The Legalities and Philosophies of Venomous Herpetoculture

by Thomas Eimermacher

In many western societies, the keeping of venomous reptiles by private non-professional individuals is considered to be a controversial issue that warrants further analysis. In the United States alone, a whole array of legal bills and ordinances are proposed, implemented and edited by the legislature every year. Most of the time, these legal measures aim to restrict or even to outlaw this practice. But why is this a recurring issue? Has the keeping of venomous reptiles suddenly become a problem in this society? Have there been an increasing number of incidents in which innocent bystanders and members of the public have somehow been threatened, endangered, or even harmed? Their argument is simple: Venomous animals are potentially dangerous, and should not be kept by the public, as they pose a danger to society. Seems logical, or does it? After all, why should anyone be allowed to keep deadly animals in their home? Why would anybody want to do so, anyway? In order to make an educated assessment of the situation, one needs to take an analytical approach and consider the facts upon which a subsequent decision must be based on.

The legislative process that aims to restrict or outlaw the keeping of venomous reptiles is usually triggered by an incident that has occurred in or near the regarding area. Such an incident often comes in the form of an accident, in which a person was either harmed or placed in a position where someone could have been harmed. The law then steps in to protect the public from the reoccurrence of a similar situation. After all, the law is meant to shelter society from harm, and to implement rules and guidelines that serve in the best interest of society. An example is the situation that occurred in Alabama in 2001. A resident was keeping a spitting cobra in his mobile home, allegedly for religious reasons. When the animal escaped, it created a near panic and chaos throughout the city. Local authorities received hundreds of calls regarding alleged sightings of the animal, and commercial snake traps became a hot commodity. None of the sightings were confirmed however, and the animal was never captured. Scary, eh?

Actually, this is not surprising by any means, and is by far the most likely end result of an escape situation. Contrary to popular belief, venomous snakes are not evil, slimy monsters that have a natural urge to kill ever since being banned from paradise and damned to roam the earth crawling in the dust. As a matter of fact, snakes are just reptiles, and have absolutely no desire, urge, or longing to come into close contact with human beings, and will therefore generally attempt to avoid human contact whenever possible. Snakes also do not prey on humans, as only the largest species of boas and pythons merely have the potential to achieve a size at which they would have the physical capabilities to do so. Yet, even those few exceptional specimens do not wander the grounds in search for tasty humans. No venomous snake in the world is physically able to swallow an adult human being. To the contrary, humans often prey upon snakes out of ignorance and fear, devastating the local snake populations and upsetting the ecological equilibrium.

Then why are snakebites a seemingly common occurrence in some parts? Snakes and their ancestors have been frequenting the earth for much longer then humans have. The explosive increase in human population and spreading of civilization into rural areas is rapidly merging human habitation with ophidian habitats. Because humans are not considered to be prey by snakes, snakebites are always the result of a defensive reaction on part of the snake, who feels that its life is threatened. While many snakes will rely on procrypsis and avoid detection by lying still as a primary defensive reaction upon being approached, stepping on one will almost certainly result in a bite. Another popular belief is that once bitten, death is almost assured if the antivenin is not administered within a set period of time. In reality, only a small fraction of snakebites prove to be fatal, even without antivenin treatment. That being said, fatalities do occur occasionally, sometimes before people are able to receive medical help. There are many different variables that determine the course and outcome of any venomous snakebite, making it difficult to produce accurate predictions for a given species.

In the United States, between 8-12 people die from snakebites every year. In response to this data, a common argument is to reduce this fatality rate by prohibiting the private keeping of these animals. Upon closer analysis of the data, however, one will determine that these fatalities rarely stem from bites of captive snakes, but instead involve bites that occur to people in the wild or at the barbaric rattlesnake roundups. Fatal snakebites by captive snakes are relatively rare, and there has never been a documented case of an escaped captive snake biting a third party. Prohibition activists are quick to credit this to the restrictive laws that are implemented in many states, and warn that loosening these restrictions will result in a higher risk to the public and an increasing amount of fatalities. That this is rather absurd is illustrated by the fact that there is an estimated number of over one thousand private keepers of venomous reptiles throughout the United States. This figure is an estimate based on a survey conducted on the website of the Southeastern Hot Herp Society (SHHS), in which 383 visitors of that site acknowledged keeping venomous reptiles. Because this survey was conducted online, the actual number is likely to be significantly higher, as obviously not every keeper was accounted for. Then why, with many thousands of venomous snakes being kept in private homes throughout the country, are we not overrun by lose cobras, mambas, and rattlesnakes that have escaped and are now killing people left and right? The answer is very simple: The potential danger is primarily faced by the keeper, while the danger posed to the public is actually rather small. For comparison, dogs and horses kill far more people than snakes do every year. According to the Dog Bite Law Center, every 40 seconds someone in the United States seeks medical attention for a dog bite. On average, dogs kill 18 people on an annual basis. Bees alone kill about fifty people a year. In 1998, the National Safety Council released statistics that showed that the odds of dying from the bite or sting of a venomous reptile or spider were one in 54,049,600, while the odds of dying from being struck by lightning were one in 4,289,651 - much greater. Even the risk of dying from domestic wiring and appliances was much more significant, being one in 4,580,475. By the original argument, these should therefore all be banned in an attempt to decrease the fatality rate, should they not? According to the same statistics, agricultural machines killed 567 people in 1998, alcohol killed 300, antibiotics killed 39 people, and falls on stair or steps killed 1,389 people. Applying the original illogic would result in banning agricultural machines, alcohol, antibiotics, and many others. Stairs and steps would be illegal. Care to take a bath? Sorry pal, but bathtubs killed 337 people in 1998. Plastic bags? Against the law!

While the keeping of dogs, horses, and other domesticated animals will quickly receive public support, snakes lack the physical appeal of puppies, kittens and other animals. The result has been mostly persecution, which has devastated many local snake populations. Another consequence has been a lack of sympathy for snakes, and a subsequent unwillingness to grant many species the much-needed protection from persecution. Of course, snakes are not the only animals that have traditionally suffered persecution from mankind. It is critical for society to realize that every living organism has its place in the ecosystem, and that removing it has severe consequences on the environmental equilibrium, which in turn affects us all. For example, the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) is one of the great American predators. It is the largest living species of rattlesnakes in the world, and also bears the title of being the heaviest venomous snake on the planet. Unlike its western cousin, the Western Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), the eastern species takes a relatively long time to reach sexual maturity in the wild, and does not reproduce on an annual basis. Nevertheless, this amazing predator has until recently been slaughtered in large quantities at rattlesnake roundups. Devastated by habitat destruction and human persecution, this great part of American wildlife is now estimated to become extinct within the next 50 years. Only a fraction of its original habitat remains today. With the amount of healthy populations declining at an alarming rate, this animal may eventually disappear entirely, thereby leaving another gap in the ecosystem, which strongly impacts all members of the food chain. At a public education seminar at the 2002 Louisiana Sportsmen's Show in New Orleans, SHHS president Chris Harper used an adequate analogy. Nature is like an engine. Selectively killing animals on sight is like going to your car and ripping out the parts you don't like.

Now that we have established that snakes are not really vicious demons or evil creatures, people are still wondering why in the world anyone would want to keep venomous snakes in the first place. After all, they do not become accustomed and/or attached to the keeper, and will always pose a potential danger to their caretaker for as long as they live. In other words, venomous reptiles are not suitable to be pets, especially in the traditional sense. So why keep them to begin with? As you may expect, the answer is once again very simple. Venomous snakes almost always elicit a response from people, whether it is fear or fascination. While venomous snakes terrify many people, by the same token, other people share a deep and genuine fascination with every aspect of these amazing creatures. This basic fascination sometimes evolves to the study of these animals, which more often than not involves keeping the animals first-hand. The complexity of these creatures that are perceived to be relatively primitive is often underestimated, especially in terms of behavioral and evolutionary aspects. The private sector has contributed significantly to the knowledge that is available to us today, especially regarding the behavior and propagation of the various taxa.

But even apart from the study of these animals, qualified people should have the privilege to be able to keep venomous snakes, as long as they do so responsibly. True, this responsibility factor can be a problem whenever it is left to the people themselves. Unscrupulous individuals with dubious motives can easily abuse these privileges, ruining it for everyone else in the process. Many states have strict guidelines concerning the private keeping of snakes, and some states prohibit it entirely. However, rendering the keeping of venomous reptiles illegal has not proven to be either effective or truly beneficial to the common good. Most people that have a genuine interest in these animals feel very strongly about their charges, and will not rid themselves of the animals, regardless of the legal status. In addition, the illegality aspect itself makes it more attractive to people seeking attention through sensationalism, thereby attracting those whose motives and level of experience certainly does not qualify them for working with these animals. To the contrary, a prohibitive law can actually have an adverse effect by discouraging keepers from notifying authorities in the event of an incidence or accident involving venomous snakes. For instance, an envenomation is much less likely to be reported to authorities due to fear of having the animals confiscated by said authorities. Once the animals have been confiscated, the keeper stands little chance in getting them back. More often than not, the animals that the keeper has often invested years of time and money in raising, studying and breeding are either euthanized or placed in professional care, a rather small comfort to the original keeper. It is for that reason that keepers in areas where these animal are illegal to keep will go to great lengths to ensure that their animals are not taken from them, including keeping quiet over an accident whenever possible.

The permit system implemented by the State of Florida is an example for an adequate solution to this problem of legality. In Florida, qualified applicants can be licensed by the State if they fulfill the requirements, which include a minimum of 1,000 hours of documented practical experience with the animals, among others. While this system - like any system - is certainly not perfect, it enables keepers that have the necessary knowledge and experience to obtain a permit and legally keep the animals. Opponents of regulatory systems criticize the fact that such a system increases the amount of governmental control and invasion of privacy into the life of common citizens. While this may be true, it is most certainly the lesser of the two evils, and by far the better alternative than prohibition.

Another possibility is to have a permit system that is governed by a self-regulatory body, such as a herpetological society or similar organization. This alternative, however, seems to be difficult to implement, due in part to the lack of organizational structure and unity that is often apparent in herpetological societies. Also, there is a liability factor involved that can play a significant role when such a system is proposed to lawmakers. Apart from the common misconceptions and the associated irrational fear of snakes, bureaucratic and political hurdles often pose the most significant obstacles to overcome when implementing such a system.

In conclusion, upon closer analysis of the situation, most people will realize that the private keeping of venomous reptiles is an issue that can be properly solved by introducing an appropriate system that requires applicants to possess the necessary knowledge and experience to keep these fascinating animals safely and responsibly. Unfortunately, it is a difficult task to get the public to think beyond the common misconceptions and enlighten people to the actual situation at hand. In a perfect world, no regulatory system would be necessary, because all keepers would have the required qualifications and sense of responsibility along with public approval. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and a regulatory system poses a suitable alternative for a modern society, assuming that it addresses the concerns of the keepers as well as those of the public.