Natures Nightmares

[gozetec02]

Did anyone see the show about the pet trade and the danger of owning snakes. They talked heavily about venemous imports like taipans and cobras. I think anyone who owns a venemous snake as a pet must be very responsible. And if anyone gets bit and is killed i think they should be brought up on charges.

[hhw]

I can see the value of keeping a venomous snake, as some are quite gorgeous and it's interesting to observe a different branch of evolution. However, I really can't see why as a resonsible member of society that it would be necessary to keep one with lethal venom; there are more than enough varieties of non-lethal venomous and non-venomous snakes out there to hold one's interests.

[gozetec02]

Agreed hhw.

[Ironhead]

Though different because of the venomous part, it would be like owning an American Staffordshire Terrier (Pit Bull) compared to a poodle. As long as the person is responsible and holds themselves accountable for anything that might go wrong, I see nothing wrong with owning hot's. I personally would not keep a hot as a pet, but to each his own and I have no qualms with someone that does.

[JLC]

I don't have a problem with well-trained, deeply mature and highly responsible people keeping hots. The trouble is, it's WAY too easy for just any ol' idiot to get his hands on extremely dangerous snakes.

[hhw]

I don't think a pit bull and a poodle are quite analagous; it would be more like the difference between a pit bull that licks people in the face and a pit bull that tears people's throats open.

Not to mention, you can lock pitbulls out of your house but you'd never see a cobra coming until it was too late.

I'm all for freedom and choice, but the way a democracy works is you balance the rights of the individual with the welfare of society as a whole. It's my opinion that for someone to keep something so lethal as a pet is leaning way too much on the individual side of the balance. It's just that when the consequences of a mishap are so huge, even when the probability is so minimal, the expected value (result x probability) still ends up significant enough.

[SatanicIntention]

I would definately rather own a Staffordshire than a tiny, bitey, annoying, yappy, etc. poodle... Those poodles are land sharks, like many, many small dogs, especially Chihuahuas, those things are vicious as all get out. As for the sad rap that Staffords get as a breed, people don't realize what good pets they are when BRED RIGHT, and not out of control and you end up with inbreeding and bad tempered, unsocialized animals. I would definately trust a Stafford around children than a poodle. Poodles bite and are NOT tolerant of a child, at least all of the ones I've seen. Sorry, I had to vent. It just makes me a little upset when people hear "pit bull" and think they are all mean and vicious.

Back on the "hots" subject, I agree with ya'll that it is the owner's responsibility, and if they get bitten, they get bitten. They are the people who chose to own that particular snake and they need to understand the consequences of owning it.

[Ironhead]

It just makes me a little upset when people hear "pit bull" and think they are all mean and vicious.

SatanicIntention....Hope I didnt give you this impression. I agree with your statement. I have owned 2 Staffordshire's Terriers and would trust them with my children way more than many other dog's. They are very loyal and family oriented. But on the other hand, as you notice in my signature, I too own chihuahuas. One is a nipper to people she dont know, the other is a perfect angel. It's all on how you raise them for the most part.

Sorry to pirate the thread.

[jotay]

I think it is ok for people to own hots but there should be some type of license and regulation before it can be sold to someone.
Gee just look at the morons that buy regular snakes, I sure as heck wouldn't want them to be able to own hots.
But I do think there are people out there that can and would own them and be responsible and the "bad " folks shouldn't spoil it for the "good" folks

[Marla]

I think that there's definitely something to be said for the licensing of lethal hots, but I don't know that we really need to license the keepers of those that aren't lethal under normal circumstances (ie., not to someone who doesn't have a severely compromised immune system).

As far as dogs go, pit bulls are too often kept by ignorant people who don't raise them properly. If people want to keep pit bulls or other lethal dogs (such as the ones that killed that woman in San Francisco), then I think they ought to be willing to pay an annual licensing fee that would cover the cost of training the people and the dogs and periodic unannounced inspections. The only responsible pit bull keepers I've ever known personally were vets, and I think that's fine, but people like my idiot ex-neighbors whose dogs were neglected, unsocialized, cat-killers shouldn't have been allowed to keep them.

I also have no use for teacup or toy poodles, but standard and and miniature poodles are very smart dogs typically very good with children. We had a pair of miniature poodles when I was little, and they were great dogs. Poodles are one of the best breeds as far as problem-solving and training and can be good working dogs in just about any capacity.