Are venomous snakes integral parts of a reptile collection?

[JerseyLotte]

I personally feel there are too few snakes to be seen in UK zoo's in general,
as much as I'd like to see greater variety including more venomous, I certainly don't think it should be approached lightheartedly or at the expense of a strict code of protocol.

Short staffing, overwhelming workloads and less than desirable facilities should mean that even with trained, competent staff, it's a big thing to consider.

 

[Jurek7]

I personally feel there are too few snakes to be seen in UK zoo's in general

I would second that! Unfortunately, reptiles need new exhibit ideas, not just a row of terraria.

Maybe ideas based on SeaLife centres could make especially popular reptile/amphibian ehibits?

 

[Wurm]

Antivenin cost can be a major prohibitive factor for mid-sized to small zoos. Aside from that, it's up to individual zoo philosophy and the comfort level/experience of the management/staff as to whether or not venomous snakes are displayed.

The venomous snake is often far over-represented in zoos when one considers reptile diversity as a whole. But we find the same sorts of biases in all the vertebrate classes at zoos and aquariums, from fish to mammals, if we choose to look.

 

[Johnny Morris.]

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.

Paignton keep Gila Monster.

I don't really think it matters if snakes are venomus or not, they are usually just lying there coiled up not doing anything.

 

[gentle lemur]

I have voted yes - always provided that the safety of staff and visitors is top priority.
Even in snake poor England there is much misunderstanding of venomous snakes - so our inoffensive and vulnerable adders are still sometimes considered to be as dangerous as rattlesnakes.
There is much educational work that zoos can do: if I remember correctly, some years ago Regents Park had a special symbol on the labels of venomous animals, linking to a kid's questionnaire (called 'The Venom Trail' or something similar). Stingrays, lionfish, bees, wasps, spiders, scorpions are common enough, add the gila monster and beaded lizard plus the Komodo dragon. Even if a zoo doesn't exhibit lorises, shrews or platypus, it could still make an interesting point.

Alan

 

[condor]

I'm sure there must be different rules in different regions, but I'm puzzled if there really are regions in western countries where zoos are required to have their own antivenom for all their venomous snakes.

At least in most regions in Europe and North America, there are holding centers for antivenom. Let's say someone was bitten by Trimeresurus/Cryptelytrops macrops in northwestern Europe, there are 3 German centers (Berlin, Wuppertal, Munich) that have antivenom for it, 1 in Sweden (Stockholm), 4 in Switzerland (Servion, Geneve, Zurich, Münsterlingen) and 1 in the UK (London). Another example could be Crotalus trigris with antivenom at 4 German centers (Leipzig, Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich) and 2 in Switzerland (Servion, Münsterlingen), or Oxyuranus microlepidotus at 2 German centers (Berlin, Munich), 1 in Sweden (Stockholm), 1 in Switzerland (Zurich) and 1 in the UK (London). There are very few dangerously venomous snakes where no holding centers in the region have antivenom for it. For example, no northwest European center keeps antivenom for sea snakes (Aipysurus, Astrotia, Enhydrina, Hydrophis, Lapemis, Laticauda, Pelamis, Thalassophina), though an antivenom for these is produced by CSL in Australia.

When a young man was bitten by his illegally kept South American rattlesnake in Denmark in 2002, antivenom from Stockholm, Sweden was flown in and used. Most modern snake antivenom has a shelf life of about 2 years, but that's still not a lot when considering its price (e.g. the antivenom used to treat the Danish man bitten by a South American rattlesnake has a wholesale price of about 12000 US$/10000€ + transport).

 

[cleusk]

Antivenin cost can be a major prohibitive factor for mid-sized to small zoos. Aside from that, it's up to individual zoo philosophy and the comfort level/experience of the management/staff as to whether or not venomous snakes are displayed.

I'm confused. Don't they have a method to remove the snake's capability of producing venom? I know very little about snakes, but I'm sure that I read somewhere the sacs that make the poison can be removed.

 

[Wurm]

I'm confused. Don't they have a method to remove the snake's capability of producing venom? I know very little about snakes, but I'm sure that I read somewhere the sacs that make the poison can be removed.

It's true, but there are several issues. Firstly, the surgery is no guarantee. There have been life-threatening bites from snakes after such surgeries, so there may be an ability to regenerate those tissues to some degree. There's also unanswered questions about the snake's health; venom may actually introduce important, predigestive enzymes to the food before swallowing. Some snakes seem to need the scent/stimuli of an envenomated prey to consistently eat in captivity. Finally, it's not unlike declawing big cats, filing down canines/tusks of dangerous mammals, etc. Many people find it unnatural and unethical.

 

[vogelcommando]

Intresting thread ! I voted no because I´m the opinion that there are enough other non-venomous snake-species ( about 90 % ! ) which can be shown without risk !
I also it's a geographical issue : here in north-western Europe we only have one venomous species ( the adder Vipera berus ) so people know little about it. In the US it would be helpfull the general public can meet rattlesnakes and other 'dangerous' snake-species in zoos to know how they look like and how to avoid them. Also in Australia knowing the different species would be a pre.
On the other hand - at least at the zoos I've visited so far, most visitors seeing a snake in a zoo thick automaticly it's venomous because ofcourse every snake is venomous.....!
In the Netherlands few zoos have venomous snakes and I have to say that I don't mis them and even at some specialied herp collections they are not kept but with lots of other intresting species I don't think the general care will care.

 

[condor]

cleusk, several points were raised by Wurm; for more on the matter, google venomoid. It is a highly controversial procedure and very few top snake keepers would ever consider it. In large parts of Europe (at least all Western Europe; not sure about East) the procedure is also entirely illegal and you won't find many vets that are willing to do it in the United States.

 

[RussellsViper]

it depends on where the zoo is located, having venomous snakes on display does require WHS policies and procedures to be in place, but the main reason would be expense, think about it. depending on how far the zoo is away from a hospital, but most zoo's holding venomous snakes require to hold a certain amount of anti-venom on site, anti-venom costs a lot and only lasts a year or so. so the constant money spent on buying anti-venom would be a turn off for a lot of zoos. not to mention the amount of training involved, and the limited access for general keepers, for a small zoo its not cost effective to train all staff so if the trained staff are not working at the time it limits the staff that can service the enclosure. for a lot of zoos exotics like Burmese pythons are an expense in itself, maybe not the snake itself that is expensive but the upholding of an exotic license and the transfer costs to get the animal are all big dollars. To answer your question though, no it is not a must have thing to have venomous snakes on exhibit in a zoo, though it would be appropriate to have signage and information about venomous snakes, the reason that venomous snakes are kept is to help show public the differences between venomous and non venomous snakes, to help educate public that its not necessary to kill snakes. etc. However if the funding allows it i would keep venomous snakes.

 

[CGSwans]

I'm reviving this ancient thread of mine because I was browsing through ZTL, as one does, and realised just how poor European venomous snake collections are now. Take the sum total of venomous snake species on display in Britain and Jersey:
Blue Planet Aquarium – American copperhead, desert horned viper, eyelash viper
British Wildlife Centre – common adder
Chester – common adder, Ethiopian mountain viper, red spitting cobra, West African gaboon viper
Cotswold – beautiful pit-viper, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, eyelash viper, spectacled cobra, West African gaboon viper
Drayton Manor – West African gaboon viper
Jersey – common adder
London – Ethiopian mountain viper, king cobra, Mangshan pit-viper
New Forest Reptile Centre – common adder
Wildwood – common adder
Woodside Wildlife and Falconry Park – western diamondback rattlesnake

21 holdings of 13 different species across just 10 collections. I didn't take notes for other countries but with few exceptions (Moscow and Tula in Russia, Zagreb in Croatia, Plzen in Czechia and Nockalm and Welt der Gifte in Austria come to mind), there really are very few zoos across Europe with meaningful venomous collections. I noticed this on my 2017 tour but didn't realise just how scarce venomous snakes are.

13 years on I think I have my answer, at least for one continent: no, venomous snakes are not integral to European reptile collections.

 

[Fallax]

I'm reviving this ancient thread of mine because I was browsing through ZTL, as one does, and realised just how poor European venomous snake collections are now. Take the sum total of venomous snake species on display in Britain and Jersey:
Blue Planet Aquarium – American copperhead, desert horned viper, eyelash viper
British Wildlife Centre – common adder
Chester – common adder, Ethiopian mountain viper, red spitting cobra, West African gaboon viper
Cotswold – beautiful pit-viper, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, eyelash viper, spectacled cobra, West African gaboon viper
Drayton Manor – West African gaboon viper
Jersey – common adder
London – Ethiopian mountain viper, king cobra, Mangshan pit-viper
New Forest Reptile Centre – common adder
Wildwood – common adder
Woodside Wildlife and Falconry Park – western diamondback rattlesnake

21 holdings of 13 different species across just 10 collections. I didn't take notes for other countries but with few exceptions (Moscow and Tula in Russia, Zagreb in Croatia, Plzen in Czechia and Nockalm and Welt der Gifte in Austria come to mind), there really are very few zoos across Europe with meaningful venomous collections. I noticed this on my 2017 tour but didn't realise just how scarce venomous snakes are.

13 years on I think I have my answer, at least for one continent: no, venomous snakes are not integral to European reptile collections.

You've missed a few. I can't speak for the rest of the collections but Chester also has mangrove snake and white-lipped island pit viper! Though, as far as I am aware, the Ethiopian mountain viper and red spitting cobra are off-show (planned additions for Heart of Africa I think) so there is currently 4 species on show either way.

Edit: Just remembered that tentacled snake are also venomous, though not at all deadly.

 

[CGSwans]

You've missed a few. I can't speak for the rest of the collections but Chester also has mangrove snake and white-lipped island pit viper! Though, as far as I am aware, the Ethiopian mountain viper and red spitting cobra are off-show (planned additions for Heart of Africa I think) so there is currently 4 species on show either way.

You're right, I did miss those two. I'm sure I missed a couple of others too, but not enough to substantially change the picture.

 

[Fallax]

You're right, I did miss those two. I'm sure I missed a couple of others too, but not enough to substantially change the picture.

I agree, the general trend does seem to be towards less venomous species and has been for a while. Interestingly though, I think Chester's snake collection might actually be majority venomous as the only other species I recall them having are reticulated python, Boelen's python, red-tailed racer, and emerald tree boa.

 

[birdsandbats]

I'm reviving this ancient thread of mine because I was browsing through ZTL, as one does, and realised just how poor European venomous snake collections are now. Take the sum total of venomous snake species on display in Britain and Jersey:
Blue Planet Aquarium – American copperhead, desert horned viper, eyelash viper
British Wildlife Centre – common adder
Chester – common adder, Ethiopian mountain viper, red spitting cobra, West African gaboon viper
Cotswold – beautiful pit-viper, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, eyelash viper, spectacled cobra, West African gaboon viper
Drayton Manor – West African gaboon viper
Jersey – common adder
London – Ethiopian mountain viper, king cobra, Mangshan pit-viper
New Forest Reptile Centre – common adder
Wildwood – common adder
Woodside Wildlife and Falconry Park – western diamondback rattlesnake

21 holdings of 13 different species across just 10 collections. I didn't take notes for other countries but with few exceptions (Moscow and Tula in Russia, Zagreb in Croatia, Plzen in Czechia and Nockalm and Welt der Gifte in Austria come to mind), there really are very few zoos across Europe with meaningful venomous collections. I noticed this on my 2017 tour but didn't realise just how scarce venomous snakes are.

13 years on I think I have my answer, at least for one continent: no, venomous snakes are not integral to European reptile collections.

From an American perspective this is absolutely shocking. Several species of venomous snakes are a standard in any major reptile house here.

 

[SwampDonkey]

To answer the original question: no, I don't think they are integral. However, leaving them out or minimizing them eliminates an entire class of animals, and from an educational perspective I think it is misguided. It would be a very strange choice from an American perspective, one that would be noticed by children even.

 

[CMTM]

Here in Maine we are considered the only contiguous state in the United States without venomous snakes, we used to have Timer Rattlers but they were extirpated locally around 1860. Regardless of the time that has passed, I constantly receive questions from visitors about whether or not they should be worried about running into one on a hike.

I also hear a lot of stories from folks who claim to have encountered a "water moccasin" at some point. Cottonmouths are not found even remotely near our area and almost every time they are actually talking about the harmless, but admittedly defensive, Northern Water Snake. Every single time when asked why they assumed the animal was a cottonmouth the reply is the same: "it was in or near the water".

All this to say, yes I think that stateside, venomous species are an important part of an educational/display herp collection when it is practical/feasible to do so. Perhaps it's a cultural thing or maybe just that North America has a higher venomous snake diversity than Europe. Zoo visitors here seem more interested in whether a snake is venomous or not, be it out of curiosity, fear, or a little of both. In states with venomous species, captive individuals can be very useful teachers on how to tell species apart and which ones to avoid.

Just my opinion though. I will also admit that my institution has no plans to ever bring in venomous due to staff safety concerns among other things like permitting and availability so I absolutely understand why many collections lack venomous, it's just is not practical in some applications. As much as I would love to work with them...

 

[Aardwolf]

Here in Maine we are considered the only contiguous state in the United States without venomous snakes, we used to have Timer Rattlers but they were extirpated locally around 1860. Regardless of the time that has passed, I constantly receive questions from visitors about whether or not they should be worried about running into one on a hike.

I also hear a lot of stories from folks who claim to have encountered a "water moccasin" at some point. Cottonmouths are not found even remotely near our area and almost every time they are actually talking about the harmless, but admittedly defensive, Northern Water Snake. Every single time when asked why they assumed the animal was a cottonmouth the reply is the same: "it was in or near the water".

All this to say, yes I think that stateside, venomous species are an important part of an educational/display herp collection when it is practical/feasible to do so. Perhaps it's a cultural thing or maybe just that North America has a higher venomous snake diversity than Europe. Zoo visitors here seem more interested in whether a snake is venomous or not, be it out of curiosity, fear, or a little of both. In states with venomous species, captive individuals can be very useful teachers on how to tell species apart and which ones to avoid.

Just my opinion though. I will also admit that my institution has no plans to ever bring in venomous due to staff safety concerns among other things like permitting and availability so I absolutely understand why many collections lack venomous, it's just is not practical in some applications. As much as I would love to work with them...

I've worked at some facilities that were all about the venomous and they took up most of the collection ("Elapids are like heroin," one supervisor told me, "you just start wanting more and more dangerous snakes for the thrill"), and I've been at facilities that have said "absolutely the heck not." A lot of facilities also take the middle ground of keeping native venomous species only. A major factor in the decision for a lot of places isn't just safety, it's cost. Antivenin is expensive, and it doesn't last forever. At least if you keep native species, the local hospitals will probably have that antivenin in stock already.

And absolutely about the cottonmouths. Any snake that is within half a mile of a body of water is a cottonmouth, apparently.

 

[Dassie rat]

Zoos sold only keep venomous snakes if they have the relevant anti-venins for the species,