Hypothetical situation...

[Kilala]

Ok. um...I really really don't want anyone to jump down my throat on this, so let me be clear: I have absolutely no intention of owning either venomous or venomoid snakes either now or in the future.

We all know that venomoid surgery is cruel when done by amateurs. We all know that the snakes suffer immeasurably without proper medication during and after the procedure.

But here's a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that 10 or 15 years down the road, we understand reptile anaesthesia as well as we do for dogs and cats. Let's say that we could have the surgery done by a licensed reptile vet. And in this hypothetical situation, the surgery would still not be performed to simply turn a venomous snake into a "pet". It would be done only on snakes that were going to be used for educational purposes, perhaps if the educator wishes to show some behavioral aspects of that species. The snake would still be handled as if it was still venomous, to avoid setting a bad example to the public.

Would it be ethical to make a snake venomoid in this hypothetical situation? please give me your opinion.

 

[dionythicus]

Many people disagree with declawing cats, but it's done all the time. Why would it be different for snakes?

 

[danny819]

I know this is a touchy subject for many people but I see no problem with venomoids. People regularly alter animals to make them more suitable as pets. Declawing cats, spaying/neutering cats and dogs is commonplace and sometimes we mutilate dogs by croping the ears of docking the tails purely for vanity. I have had a parrot where I regularly had to clip his flight feathers If done properly like the ones for sale at venomoidinc (http://www.venomoidinc.com/home/ ) I see no problem with it.

 

[tyflier]

There have not been enough long-term studies done on venomoids to state definitively that there is no harm to the snake, even when done properly, by a qualified vet.

Ultimately, venom is a digestive aid, even for Elapids. As such, I find it hard to believe that removing the primary deigestive aid from these animals does not effect the longevity or health of the animal. There needs to be a few more decades of research before this surgery is made publicly available.

IMO...if you want to use a dangerous animal for educational purposes, it is best to do so in a manner that is befitting the natural state of this animal. That means 100% no-contact during the show. Hooks, tongs, buckets, and PROPERLY SAFE handling techniques. Otherwise, you are falsely educating, and showing HORRIBLE practices and techniques to people who do not know any better.

Comparing venomoid surgery to spaying and neutering is comparing aples to oranges. You're talking about centuries old, non-invasive husbandry techniques compared to a new, highly invasive surgery. The health benefits of spaying or neutering a house pet have been thoroughly documented, as have the side-effects. This is not the case with venomoid surgery.

I do agree that venomoid surgery is similar in nature to declawing a cat, cropping of ears, and docking of tails. However, I don't agree with these surgeries, either. I think it is unnecessary, and potentially harmful to the animal...which it has shown to be. However, I will point out that tail docking and ear cropping can be very useful and necessary for many working dogs. Getting tails and ears tangled in briar and brush while hunting can be devestating to a working dog, and this is the original intent of these surgeries...

I'm a firm believer in that if I wish to own an animal as a pet, it is my job to be able to deal with that animal on it's natural terms. The ONLY exceptions are in the case of surgery to prevent future medical difficulties, or to reduce unwanted pets and "disposable pet syndrome".

Venomoid surgery does not, in any way, shape, or form, benefit the animal, or improve it's health or quality of life. It also does nothing to promote healthy animal husbandry or responsible ownership. It is a selfish act designed to satisfy big egos, in my humble opinion...

 

[RobbiesCornField]

My option isn't on the poll, so I can't vote.
I would say yes and no.
Yes, because if being used for educational/exhibitional purposes, it would be safer for the general public and the demonstrator, not to mention it would be a HUGE cut on their liability insurance.
No, because it wouldn't be fair to the snake. Mostly for reasons mentioned by tyflier. I don't agree that it's similar to declawing a cat. It's much more invasive, in my opinion. You're taking away something that helps an animals NATURAL functions. Cats only really need their claws in the wild, and in no way benefit an indoor house cat. Cats' claws don't help aid their digestion. They don't help perform natural bodily functions. Comparing those, to me, seems like apples and carrots.

 

[RavenSpirit360]

Um to me, its doesn't seem right. If you do not want to deal with a venomous reptiles venom, then you shouldn't own one. There are plenty of other snakes out there to choose from.
I can see where comparing the claws of a cat to the snakes ability to produce venom are similar in ways. Declawing a cat may not affect its digestion and etc but it has been shown to produce long lasting negative effects on a cat such as back problems and pain, because they never really walk the same. The animal is a whole and should be kept that way since that is the way they where created. You take away a part of a whole and you weaken that being permanently. Now I do agree with spaying and neutering because there is an extreme overpopulation problem, and not fixing the animals only make the problem worse. Overpopulated communities of feral cats suffer from starvation and disease amongst other problems. And there are way too many unwanted cats and dogs to even find homes for them all. It is a big problem.
I can't see de-venomizing a reptile as being in any way shape or form good at all. Its plain and simple, don't want venom? Don't own a hot. Unless you appreciate the animal in its entirety why have it. That like saying to someone, I would like to marry you but you need to cut off your toes cause they are ugly and they scratch me.
As far as educational issues. Education with venomous reptiles has been going on all this time without much issue so why fix it. There ARE safe ways to handle these animals and teach about them at the same time.

 

[The_Thunderer]

I have to say no for the very eloquent reasons that Tyflier laid out. Before reading the thread, my gut reaction was "no" because venom begins digestion... so I agree with his post.

 

[tyflier]

Robbie-
As a matter of clarification...I only agreed to comparing declawing to venomoid surgery because ultimately, both cause physical issues for the animal(presumably, in the case of venomoids), and neither one is beneficial to the animal in any way. Both are absolutely and ONLY for the comfort of the owner...and I do not agree with either practice. That is the point I was trying to make...

 

[Kilala]

Ok. Here's another scenario: What if only rescued venomoids were used in public demonstrations? Again, the snake would be handled as if it still possessed venom glands, to avoid setting a bad example. Would it be ethical to keep rescues, if someone truly wanted to help these abused animals? Again, they would be treated as if they were still hot, because after all venom glands can grow back. Is it unethical to use a venomoid snake in a demo simply because it is venomoid? Or could you use a rescued venomoid in a show, similar to the way rescued bald eagles are used? Just curious.

 

[tyflier]

Personally, I would prefer to see venomoid surgery made illegal unless the surgery was in an effort to help the animal, such as in an infection or a ruptured gland. I don't think it should be a marketed "commodity".

However, my disdain for the procedure does not change my love for the animals. If I were offered a venomoid with the choice of take it or kill it, of course I would provide it the opportunity to live as long as possible. Of course, if the animal is healthy and doesn't stress under educational conditions, than by all means, use the animal.

Ultimately, you can't blame the animal because a person made a bad decision. Of course, calling it a "bad decision" is completely a matter of opinion, and subject to both rejection and ridicule...