Are venomous snakes integral parts of a reptile collection?

[CGSwans]

Must the typical reptile house have venomous snakes, or does their presence or absence not really matter to the average zoo visitor?

I've noticed that in a number of smaller private zoos here in Australia, venomous reptiles do not feature in the collections. I'm assuming this is partly a result of a lack of resources to properly train and equip staff to handle dangerously venomous animals.

Do you expect to see venomous species when you enter a reptile house? And have you ever visited a collection that didn't have any, and noticed the lack of such species?

 

[adrian1963]

I think that Reptile Houses should have at least one species of venomous reptile amongst thier collection.
Snake would be the ideal species as children and parents would be able to be more educated about these reptiles and the harm they could do to them
Most zoos or parks do not have venomous reptiles in thier collections because I think it may have something to do with the high cost of training at least 2 keepers to be able to look after thier welfare and be able to handle them the correct way.

 

[Hix]

For some zoos that keep venomous snakes OH&S require that they have protocols and procedures in place to reduce the risk of being bitten, and emergency procedures in case someone does get bitten.

One of those protocols is to have antivenom for every species of venomous snake onsite. These are generally expensive and have a shelf life of about 6 months so are constantly being replaced and exotic antivenoms may be very expensive. This factor alone would result in an ongoing cost that may be prohibitive.



Hix

 

[foz]

I dont think the average zoo visitor will particularly care, so long as they see 'snakes' i dont think they will make a point of noting wether it is venomous or not. Perosnally i wont begrudge a zoo on wether it has venomous species. I would rather see a collection of endangered and well kept snakes, venomous or not.

 

[Sun Wukong]

It depends on the type of customer. A reptile fan might enjoy a large variety of rare and interesting species, most likely those he can't keep himself, or a smaller, yet nicely selected, well presented & kept collection. A thrill seeker might be delighted to see "notorious baddies" like cobras, mambas, rattlesnakes, taipans, bushmasters etc., but also big anacondas, pythons or big crocs, represented.
Most visitors will just be happy to see spectacular reptiles; especially the kids will follow the motto: the bigger, the better.

 

[Paix]

Now I am not a reptiles fan, so I guess members who are more knowledgable on snakes would be best to answer this.

I voted no, mainly because, I do not believe they are needed to create a interesting exhibit, surely there are plenty of non-venomous species which are just as interesting and exciting as their venomous cousins!

 

[Hvedekorn]

They're not an integral part to a zoo-goer who knows what he sees. To a uneducated family who only knows of these "cool" cobras, rattlesnakes etc., it may be the reason that they spend longer time in the otherwise relatively uninteresting reptile houses. But as a "guest magnet", a big snake like an anaconda or a python could also work.

I think that if a zoo wants to keep venomous snakes, they should sorta specialize in them. Not just keep one or two species for the sake of public entertainment.

 

[siamang27]

I don't think the public cares, just have some big snakes on exhibit and they'll be happy...

 

[Sun Wukong]

If you think about it, there are more venomous reptiles on this world than just venomous snakes like Elapidae, Viperidae, Atractaspididae...etc.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicofera]Toxicofera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

So one way or another: you'll end up with venomous animals.

 

[Shorts]

I'm old school on this issue. I think part of a zoo's education brief should be to reflect the variety of life, of which venomous snakes are one strand. Besides some of the venomous species are really striking and/or beautiful and ideally visitors should get to witness them.

 

[CGSwans]

For some zoos that keep venomous snakes OH&S require that they have protocols and procedures in place to reduce the risk of being bitten, and emergency procedures in case someone does get bitten.

One of those protocols is to have antivenom for every species of venomous snake onsite. These are generally expensive and have a shelf life of about 6 months so are constantly being replaced and exotic antivenoms may be very expensive. This factor alone would result in an ongoing cost that may be prohibitive.



Hix

Is this the case in New South Wales, Hix?

 

[Arizona Docent]

Interesting most of the respondents overseas say it doesn't matter. I think it does matter and most American zoo visitors (even casual visitors) would agree. Whenever I visit a reptile house, I always hear people noting whether or not the snake is venemous. My own zoo has a very poor reptile collection (except for turtles/tortoises), with no venemous snakes, but boy do I wish we did.

 

[CGSwans]

I somewhat regret not making the votes public - do I have a sense that it's mostly UK zoochatters who regard venomous snakes as an optional extra?

I did do a little bit of browsing UK zoo websites last night and came away with the impression that some very major zoos (such as Paignton and I think Marwell) don't keep venomous reptiles.

 

[Ara]

Some zoos in Australia have got venomous snakes whether they want them or not!
Last time I was at National Zoo in Canberra (summer) there were signs up warning the public about potential encounters with brown snakes (wild ones) sunning themselves on the pathways.

In my own backyard I have an occasional red-bellied black snake hanging around my aviaries looking for mice.

Apart from a very few spectacular venomous snakes such as Gaboon vipers, most "hot" snakes are not all that impressive looking. Zoos are better off with big Burmese pythons, Reticulateds, Boas or Anacondas. That way, the Director can sleep at night without having nightmares!

 

[CGSwans]

Some zoos in Australia have got venomous snakes whether they want them or not!
Last time I was at National Zoo in Canberra (summer) there were signs up warning the public about potential encounters with brown snakes (wild ones) sunning themselves on the pathways.

And for good reason - I rang into reception when I was there on New Year's Day to report a brown snake on the path behind the tiger enclosure.

BTW - on the subject of wild elapids I know of at least one major government zoo whose staff are not allowed to attempt to remove them unless they are exactly on one of the visitor paths. They can be 20cm from where visitors walk (and we all know that visitors aren't entirely virtuous when it comes to staying on paths anyway) and zoo policy is for the staff to stand around and warn people it's there.

Absolute madness.

 

[Shorts]

I somewhat regret not making the votes public - do I have a sense that it's mostly UK zoochatters who regard venomous snakes as an optional extra?

I don't want to come on all Billy Statistic, but a 50/50 split of a very small sample hardly merits that conclusion.

 

[CGSwans]

I don't want to come on all Billy Statistic, but a 50/50 split of a very small sample hardly merits that conclusion.

Shorts, when I'm not looking at pictures of zoos, I'm fiddling around with political opinion polls virtually every day. I know fully well that this poll does not have a significant sample size.

You should note that my comment was phrased as a question and quite ambiguous ("do I have a sense"). I was inviting further comments, that is all.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Absolute madness.

Madness?
THIS! IS! OZ!

 

[Shorts]

Shorts, when I'm not looking at pictures of zoos, I'm fiddling around with political opinion polls virtually every day. I know fully well that this poll does not have a significant sample size.

You should note that my comment was phrased as a question and quite ambiguous ("do I have a sense"). I was inviting further comments, that is all.

Fair enough, let's hope we get some more comments on what I think is an interesting question/debate.

 

[Shorts]

I somewhat regret not making the votes public - do I have a sense that it's mostly UK zoochatters who regard venomous snakes as an optional extra?

I did do a little bit of browsing UK zoo websites last night and came away with the impression that some very major zoos (such as Paignton and I think Marwell) don't keep venomous reptiles.

It's possible that some UK zoochatters might not appreciate how interesting/striking some venomous snakes are because, given how few UK collections display them, they've never seen them. i.e. "they don't know what they're missing".