The operation that renders a snake a venomoid is a painful and invasive one. While the Kingsnake article and others mince around the ethics, there are plenty of accounts by respected keepers that prove that many animals that undergo this procedure display behavioral clues that they are in pain. Make no mistake about it, snakes feel pain - whoever doesn't think so just isn't experienced enough to have seen it.
Where is there an ethical justification for putting a snake through this procedure? Before someone types it in "Google" let me take away the first bullet in your gun - the spay and neuter comparison to cats and dogs.
There are valid medical and ethical reasons for spaying and neutering dogs and cats - namely cutting down the risks of unwanted pregnancies, and mammary and testicular cancer. These are justifications that prolong the lives of these animals and also cut down on the number of unwanted animals that end up in shelters. The only "moral" argument that exists for rendering a snake a venomoid has nothing to do with the safety or well being of the snake - only the keeper. In my opinion, that is not a moral justification at all.
If the keeper/prospective keeper does not have the skill or expertise to keep a snake without rendering it a venomoid, then the keeper should not be considering a venomous animal.
Reply With Quote