Indonesian Garters and Petco

[infernalis]

Thomas, I think you misunderstand.

No one wants them banned. Just labeled and sold correctly, labeled responsibly.

They are confusing the general public in many ways. That's all.

[MasSalvaje]

Thomas, I think you misunderstand.

No one wants them banned. Just labeled and sold correctly, labeled responsibly.

They are confusing the general public in many ways. That's all.

I understand that no one here wants them banned, but if we start bringing up terms like mildly venomous, that is just adding fuel to an all ready growing fire in some cases. Someone may see that as a reason to ban them. Lyre snakes and true Keelbacks are already banned in my state, for simply the same reason we are mentioning here.

As I have stated before I am very much against having something labeled incorrectly. It promotes improper husbandry issues and can be very harmful to the new keeper and more importantly the snake. Keep sending your emails, but be careful that one of our own arguements does not come back to bite us.

-Thomas

[Stefan-A]

I understand that no one here wants them banned, but if we start bringing up terms like mildly venomous, that is just adding fuel to an all ready growing fire in some cases. Someone may see that as a reason to ban them. Lyre snakes and true Keelbacks are already banned in my state, for simply the same reason we are mentioning here.

I don't think it's a very good strategy to just attempt to avoid getting species banned for as long as possible. If you're lucky, you'll be allowed to keep Tamagotchis when they're finished banning every type of pet that anyone wants banned. You can't win by letting the fire burn itself out.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I understand that no one here wants them banned, but if we start bringing up terms like mildly venomous, that is just adding fuel to an all ready growing fire in some cases. Someone may see that as a reason to ban them. Lyre snakes and true Keelbacks are already banned in my state, for simply the same reason we are mentioning here.

As I have stated before I am very much against having something labeled incorrectly. It promotes improper husbandry issues and can be very harmful to the new keeper and more importantly the snake. Keep sending your emails, but be careful that one of our own arguements does not come back to bite us.

-Thomas

your concern and heart is in the right place, however, there is no point to conceal information. That's how accidents happen, if a person knows to handle with relative caution, then they are much less likely to get bit. Mildly venomous is the correct term. To "hide" that fact, or neglect to acknowledge it, would be ignorant on my part, and misleading to others. When people ask me if a snake like that is "harmless" I respond, "99% of the time, yes. But they should still be handled with caution and awareness." If my use of mildly venomous concerns them, they can research that term and realize that it's not a major threat. They sell hognoses and they already know that they are rear fanged and mildly venomous. I will continue to use the proper terminology when referring to rear fanged snakes, I will not allow a slightly possible ban to intimidate me or inhibit my use of terminology and information.

[And_Lyn]

your concern and heart is in the right place, however, there is no point to conceal information. That's how accidents happen, if a person knows to handle with relative caution, then they are much less likely to get bit. Mildly venomous is the correct term. To "hide" that fact, or neglect to acknowledge it, would be ignorant on my part, and misleading to others. When people ask me if a snake like that is "harmless" I respond, "99% of the time, yes. But they should still be handled with caution and awareness." If my use of mildly venomous concerns them, they can research that term and realize that it's not a major threat. They sell hognoses and they already know that they are rear fanged and mildly venomous. I will continue to use the proper terminology when referring to rear fanged snakes, I will not allow a slightly possible ban to intimidate me or inhibit my use of terminology and information.

Preach it to me, sista!

I like reading your posts. They are always well thought out and intelligent

[MasSalvaje]

I will continue to use the proper terminology when referring to rear fanged snakes, I will not allow a slightly possible ban to intimidate me or inhibit my use of terminology and information.

I would hope so, I am in no way against proper identification or verbage. My point is that if we are going to use the term of "mildly venomous" with species you have referred to, by your own rule above and one I am with you on, you must also apply that same title to Thamnophis.

And Loren I live in Utah where Keelbacks and the Lyre are controlled species. I was mistaken however, the Lyre is not controlled because of its mild venom like the Keelback. It is controlled because of its restricted range with in the state, so thank you for in advertantly addressing that.

-Thomas

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

by your own rule above and one I am with you on, you must also apply that same title to Thamnophis.

I do, quite often actually
It would just be extremely redundant to mention it on this forum every time I was speaking concerning them... but when I speak with people in person, at shows or customers in the store, I do inform and explain to people that garter snakes are by the books, rear fanged venomous animals.


I simply HAVE to try and find out where I found the info regarding the death from the Lyre snake bite and in which state they are protected... I know I have it somewhere! Don't you hate it when this stuff happens.... it was some time ago, when I get some real time on my hands, I will try and dig something up. I also met a guy today who is very informed on the laws and is one that enforces them, regularly confisgates reptiles and what not. I might be able to get help on that matter from him!!!