VenomousReptiles.org Survey

Survey Question	Current Survey Question Should hobbyists ever free handle venomous reptiles with their hands? Recent Surveys Most venomous/toxic Naja species in the world? I have read that the Philippine cobra is the most venomous (mice, 0.2 mg/kg SC with the lowest reported value being 0.14 mg/kg SC) (Brown, 1973). I have recently, come across something in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology (Vol. 30, (issue 12), pages: 1158-1162, 1992) which stated that the LD50 for Naja oxiana was the most toxic/venomous (mice, 0.18 mg/kg SC and lowest reported value was 0.10 mg/kg). Along with that, the mortality rate for untreated Naja oxiana bites are the highest among all Naja species (70-80%). N.oxiana also produced the lowest known lethal dose (LCLo) of 0.005 mg/kg, the lowest among all cobra species ever recorded, derived from an individual case of poisoning by intracerebroventricular injection. Following N. oxiana and N. philippinensis are N. melanoleuca at 0.225 mg/kg SC and then N. samarensis at 0.23 mg/kg. The water cobras (N. annulata and N. christyi also have very toxic venoms, but no SC values are listed. Only intraperitoneal (IP) values of 0.143 mg/kg for N. annulata and 0.12 mg/kg for N. christyi. IP values tend to be generally lower (more toxic than subcutaneous values, so it would be unfair to compare their IP results to the subcutaneous (SC) results of other Naja species. Then I have heard that (without solid evidence) that Naja nivea is the most venomous, although their murine SC LD50 range anywhere from 0.4 mg/kg (Toxicon, Vol. 5, issue 1, page 47, 1967) to 0.72 mg/kg (Australian venoms and toxins Databse). So which is the most venomous? To me it seems obvious that it is the Caspian or Oxus cobra (Naja oxiana), followed by the Philippine cobra (Naja philippinensis). What do you think or know? I've noticed that the Australian venom and toxin Database seems to have higher LD50 values for all snakes across the board. For example, for the black mamba IP value of 0.01 mg/kg is listed (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004101018890219X) and Ernst and Zug et al 1996, list a SC value of 0.05 mg/kg for the black mamba. While the Australian venom and toxin Database listed much less toxic LD50's. So there seems to be a lot of variation. 2014-01-23 What's Your Favorite Venomous Snake? 2013-11-13 Deadliest Bite? 2013-09-16 IF the science of self-immunization for a snake envenomation was proven/perfected what is the least benefit(percentage) you would accept before practicing it on yourself? 2013-06-06 how did you learn to keep venomous reptiles? 2013-03-02 View All Survey Questions Have a good idea for a VenomousReptiles.org Survey question? Enter your idea!
Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below. What do you think of "protection laws" that prohibit collecting of animals but do not protect habitat?   Posted: Oct 06, 2001   (378 votes, 11 comments) by scottquint
Survey Results
Very Good, protects animals but does not step on landowners rights. 2% (7) Good, A step in the right direction. Collecting is a serious threat. 2% (9) OK. Habitat destruction is the real danger, though collecting should be controlled. 39% (149) Bad. Collecting is not a serious threat to populations, but habitat invasion and destruction is. 21% (78) Very bad. Habitat destruction will destroy the populations anyway and captive animals will be all that is left. 36% (135)
Survey Comments
Laws..... Living in Florida for the past 15 years has taught me something about the laws concerning protected/endangered species. I heard fom a guy who runs a reptile zoo that when a person who brings a gopher tortoise they rescued from being hit by car comes in, he should detain them so fish & game can bust them. There are people who want to drill for oil in the everglades, but you can't catch a rat snake you find on the road. In california, you can own an eastern indigo snake without any permits or hassles, but touch one here, and they can confiscate your vehicle. The laws we have make no sense whatsoever. Someone in Texas can kill 200 rattlers, and this is fine. If I catch a pygmy to keep as a pet, I need a license that they don't want to give to anyone. They need to enforce the laws they have, not make more they don't plan to enforce. Maybe prevent the REAL threats and leave us private collectors alone. Posted by NegativGain on October 31, 2001 habitat destruction I just have to say that RMax304823 hit right on the nose. Homo sapiens need to practice controling their own population overflow instead of trying to keep all the other animals in check. Posted by EricD on October 30, 2001 Protect Habitat I think that collecting that collecting species should definetly be controlled. But I agree that habitat destruction is the real danger. I dosent matter how much we protect the species unless we protect the habitat. Posted by lancehead on October 29, 2001 The engine behind population crashes I don't know any of the figures but would guess that personal collecting makes a negligible contribution to population declines. Commercial collecting, where allowed, is probably worse. Habitat destruction is worst of all. The engine that drives this dynamic relationship is practically unstoppable: an irruption of human beings who need and want places to live and visit. Try stopping the construction of a strip mall on the outskirts of a booming city. In Brunswick and New Hanover Counties in North Carolina, EVERYTHING is plowed under -- natural habitats, civil war battle sites -- in the name of profit and comfort. The last eastern diamondback was seen in Carolina Beach about 25 years ago. Scarlet snakes, once abundant, are no longer worth searching for. Habitat destruction is not even a public issue. It's simply absent from peoples' minds. Anyone seriously considering slowing down our advance along this devil's trajectory had better start by tinkering with the engine involved and showing as much concern about the population of Homo sapiens as Crotalus adamanteus. Posted by RMax304823 on October 27, 2001 hmmm We need some collection laws but not a lot of the extreme laws that prohibit you from going and a collecting a specimen that is in abundance for yourself. None however should be collected for or by the pet trade just to make a buck. And of course animals that are endangered should be left alone and fully protected. We most certainly need laws to protect habitat destruction and loss regaurdless of the cost. my 2 cents.....Eric Posted by EricD on October 23, 2001 Ok, Lets be realistic. For all the snakes collected, How many get killed on the roads? How about oilfield, aggraculture, pesticides, prejudice, and in some states the snake round ups. Collecting isn't a serious problem. Especially if most collecting places are reletivly small incomparison to thier habitat. Clearly habitat destruction can take it all away. So remember for the ten snakes you take in the spring, ten thousand will be lost in that same habitat. If the habitat it self is not preserved. xbadgertx Posted by badgertx on October 17, 2001 These laws are a farce. First, I would like to say that few states protect both habitat and populations from overcollecting. Most states have laws preventing just collecting, however; at least for a few species. This is the most ignorant set of conditions I can think of short of roundups or state sponsored bounties. I am sure that most of the readers on this forum that actually go out and look for snakes in the wild, whether they collect them or not, can list more than five places where they used to go to find reptiles but those locations are either now developed or have been otherwise destroyed. I can name dozens both in Florida and in North Carolina. The reality is that there is no "un-owned" land, so unless you are looking for animals on a preserve of some type there is a high likelihood of that location being altered for some commercial or residential venture. In other words, most of the snakes on that parcel will be gone soon. If the population is so threatened that the legislature can spend the money and divert the resources to list the animal as protected then it should protect the habitat, because a strip mall with all it's development and subsequent traffic can do more damage than all the hobby collectors in the US combined. Human activity and snake population ecology do not work together, they are at odds. how good or bad this is can be debated, but one thing is clear: Protecting snakes from collection just so they can be killed by development and traffic is simply obnoxious. It makes tree hugging weenies at the university feel good, but does nothing to protect threatened snakes. Florida, by the way, does protect habitat, but North Carloina does not. That means if I owned the last parcel of land in NC that contained Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes(Which ahven't been seen alive in NC for some time), I would not be allowed to keep one in a cage, but I could bulldoze the parcel to make way for a farm or a supermarket. There is no logic here. Posted by scottquint on October 8, 2001 protection laws i agree. there needs to be a happy medium. Posted by cb76 on October 8, 2001 Good/Bad/Indifferent Either/Or doesn't actually fit how I feel about this. It is unacceptable to "protect" an animal from people who wish to collect it and care for it so that its habitat can be bulldozed for a new stripmall. However, it is equally unacceptable to offer no protection from overcollection so that snakes of any type can be rounded up by the hundreds (or even dozens). Georgia's laws are, unfortunately, a prime example of how upside down this can get. Gopher Tortoises are completely protected from being rescued by well wishers and tortoise lovers. However, their burrows are constantly being bulldozed for the construction of a new Super WalMart, McDonalds or Coin Op laundry. Rattlesnakes, on the other hand, can be collected by any method for just about any purpose (usually to the snake's detriment). To round out this absurdity, Corn Snakes (as an example of ALL Georgia's nonvenomous snakes) are protected from collection. Now, that doesn't sound TOO bad. After all, the Corn Snake is the #1 snake bred in captivity! Except that even captive-bred from another state are illegal! So even if a wild Corn Snake crawls into the Ladies Auxiliary Meeting House, if I am lucky enough to show up before it gets stomped, I cannot keep it. The laws do not protect the animals from the developers or from the people who kill them on sight (certain in their hearts that they are in danger of losing their own life). At the same time, rattlesnakes, coral snakes, water moccasins and copperheads get no protection within the law and are collected by the hundreds. There needs to be a happy medium. I believe that "nominal fee" permitting, bag limits and possession limits (along the lines of Arizona) would even things out. The whole "exotic venomous or not" is an entirely 'nother issue. Thanks for reading, Karl Posted by Buzztail1 on October 6, 2001 regulation habitat destruction is a major concern everyday, but few states see it that way until a species is already in "Sad" condition. Collection, on the other hand, wouldn't be a problem except that "way too much" crossbreeding and hybridization is going on. we are not preserving the natural native species in captivity that once existed in the wild. we should do our best to preserve what "God" created and keep it "as is" be it in the wild, or captivity....... Posted by wlspencer on October 6, 2001 I think control is A word I would use lightly, I still dont agree with the fact that there is no protection for venomous.I can "ROUND UP" 1,000 Rattlesnakes but cant enjoy A Mid-land water snake??? Posted by Bellerophon on October 6, 2001 To post a comment, you must be logged in. If you are not a member, become one now!