Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Has the law changed for ownership of FWC in florida? I was told once you do not need a venomous license to own them. Has that law changed?

Wrong. It is still considered venomous in Florida. I confirmed this with my local officer.

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

n/p

Did the officer mention any particular laws or agency rules?

When I took administrative law in law school I went and looked into the laws on venomous in FL. All I could find were statutes that prohibit possession of "venomous" reptiles, but "venomous" is never defined, and there is no species list that I could find. It just seems to be left up to the officers who enforce it to decide. I have had FWC officers tell me to ask the local officer who enforces the permits whether a given species was considered "venomous." I think it's a problem if the law is that vague, especially now in light of certain recent scientific publications regarding colubrids.

No the problem is some of the Wildlife officers that are out there cannot recognise all the rearfanged species. Add to that the assurance of some of us (not me)that these are harmless and you get the picture. Too many keepers and enforcers are out there that aren't educated in what snakes are coming in.

The point is that they are venomous and when the right/wrong officer sees it then you better be licensed.

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

No doubt in that regard. However, my issue is what is "venomous?" Seems to me we're using a "I know it when I see it" standard, which isn't very reliable in deciding whether a particular species requires a venomous permit or not. Are we ready to say a hognosed requires a venomous permit?

>>No doubt in that regard. However, my issue is what is "venomous?" Seems to me we're using a "I know it when I see it" standard, which isn't very reliable in deciding whether a particular species requires a venomous permit or not. Are we ready to say a hognosed requires a venomous permit?

This is a very valid question. Virtually all the colubrids are venomous from a technical perspective, however from a practical perpective the vast majority are certainly not in the same category as atractaspidids/elapids/viperids. While the Hydrodynastes gigas venom is not the most toxic in the world, and the venom yield is not terribly large, they certainly are very large snakes with an impressive feeding response. That said, I probably wouldn't personally consider them in the same category as the atractaspidids/elapids/viperids. In contrast would be genera with well documented capacity for producing extremely severe envenomations such as Philodryas, Dispholidus, Thelatornis. Interestingly enough, based upon our initial research, I would certainly consider Thrasops as truely venomous.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

Do tell!

Have you already posted a snippet of info about this here?

>>Do tell!
>>
>>Have you already posted a snippet of info about this here?

Hi mate

We've picked up a few and already have the venom glands stored in liquid nitrogen. I'll start constructing the cDNA libarary in a couple months when I return to Australia (I'm currently over in Cambridge playing on a supercomputer). The snakes killed mice with terrifying speed, biting them on the neck but with blood pouring out of the mouth and nostrils in about a minute and a half and the mice dieing two minutes after being envenomated. The blood that fell on the floor was still like water ten minutes later. Considering that they are very very closely related to boomslangs, this is pointing towards a highly similar venom. We'll be comparing the toxin coding mRNA over the next few months. Should be interesting

As they are big snakes (getting over 2.5 meters in length, with quite sizeable venom glands and what is certainly appearing to be highly toxic venom, I would treat them with considerable caution.

All of that said, they are one of the most fascinating snakes I have ever worked with and if we end up outside of Australia for any extended period of time, I will certainly set up a very large cage with several of them.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

!!!!!!

I free-handled one of these before. I was thinking of buying the snake from a well-reputed herp dealer who deals in both venomous and non-venomous snakes (and lot of other critters). The thrasops was on their non-venomous page. Very neat animal. Glad it wasn't cranky enough to bite!

Won't do that again.

In the sense of fairness, I have to relate my own experience with Thrasops jacksoni:

I have kept a sexual pair now for almost a year. First of all in the dozens of live rat pinks that I have observed being killed by this species, I have seen no sign of the reputed bloody kills or any sign of envenomation. Instead I have seen a typical grab and swallow type predator. Chewing has not been exibited, nor have I seen even any discoloration in the food animals that I removed and checked, as often is observed.

I have been bitten three times with a prolonged bite (more than 6 seconds). Chewing was no more profound than that a kingsnake would do under the same circumstances. Once bitten blood loss was almost non existant. In none of the bites I recieved were there any signs of envenomation, though I allowed the snakes to release on their own.

I have no doubt that the equipment is present to make and deliver venom...But like so many species that have now earned the label...I have strong reason to doubt that it is fair to class them even remotely in the Boomslang range. At best I think the danger level is probably more in keeping with a Mangrove snake and the bloody kills due more to their large size and bird grasping teeth.

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

All Venomous snakes are illegal to keep without a lisence. I wonder if BGF's paper will change the laws on owning garters and so on? or maybe they will change the law according to how harmful the snake is? No idea just some thoughts.

John

Exactly.

Now we just have to define "venomous."

If you've ever examined statutes, you know they routinely define words, even ones you'd think everyone should just know and understand. The reason they do this is because courts will construe words if their meaning is not determined and here exists a question as to what, exactly, the word means. To avoid contrueing the word too broadly, courts tend to constue them narrowly, if not just find the statute is too vague to infrom the public as to what is prohibited.

This was not done for "venomous," as far as I can tell. Last time I checked, there were only three appellate opinions dealing with FL venomous laws, and none of them needed to figure out what the term means because the snakes involved were all rattlesnakes, and whether they were venomous was not in dispute. Nor, I suspect, would a judge even entertain such argument.

And, realistically, it's pretty unlikely that someone is A) going to get charged and convicted of illegally possessing a FWC; and B) appeal the decision on the basis that the word "venomous" is abiguous because the penalty is so minor compared to the cost of an appeal.

But in my mind, where a rear-fanged, "venom" producing hognose is perfectly legal to keep without a venomous permit, there is a legitimate question as to exactly what "venomous" means.

I am not in any way arguing FWCs are not "venomous" - more pointing out a need in the law for a more definite notice as to what is considered "venomous." I don't think anyone is against more certainty in the law.