes that are imported suffer and die in the process, and for every snake that makes it here alive to be sold, many more will die. The reality of the situation suggests that the animals need to come from somewhere to meet the existing demand, and if they do not come from existing confiscated and zoo surplus stock, they will simply be taken in larger numbers from the wild. All that can be accomplished by withholding these animals from the private sector is a drain on zoo resources and more impact on wild populations.

It makes a lot of good common sense to release animals to keepers, venom laboratories, educators and exhibitors in the private sector who can meet high standards of providing quality husbandry as well as making contributions to public education, scientific research or antivenom production. I certainly agree that there are many keepers in the private sector who should not be keeping venomous reptiles at all. Their standards of husbandry and safety are poor, and they provide little or no veterinary care to their venomous reptiles. But the same can be said for more than one AZA accredited institution that I am personally familiar with.

The standards should be exactly the same for institutions and for individuals. No one who cannot provide high quality husbandry and safety standards including veterinary care for the animals and antivenom for the keepers should be permitted to own venomous reptiles.

You just wrote the most sensible post I have read today.
Frank

No, I think both posts were very well stated and show that despite not agreeing on a given subject, it can be done professionally and respectfully unlike every other pathetic comment I have seen so far. As a director of a public herpetological collection, and also a private colletor, and a former zookeeper I am able to see things from ALL directions and feel each entity brings a certain amount of expertise and solid form of philosophy to the table. On one hand, I see the many great things that AZA accredited institutions are doing (and as Tannith said, there are always exceptions)...I see their stringent safety procedures and they carry valuable antivenin which has saved the lives of many INDIVIDUAL hot herp owners who were not responsible enough to keep their own supply. Are they perfect? Of course not but I think that when you look at the exceptional zoos (pertaining to herps) they are the creme de la creme of herp keeping (public or private). I see the private sector making huge advancements in captive breeding and husbandry; much moreso, in some cases with certain species, than the zoo sector and I would love to see more collaborative efforts between the two. Unfortunately, every time a private individual does something irresponsible with their venomous herp "pets", they put a HUGE black eye on EVERY single private owner....may not be fair, but that's life. Aside from these two posts, NO ONE ELSE HAS MADE ONE SINGLE GOOD POINT OR ARGUMENT (maybe mine included!).

Rob Carmichael, Director/Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center
City of Lake Forest (IL)

Frank,
I'm not sure which question I insulted you on. I guarantee it was not an insult, from our previous conversations you seem to offer great input and rationale. the last few posts were not that way, bringing up the drunk driving, dogs and horses etc. Mstt post was very valid to discuss those points so I don't need to answer them. When I use the word "you" in posts, I use it as a very general statement inclusive of private keepers as a whole as the general public sees them. I intended no insult, you have offered good info here. So I hope that clears that up right now.

The 250.00 price I put on that last post was something I just pulled out of the sky, to accent my statement. I am not suggesting an increase etc...that was for conversation's sake.
So I am not sure what statement you want me to respond to and MsTT said all of it for that part of this conversation.
So please don't think I was including you personally among some of the statements.

When I asked you about those things I was pointing out that far more expensive problems are handled by the state and that we all pay for it in taxes and insurance....That we pay for other peoples mistakes and they are not expected to pay special fees like you are suggesting we do. The question is about fairness-besides personal responsibility. Why can't the money I (who am not a (drinker, dog owner, Horse owner...) pay in excessive taxes and insurance be applied to my special need? Why shouldn't those irresponsible drinkers etc... take their fair share of their costs..See it gets to be pretty ridiculous...It is noble to suggest that we be responsible for our situation... but it is just plain true that when the state gets involved ...you don't necessarly get what you paid for. That you have a privately owned zoo....really explained a lot. I always wonder why people get so involved. It just didn't make sense unless you were financially impacted directly. I think you should look into the suggestions of how to handle your excess animal problem (it is a bit more complicated since you are not a state zoo...but you still should be able to orchestrate trades....once the case has cleared and they are no longer evidence).
I did call Venom one and got their take on this...For legal reasons I won't quote them here but you might want to call and get their opinion, if anything to clear up some wrong information you heard about them.
I don't appreciate being told I am on a soap box because I bring up a point you disagree with. Especially when I have gone out of my way to help.

ammended from above: Your laws are made by idiots...We have a much sainer policy about animal relocation in FLA. I would ask for help in these forums and see about ways to legally get around that mess your in. As several have said...maybe you ought to come here....
Frank

There are no dumb questions...only dumb answers...... Mr.Burrows (my 5th grade teacher)

I agree totally, however with 100 more animals and the size of our normal collection. It really is not much more work, I just need everyone to understand and go back to the original intent. He should not have been keeping them illegally. Be responsible.
That is it, total basics of what I have been trying to say.
Besides their are too damn many bugs in Florida

Sir....We call them Tourists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now...lets see if we can round up some help on your problem.
Frank