Rat Snakes Are Venomous?

Found this while surfing today...I really don't know what to think of it. Has anyone ever heard anything about this? I know I've been tagged by a rat snake before, and I'm fine. I dunno if this is a hoax or some crazy guy or what, but if word of this gets out I can imagine all the non-herp people freaking out. Give it a read and see what you think.

http://scienceinpublic.com/scienceno.../bryan_fry.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spix14

Found this while surfing today...I really don't know what to think of it. Has anyone ever heard anything about this? I know I've been tagged by a rat snake before, and I'm fine. I dunno if this is a hoax or some crazy guy or what, but if word of this gets out I can imagine all the non-herp people freaking out. Give it a read and see what you think.

http://scienceinpublic.com/scienceno.../bryan_fry.htm

---

He was dropped on his head when he was born :confuse:I thinks its a bunch of nonsense ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

He was dropped on his head when he was born :confuse:I thinks its a bunch of nonsense ;)

---

Agreed. That guy has lost it.

Scientists speculate that all snakes are venomous, whether they inject venom, or their saliva has protiens that break things down.

But thats just whack :O

Well, I was bitten by a corn snake a number of years ago, with no ill effects. More recently, I caught a juvenile great plains rat snake that tagged me over and over... and over, again with no ill effects. That snake is currently loose in my house somewhere. Maybe I should move out??!?!?!?

Steve

Dr. Fry is extremely creditable. The author is a sensationalist nut job. Brian has his own forum where he is accessible and comments on these issues with any and all who ask. Now while some of the snakes he talks about are potentially dangerous (Telescopus dhara, Boiga nigriceps and Boiga cynadon along with species like Psammophis) the vast majority of the snakes he says have some sort of venom are still HARMLESS to humans. Brian himself will probably at some point slap the crap out of this writer,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjspirko

Dr. Fry is extremely creditable. The author is a sensationalist nut job. Brian has his own forum where he is accessible and comments on these issues with any and all who ask. Now while some of the snakes he talks about are potentially dangerous (Telescopus dhara, Boiga nigriceps and Boiga cynadon along with species like Psammophis) the vast majority of the snakes he says have some sort of venom are still HARMLESS to humans. Brian himself will probably at some point slap the crap out of this writer,

---

Thanks Jack. I didn't have a good response previously because I have a lot of respect for Dr. Fry and was irritated at the unfounded comments. But I have read the original article and it does make a lot of sense. Especially with the diagramatic pictures included. Anywho, to whoever, check out the articles and the venomdoc forums on Brian's site they're real interesting

One more thing that should be pointed out and Dr. Fry has said this many times himself. If you want to work with some of these rear fanged colubrids even the ones that can create a significant reaction, doing so safely is not hard. Even the biggest and meanest of the species like Telescopus and Boiga can be handled safely with long sleeves and gloves.

Four things need to be understood here.

Many of these snakes do have very toxic venom but the delivery system sucks. They just can't get much into a person the biggest risk is like a finger bite where they can chew. If you where cloth gloves all the venom is simply absorbed and said snake is harmless to the handler.

Just because a snake has a toxin that can kill a gecko or a mouse does not make it toxic to humans. Many of the so called back fanged snakes are considered nonvenomous by medical establishments simply because either their yields are way to low to harm humans or they lack a sufficient delivery system. Here is a very cool site to look at Toxicology Reports on many animals http://www.toxinology.com I would not take that site 100% as fact but it is enlightening.

The vast majority of snakes in captivity are 100% non venomous. Think about it North American Rat Snakes, Kings, Milks, Boas, Pythons and European Rats along with African House Snakes. Add all those up and you have 95% of what is kept by Americans. All are 100% with out any venom at all.

Finally many snakes that have venom have been known as such for a long time and we all know they are harmless to us. Garters in fact have a toxin that causes paralysis and respiratory failure in frogs and toads. Lucky for me I am not a frog as I have been bitten by dozens of garters simply by picking up wild ones. Ring Neck Snakes are so toxic that I saw pictures of a king snake that tried to eat one, regurged and almost died. Remember Kings eat rattlers! Yet no one has ever been or ever will be harmed by a ring neck or a garter.

Here is the reality there are a handful of actually dangerous colubrids, another handful of some that can produce swelling, etc and many that possess venom but are ZERO threat to people. Now many people in the herp world want to be hot keepers but can't so they romanticize this part of reptile biology. How many times have you heard a new hog nose owner talk about venom? Hogs have no venom by they way. They have saliva that produces swelling and pain in some instances. However, much less swelling and pain then a bite by a HUMAN. Humans of course are not venomous but human saliva when injected produces a very nasty reaction indeed. Reaction does not alway equate to venom.

People like this yard bird that take legitimate and very interesting research and spin it are a real danger to our hobby and professions. There are plenty of the blind and dumb that already think "the only good snake is a dead snake". Morons like this only fuel that fire.

Jack,

Man you speak with WAY to much fact, common sense and objectivity. :):):):)

Isn't this his website? http://www.venomdoc.com

Okay, my .02 cents, having venom does not always equate to dangerous. Correct me if I am wrong but I remember reading about LD50 test done on several snakes. What I got from it is that a particular snake might have venom but either the venom is so weak that it does not affect a full grown human or the yield is so small that it doesn't matter.

I am going off of my terrible memory (I just drank a Red Bull and it did nothing) but I believe that there was a particular snake which had toxic venom, either the mangrove snakes or false water cobras, equal in toxicity to crotalus but it just doesn't make enough to cause significant harm.

Again, don't take what I am saying as truth. Someone feel free to double check me and tell me that I am flat out wrong. I rather be wrong then to give off the idea that these bad boys are safe and someone buy one for their kid and R.I.P.

<--where's my Red Bull?

I think this has more to do with the irrational fear of snakes that seems to be rooted in the psyche of a majority of humans. I was watching Corwin today, and a guy working for a wildlife preservation organization in Uganda freaked out over a rock python. In that case you're talking about a guy who routinely deals with massive predators like lions without batting an eye, and yet acts like a little girl when confronted with a snake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicofera

Is a very interesting read about the toxicofera clade of reptiles (all snakes and many lizards). Veonomlike substances are present in the saliva of many lizards and almost all snakes (I've heard it said that the only exceptions are boids but I can't supply a reference). That doesn't make them dangerous to humans at all but it is fascinating and does make for a game of semantics over the word 'venomous'.

North American Rats, Kings, Milks and Bulls (all Pits) are also 100% with out any venom at least according to Dr. Fry along with all Boas, Pythons, etc. Most other snakes have some sort of "venom" indeed.

It is very interesting but it will not make snakes that have been kept safely for decades start killing or injuring their keepers over night :rolleyes:. When you read some of the commentary on the research and much of the forum discussions on it that is the message you get.

To put it in perspective the following animals are also venomous....

Ants
Deer Flies
All Spiders
Duck Billed Platypus
Gaftop Sail Catfish
Hard Head Catfish
Bees
Wasps

If you don't count Funnel Webs, Brown Recluses and Black Widows then the most dangerous thing listed above (unless you are allergic) is the flippin Platypus :D

Again I just think people want to look cool or seem adventurous and again Romanticize this part of herpetology. Think of how everyone with a rear fanged snake always talks about the "venom" when then discuss their snake. I know this is a balance, when I posted my Skaapstekers I mentioned it not to seem cool just so people who may consider buying them would know as they are often advertised as harmless when the picture below is what a bite by one looks like.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...4/DSC05579.jpg

Yet as dramatic as that reaction appears my wife was stung by a common wasp this summer in the finger while trimming a bush, her hand did not look much better and she is not allergic to bees and wasps. The guy who was bit in this picture never went to a hospital, took some oral antibiotics to be safe and just rocked on with life. He was given a good chew in the first place so how dangerous should we consider these snakes to really be? I have heard of far worse reactions from bites by commonly kept tarantulas.

I think we have to be responsible in our discussions about this side of herpetology there are already people that think all snakes are venomous enough to kill you. Don't get me wrong the discussion here has been fine but the original article is the type of yellow journalism that the internet has made far to easy to publish. It is totally irresponsible! I would really like to slap the ever loving snot out of someone over at "FreshScience" and if I were Dr. Fry I would sue the pricks for liable because the article is using Dr. Fry's credentials and creditability to present a very false view of his research and the reality behind it.