Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hey folks,

Doug T here. I posted this in the "Venomous" and "Venomous Rear Fang" forums, but I think there's enough brain power here to help me out. It has to do with pending legislation here in Washington State.

About the only thing I keep that would be considered "Hot" is Clelia occipitolutea or mussurana. Not the most dangerous critter on the planet.

My situation is that here in my home state of Washington, there is an anti-exotic bill that goes to the state house floor tomorrow. Since the wording in the bill says "venomous", it could possibly be taken to mean animals as relatively safe as Western Hognose Snakes. It's current wording "might" make it illegal for me to even keep the Mussuranas.

I'd love to see the bill die outright, but I don't think it's going to. I'm having some success with the sponsors of the bill in getting some wording that would exclude animals that we could call "Mildly Toxic" or "Semi-toxic", not so dangerous that a herper with a few years experience should be fine with.

Off the top of my head I can think of a few snakes that are rear-fanged and not so dangerous as to be life threatening, Western Hognose, mussurana and False Water Cobra.

What would the common thoughts on Mangroves be?

Any other suggestions that I could use that would be considered only "Mildly Toxic" by a typical Herp Keeper?

Ultimately, I want the bill to be dumped. But right now, I'm trying to make it as Non-inclusive as possible. I'll be working on removing varanids next.

Give me some good examples, and common names are ok.

Doug Taylor

Doug:

We are fighting similar legislation in Dayton, OH

We are going to propose that they not use "venomous" but rather specifically mention crotalids, viperidae, elapidae...and maybe specifially throw in the boomslang as the only seriously dangerous colubrid.

This way...you can document that these are the only venomous snakes that are actually dangerous to humans. You can point out the fact that many snakes that are completely harmless to humans (like garter snakes and hognose) have some toxins in their saliva, so it's necessary to identify the families of snakes that include the snakes that can actually cause serious reactions and / or death in humans.

I don't think it would be very wise to list Dispholidus as the only dangerous colubrid. Thelotornis are probably even more dangerous than Dispholidus simply for the fact that there is no AV made for them (twig snakes). Rhabdophis also have human deaths attributed to them, and have no AV effective against them either, to my knowledge. There are a couple of other colubrids that should probably be considered as potentially dangerous (more so than the typical FWC, hognose, mangrove, etc), but these are the big three. In any legislation put in place to prohibit dangerous snakes, I would hate to see boomslangs banned while twig snakes and keelbacks could still be kept. But, maybe that's just me, as I'm a boomslang keeper myself.
-Chance Duncan
River Valley Snakes

Taub published a paper long before I was a grad student, documenting that 80% of all colubrid species have a Duvernoy's gland, a modified salivary gland with serous cells, and they are all, to some extent, venemous.

Probably the deadliest snake and most horrible to die from is the asian tiger gartersnake, Rhabdophis tingrinum which used to be called Natrix tigrinum in the old days. It takes about 3 days to die following a bite. You bleed from every orifice, and your major muscles, like thighs, explode from the edema, exposing the major bones like the femur.

Non rear-fanged or non-opisthoplyphous colubrids with Duvernoy's glands can also cause an envenomation from the dilute venom in their saliva. Pliocercus elapoides, the false coral snake from southern Mexico and Central America, is an example.

We are fortunate that most of the colubrids we keep do not have Duvernoy's glands. Major examples are the genera Lampropeltis, Elaphe and Drymarchon. But many snakes we keep do have Duvernoy's glands including hognose and garter snakes. They almost never bite and reactions are mild. For the most part we have been lucky. It's when we start keeping unusual imports that we may not know what we'er getting into, the most frightening example being Rhabdophis tigrinum.
Link

Doug T,
I believe that most of the members of State Government that will view the BILL do not have any idea how to consider one potentionaly lethal snake from another.

I would distinguish the difference as, highly venomous snake (Front Fang delivery system) as a threat to human life. And use (rear fang delivery system) as non-threatening to human life and list those species.

I would expand on the terms: Life Threatening (Front Fang Venomous) and Non Life Threatening (Rear Fang) as Non Threatening to Humans.

Hope this helps. Oh! I will give you a fair price on that pair if this does not work out.

Dann…..

This is a pretty common scenario Doug. since many "harmless" snakes possess duvurnoy's glands, I can't imagine why they would make certain mildly snakes illegal....heck, that makes garters illegal to keep. The key is to differentiate which snakes are truly lethal to people and which ones aren't. It can be as simple as stating "all elapids", "all crotalids", etc. (personally, though, I feel that responsible individuals should be allowed to keep venomous herps). I would definitelyl consider mangroves a venomous snake worth listing because they are not only aggressive, but there are instances of severe envenomation (but I certainly wouldn't list them in the same sentence as elapids, crotalids, etc.). You might consider getting organizations such as teh southwest hot herp society, Chicago Herp Society (who has experience with this issue), and anyone else you can think of involved. Hopefully, the lawmakers will come to their senses and just drop the bill or drastically modify it to make it less restrictive for herp people...unfortunately, m any of these bills involving "exotics" throw tigers, lions, and other large predatory mammals in with perceivingly harmful reptiles leaving no room for modification; that will be the difficult part. If the bill becomes specific, you may be fine with your Mus. as that is not an animal that lawmakers are going to identify with. Good luck, Rob

Doug,
I would suggest emailing Wolfgang Wuster and Bryan Fry. There are maybe a dozen species/sub-species of opistoglyphic Colubrids that are known to be at least as dangerous to humans as your average Viperid or Elapid. Among those are Dispholidus typus and Thelatornis kirtlandii, the two better known venomous Colubrids. Wolfgang and Bryan would be in a better position to provide you a list of species that are known to have caused serious or fatal envenomations. Most of them are at this point rarely available in the U.S. anyway, I think.

One thing that may cloud the issue some is the current research by Bryan on Duvernoy's Gland activity in common Colubrids. It is being taken way out of context and greatly exaggerated in the press and in certain groups of people and could easily be used by those that would like to see an outright ban on keeping ANY snakes. The research is valid and valuable in the context for which it was conducted and if the findings are taken at face value. Unfortunately most people simply cannot read, and will read things in that are not there and read things out that are there. It's what happens when people without a scientific backround try to interpret a scientific paper, especially if they have an agenda to begin with. For that reason, you will be much better off to use the scientific taxa in your proposals, and specifically list for inclusion the ones that are dangerously venomous and have the delivery systems and quantities of toxins to cause life-threatening envenomations in humans, then wholesale exclude the rest.

Bryan and Wolfgang have a very good and real-world realistic understanding of what's dangerous and what's not. Maybe you can use a factual interpretation of Bryan's papers to your advantage BEFORE the uneducated people with an agenda have the chance to try to misinterpret them and use them to their advantage.

Actually, I think you could use that recent WW and BGF paper to your favor if you approach it carefully.

The paper demonstrates that using the word "venomous" doesn't differentiate completely harmless species from dangerous species which the law is trying to restrict.

Maybe you could propose that given the current ambiguity of the word "venomous", they should reword the restrictions to include all front-fanged snakes and other dangerous rear-fanged species which they could list, such as Boomslangs, Twig Snakes, Rhabdophis, etc.

Under the current wording, it could be argued that keeping Tantilla violates the law. Surely that isn't their intent.
-----
Chris Harrison

"Under the current wording, it could be argued that keeping Tantilla violates the law. Surely that isn't their intent."

I would hope not, but I wouldn't put any money on it!
Eric

The wording of the bill changed from scientific names to common names at the request of local govt' agencies to aid local animal control. Their position is they don't know Ophiophagus hana from Sequioa sempervirens. Rattlesnake, cobra, etc., those are all recognized names.

So if I can get a few names of non-dangerous venomous animals listed on the bill as "excluded", it could be interpreted that the mildly venomous snakes out there are "like" hognoses, not "like" cobras.

It's all pathetic, but hopefully I can get a few other words in there to make it possible to keep even more critters if this crap passes.

Doug

Make sure that the common names are accompanied by the scientific names. The problem with common names is that they are commonly erroneously applied, and one snake can have multiple common names, as well as one common name being applied to several species. "Chicken Snake" is a good example of that.

I would word it like:

Boomslang (Dispholidus typus
Twig Snake (Thelatornis kirtlandii)

Etc.,

That way, there is no room for error due to a conflict in which snake goes by which common name.

I believe I read somewhere that even diadophis (ringnecks for dummies) are considered mildly venomous.

Eric

I say again,... just say no. Anyone who can demonstate a fair knowledge, and a resonable degree of caution, should be able to keep whatever the hell they want! You should be defining fair knowlege, and reasonable caution instead of what is too dangerous to keep!

Hi kids, haven't played in a while so I thought I might as well start out with a controversial topic..I just woke up from a nap..

I would submit to you, DT, that this issue is somewhat, in fact very much, like firearms regulation..Or abortion/life controversy..

To make it short and let the fires burn, how much "regulation" of the herp field can you stand? If you start restricting with only the "dangerous" hots(kind of like "assualt" firearms) how soon will they be knocking on your door for those MU's??!!

(I'll refrain from the other above mentioned issue)

Do you really think they are going to restrict just Boomslangs as the only dangerous "hip shooter"??...Do they really care about your hobby? Why should they allow Heterodon? Couldn't a baby be chewed on enough to sustain an envemonation?? I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift...How much sympathy do you think you'll get trying to tell them the difference between these 2? If the millions of NRA members are seen as "quacks" and millions of homes have firearms in them, what will they think about allowing you(us) to have "slightly venomous" snakes in your home?? Just think how you would explain the difference between Coral, Milk, and that rear-fang tropical tri-color!!

This is an issue that just opens the door for more government intrusion on you by your state government (thank the Lord it's not Federal...YET) I predict you will have very little success in fighting this, but if you don't fight it, I suspect your conscience will bother you for a long while...Everyone in the Herpetoculture field needs to realize that it won't be long before this is an issue in their home state, (if it's not already) and be prepared for it...

**There is a way around this issue..As a wise old fellow once said.."It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission"..**

Fight the Good Fight as long as you've got the energy, DT...Good Luck!!
-----
Carl W Gossett
Garage Door Herps
Monument,Colorado...northern territory of the Great Republic of Texas

You have raised some good & controversial points.
Now, i'll throw some fuel on the fire. If you want to avoid things like this in the future, vote Conservative, vote republican. It's the liberals (mostly) who propose such intrusive regulations on us. I know this will probably draw flames because many in herpetoculture/herpetology are, or at least vote democrat(s) because they think that is the party that cares about animal rights & the environment & that is just not true, many liberal politicians could care less about the animals or the environment. They just use this rhetoric because they know it appeals to peoples hearts & they know if they can win a persons heart that many times they will win their votes as well. It's sad, but the only thing the liberals care about is being in power, so they can propose additional restrictive legislation!

I'll step down from my soap box now.

Eric

Eric,

Although nobody would argue that "liberal" politicians are necessarily brilliant for the environment (or conservatives necessarily bad), the Clinton admin was at least not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon, and the statistics for what the Clinton and Bush adminstrations did for (or to) the environment speak for theselves when you consider gazeteering land (Clinton) vs. watering down every piece of environmental legislation on the books (Bush).

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

Eric, Don't say that in Florida. We are in the clutches of one of the worst (anti-conservation)governors in our history...aka Bush. After having our various permits increased in cost by 2,000% (in some cases...Ven permits being one such...) and his 25 year delay of the Everglades clean up...Plus recently signing off on a report that states golf courses and condos are better for the enviroment than wetlands...Do you really want to brag up Republicans? I should point out (to be fair)that even a lot of "Staunch" republicans hate him.

I favor Licensing with mandatory training for All Elapids and Vipirine species. As for the rest: "Known Lethal species" only. The rest is shades of grey and we all know the government is sorely in need of a good pair of glasses.

Boigas (to answer the above question) are mostly rather mild. Blandings can be a bit more potent and a very large Mangrove can be an issue around children.

I think it is one of those issues where the government should recall there is such a thing as "Personal Responsibility". In fact That branch of Political Correctness where we all claim that it is "societies fault...and not my own" is one of the biggest reasons why there is so much restrictive legislation being passed in so many areas (besides herps). We have made government our parents, instead of doing the job ourselves. I have always argued that we should police ourselves or the goverment will do it for us....Guess what?

Finally, a Thought: When worried about the dangers of the world remember...The number one cause of Death is....LIFE.

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

Frank,
Unfortunately, personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past. Government has taken that out of our hands. Everything is now dealt with by legislation, from morality to personal responsibility. They have taken it upon themselves to protect us from ourselves in just about every aspect of life. No one is responsible for their own actions any more. Want to rape or kill someone? Just do it, then claim that your problems are due to bad parenting when you were a kid, or that you were drunk or stoned when it happened. You have a good chance of getting away with it. Want to rob someone? Fine, just claim that you are an addict (classified as a disease) and that you had to do it or you would get sick because you can't buy the dope without robbing somebody for money. Then you will probably get to go for treatment instead of going to prison, at at the taxpayer's expense. Never mind that it was the addict that made the decision to use the drugs in the first place. I can't remember why now, but somebody once explained to me why that's not their fault either. I didn't buy it, so I can't really remember what the logic was.

Obviously, since we are such a bunch of ninnies we can't make rational decisions for ourselves, so the Government has to make them for us. Want to keep a Gaboon Viper or two? No way. They're dangerous. Don't you know that it could get out and bite somebody? You obviously aren't responsible enough to keep that from happening because you are just a citizen. Your only job is to pay your taxes to support the Government and just let them make the decisions as to what's best for you. More legislation is what you need because you obviously aren't getting the point. Since the Government isn't made up of Herpetologists, the best thing to do is outlaw the private keeping of all snakes. That way they know they get the right ones. The problem is that it's our fault things got this way as much as anybody else's. We are not vocal enough. We don't stick together enough. We don't have enough lobbying power and we don't have powerful groups watching out and sticking up for us. It isn't because there aren't enough of us, we just haven't banded together and done it.

As far as Conservation issues go, you have to remember that the Government is made up of elected officials. It doesn't matter if you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or whatever. If you happen to be one of those elected officials, there is one thing you know for sure. There is no way to please all of the voting constituency. The ones you piss off aren't going to vote for you again. Piss off enough of them and you don't get elected again. That's a bad thing because if you are a politician, then you obviously don't have any marketable skills. Where are you going to earn a living? About the only things a deposed politician can do effectively is sell used cars, get involved in some insurance scam, sell timeshares, or some other occupation where they get to use their only real skill....lying. Oh, I almost forgot...they can be lawyers,too. So, you have two choices while you are still in office. You can muddy the waters so badly that nobody really knows what you are doing (the most common approach). Or, you can figure out where the majority of your voters stand on these issues and cater to them. The fact is that as a politician, you probably could care less one way or another personally whether Gopher Tortoises or Indigo Snakes continue to exist in the wild. After all, how is it going to affect your life if there are no more Indigos? You probably wouldn't know an Indigo if it crawled up and bit you on the butt. The major problem you face as a politician is that part of your voters are against most conservation programs because they interfere with them making money, and another part is in favor of Conservation programs because they have some interest or another in the animals that are affected. You just have to pander to the group that holds the most votes.

tarred and feathered!!!

Personal responsibility?? What a concept!! Maybe we can pass a law....
-----
Carl W Gossett
Garage Door Herps
Monument,Colorado...northern territory of the Great Republic of Texas

Unfortunately expressing, in this forum, personal ideals about how the world should run and what political group might be assumed to lean towards that ideal is useless unless it's as a warm up to really getting into a fight.

I'm gonna fight this to the best of my ability and desire, but I'm coming to the conclusion that if it isn't listed on the bill as venomous, local enforcement officials probably won't be bothering me. I'm just doing my best to cover all my bases just in case.

The folks who keep hots, water and crocodile monitors and any type of croc are gonna be the real losers. I'm fighting for the "right" to keep them. I don't keep any of them. If I wanted to keep them, I'd have them already. I don't think a single keeper of venomous reptiles that I personally know is involved. So if they don't care enough to fight back, they will lose the ability to legally keep the animals listed as Dangerous.

Anyone interested in expressing their feelings about keeping the various Dangerous Reptiles, especially if they have some sort of credentials that would show them to be "expert" on the subject, should drop me a line.

Doug T

As far as goverment involvement goes....Lately I have started checking my toilet paper.....

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

I didn't want to be too strong with it and offend anyone...

Bravo!!!So lets get it together and form somthing like the N.R.A. Just think if we had that kind of loby power!

Who was it that said, "kill all the lawyers"? I'd be inclined to agree with them. I think it's time to make a stand and say no to any legislation wich bans the keeping of any snakes whatsoever. This is just another case of people who think they know whats best for the rest of us. When what they need to do is leave the rest of us alone. It's the same with smoking pot, gay mariage, gun ownership, etc. You get a few idiots out there who don't like what you are doing, so they pass another idiotic law which the taxpayers have to pay to enforce. If they don't like what we are doing, they don't have to do it. They don't have the right to decide what we should or should'nt do. This kind of crap realy gives me a hard-on. I spent six years of my life jumping out of airplanes and getting torn up in the name of freedom, so idiots like them can have the freedom to take mine away, one stupid law at a time. Now I'm a disabled vet And every time I hear about some spineless weasle- dicks trying to crap on my freedom, I just have to speak up. Don't give an inch. Fight to the last breath and stop this law all together. If we don't start fighting for our freedom here at home, we won't have any! Remember this as long as you live... There is absolutely nothing in the world which is more worth fighting for than FREEDOM!!! Too many have faught too hard, too frequently, and too furriously for that statement to be incorrect. And to many have suffered and died for that statement to ever ever be forgotten!