Question concerning Venomous snakes

[Azxtmereptiles]

WE spoke to G&F Yumas office today,We have been told that it is illegal to have venomous snakes ,no matter if you have a hunting license ,Wildlife service permit,or a Holding permit.The wildlife service permit gives us the permission to remove and relocate them,The hunting license gives us the permission to have no more than 4 in our possion,but not to keep them as pets or whatever.Correct me if i am wrong. But how is a person allowed to keep in captivity a venomous snake without being unlawful,My reason for asking is there are post that "Gift" snakes out, which is not illegal, but how are we allowed to keep our gifts. Someone please educate me ..What do I need to do to Keep per say our gifts without G&F taking it from us or fining us..We even went after a Scientific collecting permit for another reason but that license has its flaws..We can not even educate others with a venomous snake as per say "Game and Fish" Now if the snake or reptile came to you from a reabilitation program ,and Game and Fish felt it did not need to be blue juiced(killed) we could then keep it.under a reabilitation permit.Reptiles are put down 90% of the time unlike if it were a Falcon.and I find that $#% up ,,So how is it possible to keep a local Venomous Reptiles??????Brent

[KKC]

Read the Regs better. They explain themselves.

[Azxtmereptiles]

This is been said to us by G&F .. That is why we had asked the question,as maybe we missed something,in the regs..School us!!

[MikeB]

R12-4-404. POSSESSION OF LIVE WILDLIFE TAKEN ON AN ARIZONAHUNTING OR FISHING LICENSE
A.
Wildlife may be taken from the wild alive by authority of an appropriate
Arizona hunting or fishing license only when a Commission order specifies a live bag and possession limit for that species. Wildlife taken
pursuant to this Subsection may be possessed, transported, placed on
educational display, propagated, and killed for personal use, or disposed of pursuant to subsection (B), except that live baitfish may be
possessed and transported only in accordance with R12-4-316.
B.
Wildlife and the progeny of wildlife possessed pursuant to this rule may only be disposed of by gift or as directed by the Department, except that
wildlife not removed from the area where captured may be released.
Lawfully possessed live wildlife may be exported.
C.
A combined total of wildlife and the progeny of wildlife possessed
pursuant to this rule shall not exceed the possession limit established
by the current Commission order governing that species, except that the progeny of reptiles and amphibians may be held in captivity in
excess of the possession limit for 12 months from the date of birth or
hatching. Before or upon reaching 12 months of age, progeny of reptiles and amphibians in excess of the possession limit shall be
disposed of by gift or as directed by the Department.

[MikeB]

They may have thought you were talking about non-native venomous. Any animal that was not captured within the borders of AZ is illegal

[Azxtmereptiles]

We told G&F they had been native venomous snakes Becky at the Yuma office said no no no .She stated we could not have any venomous reptiles .We wanted to get a holding permit or add them to ours and they stated we could not..All I wanted to do was get my holding permit for venomous snakes.She said you can not show ,or use them to educate others,There was like no winning with her..I know it is possible to have the snakes But getting them out there to give up the holding permit is a joke..

[Eevelsmf]

....snakes are you thinking of keeping?

Mark V/P

[Azxtmereptiles]

Arizona blk. tail
Speckled Rattlesnake
Blacktail Rattlesnake
Hopi Rattlesnake
Western Sidewinder

Just guys like that. all Local Arizona snakes thats all..

[Azxtmereptiles]

I meant Arizona black Rattlesnake my mistake.. not listing Arizona Blacktail Twice..

[JJFeldner]

deal strictly with the Greenway HQ. Becky (what is she, the janitor?) has get her head where the sun don't shine and you should let AZGF HQ know that. Of the snakes you mentiioned, you are authorized by a hunting license to catch and maintain four of each. Since there are two ssp of sidewainder in AZ, you can have 4 of each. We have never had trouble showing or using our critters to educate the public. :mad:

[Azxtmereptiles]

Rebecca Wright
Law Enforcement Programs Manager
Is her title I think I nned to Call HQ to find out if I must obtain a holding permit for the local snakes I received or will be getting this weekend ,The Yuma office runs this area For that permit from what we had been told so I just want my Reptiles!!!! Brent

[Azxtmereptiles]

When if we have to do we need a holding permit for local Reptiles??

[Cmpyrrhus]

This is the problem with the AZGF offices. Many really do not know the regulations as they stand, but instead understand them as the THINK they are. Fact is, there are only a few species out of the many here in AZ we cannot keep or collect, that is if you follow the law and obtain them legally and all venomous species are legal. Be careful with other government folks like the forestry officers, as they hardly know the laws and regulations as well. I find it useful to download the regs and keep a copy of them with you at all times, so you have PROOF of what you know to be correct laws when your out in the field and approached by officers of any agency.

I keep 5 rattlesnakes myself. All except one were legally caught by myself with a valid hunting permit. The one other was gifted to me. I also keep a few other native species, from Cali kings, a gopher snake, longnose and toad, which the gopher and longnose being the only one I collected of those, the rest gifted out to me. Bag limits are also something that needs to be looked into and followed.


PDF File of the regs - Arizona Game and Fish - 2004 Reptile and Amphibian Regulations (http://www.azgfd.com/pdfs/h_f/herp_regs.pdf) Make a few copies, read them and follow them.

[AMills]

Since there are two ssp of sidewainder in AZ, you can have 4 of each.


So are you saying there are 3 types of sidewinder or 2?

[MikeB]

MOJAVE DESERT SIDEWINDER Crotalus cerastes cerastes.
SONORAN SIDEWINDER Crotalus cerastes cercobombus.
COLORADO DESERT SIDEWINDER Crotalus cerastes laterorepens

[JJFeldner]

I was just getting ready to do the same thing. If you want to see all 3 ssp, go to http://www.californiaherps.com/.

[Donna]

OK so someone correct me if I'm wrong... I was told you didn't need any permits and you also didn't need to have a hunting license to be given a native snake, just be sure and have documents to cover yourself.

Donna

[AMills]

Yeah i knew there were three types of sidewinder i was just confused by the 2 ssp part. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Marty]

Sidewinders are included in section A of CO 43. The commission order states 4 of each of the species in section A, not subspecies. Therefore, the maximum number of sidewinders one person could legally possess is four. Things could get complicated not knowing what taxonomy AZ G&F follows (i.e., C.viridis complex).

BTW, it's possible that AZ might only have two subspecies of sidewinders. I know someone was recently studying them but don't know what conclusion the data supported.

[Cmpyrrhus]

The commission order states 4 of each of the species in section A, not subspecies. Therefore, the maximum number of sidewinders one person could legally possess is four. Things could get complicated not knowing what taxonomy AZ G&F follows (i.e., C.viridis complex).

I never really took that into consideration. I always planned that I would eventually collect species ranging through the whole viridis complex, and currently own two Sonoran winders as of now. Being as such, I take it to be a wise idea to hold off on collecting more than the allowed amount of species regarding the viridid complex eh?

I then assume this would be equally adapted into collecting snakes [all herps in fact] in one species, even when several ssp are native and allowed in collections, such as Gopher snakes and whatnot. Some food for thought there.....

Edit:

I was told you didn't need any permits and you also didn't need to have a hunting license to be given a native snake, just be sure and have documents to cover yourself.

Pretty much correct here. I think it is wise to just cover your bases by getting the hunting permit anyhoo. It is not at all spendy, and not needed if you are not actively collecting or pursueing herps as take. But IMO, aint a bad idea to spend the $25.50 on one. I also keep records on how, where and when I collect herps. Although this can be altered, I find it useful for those reasons. I would not honestly know any way to "prove" how, when or where I recieved a herp. Just that I know my records are accurate. ;)

[Rich G.]

and AZGF follows SSAR. At present with the former viridis complex they would go with two species, viridis and oreganus.

[Azxtmereptiles]

Well as of Monday G&F will get a lesson for learning.We did this hole ordeal with F&G in Cali so here we go again ,Thank You once again for all your input but we still have a question when do we have to aquire a holding permit for Venomous Reptiles???????

[cthulhu77]

Typically, that is necessary when you are going to be temporarily over the normal limit of 4 per species...say, if you are a relocator, and you pick up 6 diamondbacks in one weekend, etc...
The previous points are dead on, don't even bother talking to her again...if you need, call the main branch in Phoenix.
Good luck...we all know this is a real pain in the rear !
greg

[Azxtmereptiles]

Well than all the permits we have are fine for what we have ,We only hold two of each species for the most part ..So we are going to call Phoenix to speak with them.On this matter,The funny part is when we went up to the Yumas office they were all fine with what we had in mine and even encouraged it (education)as we have all the neccassary permits all ready.We were under the misunderstanding of having a holding permit..Well from what has been explained to us,that was misleading info...Well everyone thank you much for all the helpful input and we are going to keep it in good use...

[Marty]

Rich, Your point reinforces what I was saying. Several years ago, at the time Douglas and Shuett's work on the viridis complex was published, I was told that AZ G&F would be adopting that taxonomy. It has now been several years since viridis was split into viridis and oreganus and the commission orders, nor anything alse I've seen from the department, reflect those changes. Maybe one of those cases where someone has to get busted and have a judge rule on the State's position in order to set precedence.

[necoris]

Sidewinders are included in section A of CO 43. The commission order states 4 of each of the species in section A, not subspecies. Therefore, the maximum number of sidewinders one person could legally possess is four. Things could get complicated not knowing what taxonomy AZ G&F follows (i.e., C.viridis complex).

Marty:
So you are stating that if I had four Crotalus oreganus cerberus, four Crotalus oreganus abyssus and four Crotalus oreganus lutosus, I would be eight over my posession limit?

I'm getting sick of Arizona. The Game & Fish department is almost overwhelming. From my experiences, most of the employees can't differentiate species. And then, from a Game & Fish office, comes the statement that a person can't legally keep any venomous reptiles? As soon as I find a job out of state, I'm leaving.

Dustin

[Marty]

The Comission Order states clearly "Four (4) per year or in possession of each species live or dead" for all species not listed in subsections below. Crotalus oreganus is not listed below so to adhere to the CO one could legally possess a maximum of 4 Crotalus oreganus no matter what subspecies. Since the species in section A are not listed clarification for species covered in that section, and their presently accepted identities, would have to come from either the commission or the department. I don't know who has authority to decide issues of taxonomy for the purposes of regulation but would think it's the commission if the change affects take.

[necoris]

The Comission Order states clearly "Four (4) per year or in possession of each species live or dead" for all species not listed in subsections below. Crotalus oreganus is not listed below so to adhere to the CO one could legally possess a maximum of 4 Crotalus oreganus no matter what subspecies. Since the species in section A are not listed clarification for species covered in that section, and their presently accepted identities, would have to come from either the commission or the department. I don't know who has authority to decide issues of taxonomy for the purposes of regulation but would think it's the commission if the change affects take.

Weak. My favorite species and I can't pair up more than two different subspecies...

Thanks for the information Marty.

Dustin

[FlagstaffHerper]

Hold on. I understand what Marty is saying but if you look on the posters that AZ G&F give out if you go to there offices it states that there are five subspecies of Viridis and so on. SO they do know that there are Five subspecies and the mention the same when looking at the sidewinder group. I know that there is a LOT of change going on in the viridis complex and that leads to confusion but it would seem to me that if you have subspecies that are noticably different in apperence it should not be a major problem to explain it situation to the G&F officer. The confusion would be in if you have hopis that looked to close to great basins for example. But I could be wrong.

[Marty]

James,

AZ G&F 'knowing' that what was formerly C.viridis having 5 subspecies by referencing the poster doesn't change the bag and possession limit stated for the species. If AZ G&F chooses to not enforce the CO and allow people to have more than the 4 specimens of C.oreganus (or any other species with multiple subspecies in AZ) perscribed in the CO because they look different from one another and put it in writing, it would have to come from the commission and then I'd then agree. Until then, visibly different subspecies of the same species still count towards the total number of specimens permissible. I wouldn't want to put myself in a position where I'd be relying on an AZ G&F officer to interpret how the law was to be enforced...which they really shouldn't be doing anyway.

[Cmpyrrhus]

If it is that the AZGF commision followed SSAR on their description of what ssp are native to AZ concerning collections, then by all means a person may collect all native viridis ssp, 2 Hopi (nuntius) and 2 Prarie (viridis) Rattlesnakes and be within bag limits.

But when it comes to oreganus ssp, things would change. A total of 4 specimens from abyssus, cerberus, concolor, and lutosus would be allowed,but not all if more than one of these ssp were to be placed in your collection. I would see it that by the SSAR following, that you could keep every known ssp of the whole oreganus complex, but would have to keep only one ssp. from each, being there are four ssp. native to Arizona and the bag limit is four specimens as well.

So, it could be legally done by the departemts regulations if the SSAR descriptions are allowed as an outline for collecting.

[Azxtmereptiles]

We spoke direct with the Az.G&F. officer that runs are area and took them and showed what we have ,We are completely legal ,And the officer that stated all the facts,from before was in the wrong , So this officer is going ahead and turning our papers in direct ,They did say that the law can be taken a few ways..And they are working on it to better it for others ,(less headache) Thank you guys..This site ROCKS for advice!!

[cornsnake]

Are you in yuma?.. just wondering becuase as of right now the only people i know of is me and uncloudy,, we would love to have more herpers here in yuma... cas :Cool:

[Azxtmereptiles]

I wish we were in yuma It must be cooler than Lake Havasu City Arizona were we are at ..I spoke to a good friend that has helped us out alot along with others in delimas like this it has all been all straighten out ..We are aloud to hunt or collect under are hunting license but we are not aloud to keep what we remove under our Wildlife service permits we must relocate and release those guys...That is were the misunderstanding begin .. They thought we were keeping what we remove with our Wildlife service permit.. That from what they said is illegal, but you can collect 4 of each species under your hunting license..But Thank you all again!!

And next time then since we know this about you guys we will be emailing you direct about any questions

[xvenomx]

I have been told for years that there is NO permit available for a private individual to keep non native venomous. This is not true, if you are wealthy and in good with the department they will allow you to keep these animals. This is unfair to the rest of the responsible keepers out there, who aren't wealthy and don't have connections within the department.

[cthulhu77]

Rubbish. That is simply untrue. Getting a permit is a long process, but not that hard if you have a good reason to have one. Neither does it take a lot of money.
They just don't hand them out for reasons like : "I think bitis are cool", etc.
I recieved one in 88, and all it took was a well written cover letter, and an appearance before the board.

greg

[JJFeldner]

get the Commission to learn the difference between species and taxa of reptiles. If the rules are changed to reflect each taxon then we don't have to worry if things are called C. oreganus ssp. or C. viridis ssp. Then the various types will be akin to the ones shown on the poster that AZGF has put out.

[DSquared]

xvenomx-

Ok, Darrell, Game & Fish lies. Now, just so you don't fall into that bad habit too, how about telling us what a guy is doing with 9 Gaboon vipers, puff adder, Russell's viper, 2 Gila monsters and the wife and kids in the house?
Is that responsible? And after a load of illegal hots are seized a few years ago, why does a guy go out a get the same stuff all over again? Is that responsible? Sounds like a slow learner to me. What do you think?

[xvenomx]

Can you tell me why the department tells me I can't have a permit, because "there is no such permit" and then issue this permit to other people? If that isnt a LIE !!!! I don't know what is !Who the h*** are you ? And for your info Jack***. I WAS trying to rid myself of the illegal hots. But I wasn't going to release them, sell them,give them away, etc to someome in this biased state. I assume you work for azgfd,unless you are the person who received the snakes, and you dont know me, so don't try to judge me, my animals were secure. And as far as the gilas go I don't feel guilty in the slightest for picking them up off the highway, I guess in your mind, its better to run them over then to remove them from the road. Speaking of which, why is it okay to kill off their food source,ie. Quail and then wonder why they are in decline, you need to check yourself. You forgot to mention that I have been keeping venomous snakes since I was in the FIFTH grade ,apparently you think you are a riteous person and you have all the answers,so If you want to say something to me, send it to my email.

[cthulhu77]

Wow. Another load of diatribe.
If this is the way you approach game and fish, I would imagine they would tell you to go away !
The permit does exist, but I seriously doubt that you will ever get one. (as a matter of fact, I can no longer obtain one either)

Regarding the other post, yes, you should keep personal slams to the email system, please, if at all.

Regarding your keeping of hot animals since the fifth grade, I hardly think that qualifies you for squat. Even in permitted states, there is a mandatory age limit.

Regarding your take on Gila Monsters, I don't think you are going to win over many people with that viewpoint. They belong in the wild, not in your cages.

best,

greg

[xvenomx]

That is not the way I had approached game and fish in the past . I am aware of the age limit for keeping venomous in states where you are allowed. It just seems rediculous to me that in a state where you can keep a wdb , or a mojave rattlesnake. Why not a copperhead , or a timber rattlesnake?You can take a 6 year old hunting and hand them a shot gun, and say shoot the bird, keep a 170 pound rottweiler in your house and allow it to play freely with your children, but If you have some snakes "that is wrong". It still doesn't excuse the FACT that G&F told me on more then one occasion that " A PERMIT FOR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO KEEP VENOMOUS SNAKES DOES NOT EXIST" when clearly it does. I have also made reports of people I witnessed killing snakes at night with a spotlight, from a vehicle, and was told "theres nothing we can do about that" by the 1-800 game theif operator . Not all of the people at Game and fish are corrupt , but the ones who are make the entire department look bad, at least to me.

[cthulhu77]

You seem quite impassioned. What is the difference between shooting a snake and collecting it?? Nothing. Both are removed from their habitat.
Individuals can, and have, been permitted by the department to keep non-indigenous venomous reptiles. But, those permits are few and far between, and are usually only granted to those of an educational bend. (mine was for Thelotornis, to do a paper on male dominance...never happened, as I could not locate any specimens!)
There are also city and state ordinances in place regarding the keeping of venomous animals...and it is up to the individual to comply with said regulations (age, license, etc.)
A lot of people come up to me and ask me if I would be interested in trying to get the commission to rescind the '70s laws about keeping venomous animals. I always say, "no". Most of the keepers I know out here are not capable of handling a room full of cobras, and I certainly don't want them in my neighborhood.

greg

[xvenomx]

This is true, taking an animal from the wild,by killing it or otherwise, is still removing it from the wild. But removing an animal from the pavement where it would have been killed by a vehicle, is a different situation entirely.those animals are in an area that is not "WILD" anymore and therefore will either be eventually removed from their no longer existent environment.You seem quite impassioned. What is the difference between shooting a snake and collecting it?? Nothing. Both are removed from their habitat.
Individuals can, and have, been permitted by the department to keep non-indigenous venomous reptiles. But, those permits are few and far between, and are usually only granted to those of an educational bend. (mine was for Thelotornis, to do a paper on male dominance...never happened, as I could not locate any specimens!)
There are also city and state ordinances in place regarding the keeping of venomous animals...and it is up to the individual to comply with said regulations (age, license, etc.)
A lot of people come up to me and ask me if I would be interested in trying to get the commission to rescind the '70s laws about keeping venomous animals. I always say, "no". Most of the keepers I know out here are not capable of handling a room full of cobras, and I certainly don't want them in my neighborhood.

greg

[cthulhu77]

Now you are splitting hairs...you can not see into the future...the animal may have turned around, no cars may have passed, or they may have missed the critter.
Violating a law that most of us believe in for your own personal gain doesn't go very far with me.

greg

[Steve]

This thread has been trimmed due to personal attacks.

Please keep it civil so that we don't have to pull the whole thread.

Thank you,
Steve

[cthulhu77]

I can understand the frustration that animal keepers feel in regards to the fact that they are not allowed to maintain certain animals. But, it is true that once an animal has been removed from the wild, it is no longer part of the habitat it was removed from, and reintroduction or repopulation usually does not work, the mortality rate is staggering.
It is not "psuedo-science", it is the way things are.

If the powers that be decide that there are enough Gila Monsters in the wild to support a limited take, I would be the first one to congratulate those of you who want to keep them in captivity...but right now, they are illegal to possess in our state without a permit.

To gain a permit, you would have to have the backing of some sort of a scientifc or educational institution (such as the AHA does), present the project to the board clearly, and wait a bit. Right now, it is the only way you are going to be able to collect and keep them, facts are facts.

greg

[DSquared]

justifications for breaking the law. Did you ever consider taking the Gila monsters off of the road and walking a few yards and placing them down? And Darrell, you can teach children a lot about dangerous animals without having a house full of illegal ones. Still wondering why you didn't get a permit?

D

[xvenomx]

I don't appreciate you using my name on this site, and you still didn't answer MY questions, whats your name? I would like to post some slanderous remarks against you . And f.y.i. if I hadn't stopped, I would have run over the animals, and in the law it states that a person shall not remove, molest etc, so by following your advice, & removing them from the road, I would still be in violation of the law, correct? By the way, I also have a desert tortoise,that I received as a gift from my mother, it is captive born, and perfectly legal. But the officers weren't even concerned with it, Why is this? Aren't desert tortoises criticly endangered? ENDANGERED !! not just protected, like gilas. where is the justification for the lack of concern ? If I were an officer I would have definately questioned the tortoises origin.
Why don't you mention how the officers were so excited about their big bust, that they drove off with an unsecured cage, and released a RUSSELS VIPER !!!! Luckily for all concerned the snake didn't get out of the bed of their truck. But what would have happened if it would have ? Maybe before accusing me of being irresponsible, you should look at your department. I've NEVER had a venomous snake escape .

[Oldguy]

This is not a personal attack but a rubuttal to your mis-information. By your own admission you knowingly broke the law on multiple occasions. Your reasoning that the law doesn't pertain to you because the Gilas might get harmed if you don't take it home is not a good one. Keeping non-native venomous in direct difference to the the law is not "responsible". Quote "This is unfair to the rest of the responsible keepers out there, who aren't wealthy and don't have connections within the department". What would have happened to your wife and children if Game and Fish would have visited your house while you weren't there?
"By the way, I also have a desert tortoise,that I received as a gift from my mother, it is captive born, and perfectly legal. But the officers weren't even concerned with it, Why is this?" The Desert Tortoise doesn't have the ability to kill a human. I would also assume it's harder to prove that it was not a legal progeny from legal animal. The Russel's/Gaboon (and the other venomous animals) were obviously not legal and could cause harm.
"Not all of the people at Game and fish are corrupt , but the ones who are make the entire department look bad, at least to me." Have you asked yourself if your actions helped make the herping community look bad? Some of the inferences also are not making the situation any better - It's OK to take Gilas from the wild because there is Quail hunting....
It's OK for people to break the law and keep non-native venomous because there are not laws against keeping Rottweilers...
I guess some things just don't convey properly.

[cthulhu77]

[QUOTE=xvenomx Maybe before accusing me of being irresponsible, you should look at your department. I've NEVER had a venomous snake escape .[/QUOTE]


Well, it sounds like that was only a matter of time...how can you possibly compare the keeping of african and asian exotic vipers with desert tortoises???? As O.G. has stated so well, your version seems to be full of ....holes?

greg

[xvenomx]

Yes breaking the law is wrong, shame on me ,and I have been , and continue to be punished, but this law in particular is rediculous, and saying that was only a matter of time.... is like saying its only a matter of time before your gun goes off in your face , or you will be hit by a car,etc. its a big if. Life is full of dangerous things. You knowingly put your life, your family's lives, and everyone elses lives in danger every time vou drive a car. Do you take precautions against injury, or death ? I'm sure you do. As did I, MY children & wife were not !,and still are not !, in any danger. But thanks for your concern. And as far as the tortoise goes, I wasn't comparing it to the VIPERS !! I was only stating that they could care less about an ENDANGERED animal, then a pigmy rattlesnake,(which is less dangerous than a sidewinder).The herp community shouldn't be attacking each other , but rather defending each other. I am sorry about having those snakes illegally, not because of the law, but because they will most likely be euthanized, either intentionally , or through lack of proper knowledge to care for these animals. Its sad, I spent a great deal of time and effort caring for those animals ,and like I said in my first reply to this crap, you people don't know me , so don't judge me !
I like that you're quick to defend the total disregard for safety when it comes to the cops . I guess its okay for THEM to release asian vipers?

[xvenomx]

I never said "its okay to break the law" I was stating that these snakes are not even close to as dangerous as , say, a rottweiler, or daddys huntin'rifle , A trip to the next city over etc. And while I was knowingly breaking the law, I WAS trying to get out of my situation, as I stated before. I was not going to release, sell, trade, or otherwise, those snakes in this state, or anywhere else where it is illegal (its hard to remedy a mistake without proper funding). The gilas, well, I guess I should have made pavement out of them, thats what you people want, isnt it ?

[cthulhu77]

I think the crying of "mea culpa" has gone on long enough here. Back on point, I wonder how many herpers out there would be seriously interested in expanding the current venomous laws to contain some currently illegal items?
There was a movement a while ago that attempted to mimic the florida structure of laws, but in view of recent events, that may not prove to be so workable!

greg

[Rich G.]

I had always thought we should be able to add the non-native rattlesnake species to what we can legally keep. All rattlesnake species are basically covered by the same antivenins. Rattlesnakes are really not very prone to escape unlike colubrids and elapids, and we know they generally do not adapt to new enviroments which pretty much eliminates the problem of them establishing invasive populations. I have on a couple of occasions seen people forget to close cages, (and let me be the first to say that even though these people were my friends, they had no business keeping hots! Luckily most of those I am talking about no longer do) go away for up to a week and and come home to find the rattlesnakes still sitting contentedly in their cages. Also, rattlesnakes are easily recognizable when they are loose.

I have always been against other non-native, especially elapids. Antivenins would cost a fortune to keep in stock, they are very active escape artists and are much more capable of establishing themselves. They also look very harmless when not hooded or in defensive posture and there have been many instances of cobras being mistaken for harmless indigos and coachwhips. And although there are many good responsible keepers, there are just too many irresponsible and inexperienced keepers to open that door to the general public.

But nowdays, in light of recent events I would advise everybody to be happy with what privileges you do have and leave it alone. One by one, individle state legislatures are prohibiting the keeping of venomous, both native and non-native. Many states have fallen this year. Yes, I think it is an irrational fear on the publics part. More people are killed by horses each year than by snakes, wild or captive, not to mention the people killed bull-riding, rodeos in general, motorcycles etc. To classify a horse as an "inherently dangerous animal" and prohibit them would be just plain "Un-American". But,life isn't fair. I think we in Az. are sliding under the radar thanks to the way our regs read. If a congressman or lobbyist looks at Az. regs they already see that venomous snakes are "Prohibited wildlife". They accept that and totally miss the articles that provide for open season/possession of the native venomous species (and this is simply the same mistake that happens when one calls your local G&F office and talks to personell there. They take one look at the regs, see that venomous is considerd "Prohihibited wildlife" and pass that info to the caller) I think we should be grateful for what we have while we still have it and just leave well enough alone.

Rich

[cthulhu77]

Well spoken, and I agree 100%...most of the people out here that I have met that want to have cobras, etc, really do not have the necessary experience to maintain them.
If you want to work with elapids, go to work with a zoo, or a lab.

Good point about the cost of the anitvenin(s) too...quite pricey!

greg