 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by s_simpson on March 20, 2003 at 07:02:23:
In Reply to: good points. i wonder- posted by meretseger on March 20, 2003 at 05:41:34:
I have heard some ER docs talk about this (long story made short, I was at an unrelated conference and cornered a few and asked them...). Their "consensus" was that pygmy rattlesnakes and cobras were the ones they had seen most often. Of course, to them "most often" meant they had seen four or five in the last three or so years. They also speculated about how many of their "hunting accident" rattlesnake bites were actually people who were trying to keep them as pets but didn't want to confess to it.
As for your question about coverage for dangerous fish... It'll be interesting to see what happens with personal liability insurance (which pets would be a part of) over the next few years. A lot of people (wealthy types, mostly) are buying personal liability policies -- if a UPS guy cracks open his skull because your sidewalk was icy, he COULD sue you. So, there is supposedly a small movement underway for some people to get these policies just to protect themselves from other people's carelessness (and greed).
In a small sense, ferret owners have been doing this for years. Ferrets don't get rabies, but just about every ferret owner makes sure they vaccinate their fuzz-butt for rabies. Why? So that if some stranger/neighbor/workmen comes in and gets scratched or nipped, the local officials can't seize the animal and chop of its head. It's not insurance per se, but it is something similar.
Just curious... For anyone still reading this thread. How many of you hot keepers post some sort of obvious warning in your house? I'm talking about a warning that would make it clear to anyone that there is a venomous animal present (say if firefighters had to come to your house while you were out...)
