Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by Larry D. Fishel on May 10, 2003 at 23:07:54:
In Reply to: okay... posted by AdamUrbanczyk on May 10, 2003 at 03:14:39:
:Nice! a clam response!
Spell checkers are evil...
::When he says voinomoids are the most dangerous, I assume he means "most dangerous to our hobby," and I think he has more of a point than you realize. Yes, an escaped hot snake is more dangerous than an escaped venomoid, but since I've never heard of a known case of someone being bitten by an escaped hot, that's not much of a difference in the big picture. However, to 99.9% of the poeple outside this group, a cobra is a cobra and an escaped venomoid will bring the wrath of the legislators down just as hard on those of us that have put a lot of time, effort and money into getting our permits. Also note that an esablished breeding population of escaped or released venomoid will be quite capable of popping out dozens of little HOT snakes. (Note the amazing population of burmese pythons in the everglades before you say how unlikely that is.):
:---Okay, i agree that an escaped cobra, venomoid or not, would bring down the wrath of any legislator, however I doubt that it would raise much of an eyebrow unless someone was actually bitten - and of course in that case the difference between venomous and venomoid would be obvious. As for a breeding population in the wild, I am not positive but I do not think that sufficient number of venomoid snakes have been released into the wild, much less to the point where they could meet up and have potent little venomous babies (north american monacled cobra sweet! lol j/k)
"Escaped cobra terrorizes town...film at 11!" That's all it would take in some places. Lots of cities have banned pets that they've never even seen. (But yes, a real venomous bite would be even worse.)
::I agree that most snakes don't need thier venom glands in captivity. They don't NEED thier tails or thier eyes for that matter, I don't think that has the tiniest bit of bearing on whether it would be ethical cut thier tails off or have thier eyes surgically removed to make my life easier.?
: I don?t know, I think that?s going a little far.
I didn't mean to imply that these were equivalent, just that I don't believe saying they don't need thier glands supports your argument in any way. (If you mention this ONLY to counter anti-venomoiders who imply that they DO need them in support of thier argument, then just ignore me.)
::While I see your point, I can't help but think that the same logic could be used to justify anything from car theft to child molestation... "People are doing it and you can't stop them all, so why not stop complaining?" :) (Note that like a certain republican senator who will probably go down anyway, I am not making a direct comparison, just pointing out a logical problem.):
: again I kinda agree with you, however in this context there is no regulation. Child molestation and car theft etc. are not ethical topics of discussion in society whereas this one apparently is.