Venomoids

[Navy]

I've been trying to do some research on them and the procedure, but I can't find anything but the vague "a surgical procedure that removes the the glands that produce venom"

I'm not really looking to keep a hot, but I'm extremely interested in them and I was curious to why more people don't use this procedure.
Though, I'm not sure if it's limited to certain snakes, and not necessary in others. I can see how it can be useful, since most say it doesn't cause much distress to the animal.

I would love for some more informative.. information (lol) on venomoids and the procedure.

[MisterKyte]

To my understanding the procedure can be done one of two ways; severing the duct that connects the gland to the fangs or completely removing the gland and replacing it with an implant. Completely removing the gland is assumed to be more damaging but unlike just severing the duct, it doesn't run the risk of rehealing and allowing the venomoid to unexpectedly become hot again.

Honestly, I'm on the fence about venomoids because I can see them being a good idea in certain situations but at the same time, it just seems like a reason for stupid people to own animals they are in no way equipped to handle.

[Mike41793]

How would the snake eat if you took away its venom and it wasnt interested in f/t?

[babyknees]

http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/faq/venomoidfaq.html

[ChrisS]

I am opposed to the ownership of venomoid. First you wouldn't pull all your dogs teeth then feed him through a straw just because he is capable of biting people, so why take the snakes natural method of eating so you can avoid danger. Second it makes you have less appropriate fear of the species so when working with a hot your guard isn't as high as it should be. Third I don't care what anyone says about the removal/cutting of the venom glands being low stress, how can you really tell the stress level- by asking the snake o how did this surgery make you feel? Fourth the ownership gives the media and other organizations another foot hold on bashing snakes because venomoid owners seem to be ignorant people who want a shock factor of them hold a dangerous snake and sell it as if it were actually venomous. Let PETA get a pic of someone putting a venomoid cobra around their kids neck. $100 says they'll preach it as look what crazy snake keepers are doing to endanger their children with now.

[Skiploder]

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.

[Rob]

I'm on the fence on this topic. Half of me says it's a cruel thing to do to the animal, and how the heck does it kill it's prey with no venom that it still thinks it has. The other half says its a way for people that love hots but don't want to take the risk of handling them a chance to get hands on with very cool animals. I guess it all depends on your opinion of the amount of rights an animal should have.

[Royal Hijinx]

I am not really a fan of the idea. If you want a venomous animal, that is fine, just learn how to handle one properly. No need to butcher a top tier predator for your own contentment. There is a reason they sit atop their respective food chains and we need to respect that.

And, who are the "most" that says it does not cause the animal distress? To do it completely requires extensive surgery that very few folks are truly qualified to do. And, if the animal cannot kill prey, and will not convert to p/k or f/t, there is a whole other issue.

[WarriorPrincess90]

I'm personally against keeping venomoids. I think it's cruel to take away the snake's ability to both eat and protect itself in the way it's made to. I also think it needs to be said that even if you remove the venom glands, that snake is still gonna pack a nasty bite. Taking away the venom doesn't stop them from biting you, but would certainly effect their feeding ability. It would be like cutting off a human's hands and asking them to go about their daily tasks as they always have. (Maybe an extreme example, but our hands are our most useful tool. Just like the venom of venomous snakes.)

[Navy]

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.

Thank you, I had no idea.