Moral Dilemma - Venomoids + Poll

[Mayo]

Chanty, if the vet does a good job then stick with them, if they are doing a proceedure you don't like, yes let her no but if she is the best vet in your area and gives your animals the best care then stay with her. Good Vet's are hard to find when it comes down to reptiles.

[Chimera]

Ultimately your key responsibility is to your animals. If you have an issue with this vet being involved in voids then make inquiries as to whether there are any other good herp vet in your area. If there are none then quite simply you have to deal with it and continue to see this vet.

We all know how few and far between good herp vets are, giving your own animals sub-standard care because of your own principles go against the argument you are trying to make. The animals must come first when making this decision otherwise you are contradicting yourself

[HerpDoc]

Mayo I can add that it is considered unethical to remove venom glands in snakes. It is akin to de-clawing cats. The fact is venomous reptiles are dangerous animals and if they cannot be handled safely without risk to either the animal or the handler then they should not be kept. Simple as that. I would further like to add that here at the Sanctuary or when I worked at Melbourne Zoo we did not regularly head pin snakes (only when performing oral procedures such as stomach tubing) but rather we use clear tubes that we place their head into and they tolerate this very well. The point I am making is that their are alternatives to handling dangerous animals rather than resorting to mutilation to make things easier for an incompetant individual.
To argue that people want to see vens "free-handled" and up close during snakes shows and thus animals should be operated on is ludicrous, I'm sure people also want to get in a pat the tigers etc but does that mean we should let them?

[JungleRob]

Originally Posted by da_donkey

Firstly, is the vet going to perform the proceedure?

Secondly, WHAT THE HELL is the point of running VEN courses if the snakes are not venomous........just use pythons buddy!!!


Donk

Haha....I'd love to see a python react like a tiger when feeling threatened!


I'd keep using the vet if you trust him with your animals. He's probably been approached to perform the procedure because he is good at what he does. I don't necessarily agree with it, but my animals would be my priority.

Cheers,
Rob

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

Mayo I can add that it is considered unethical to remove venom glands in snakes. It is akin to de-clawing cats. The fact is venomous reptiles are dangerous animals and if they cannot be handled safely without risk to either the animal or the handler then they should not be kept. Simple as that. I would further like to add that here at the Sanctuary or when I worked at Melbourne Zoo we did not regularly head pin snakes (only when performing oral procedures such as stomach tubing) but rather we use clear tubes that we place their head into and they tolerate this very well. The point I am making is that their are alternatives to handling dangerous animals rather than resorting to mutilation to make things easier for an incompetant individual.
To argue that people want to see vens "free-handled" and up close during snakes shows and thus animals should be operated on is ludicrous, I'm sure people also want to get in a pat the tigers etc but does that mean we should let them?

I'm going to avoid the void issue as it has been done to death. I can see your point about removing healthy organs but I think the key question is would you still use the vet if he was offering the best care available for your animals? I think that is a harder question to answer.

[HerpDoc]

I would have an issue with using a vet who had no moral fortitude. The same as I have little respect for vets who de-bark dogs, tail dock or bleed horses. It's old school, time these people got into the 21st century and realised that animals cannot be treated as a commodity but should demand our respect and empathy.

[foxysnake]

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

I would have an issue with using a vet who had no moral fortitude. The same as I have little respect for vets who de-bark dogs, tail dock or bleed horses. It's old school, time these people got into the 21st century and realised that animals cannot be treated as a commodity but should demand our respect and empathy.

Extremely well said! Definetely agree with that! (oh and I voted)

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

I would have an issue with using a vet who had no moral fortitude. The same as I have little respect for vets who de-bark dogs, tail dock or bleed horses. It's old school, time these people got into the 21st century and realised that animals cannot be treated as a commodity but should demand our respect and empathy.

OK I will enter the debate. I agree fully with what you have said, the principles of "do no harm" should apply to veterinary professionals as much as it does to medical professionals.

But the question still remains, what comes first, the principle or best treatment for your own animals available.

[kwaka_80]

3 pages late but I belive if done by a prfesional vet with years of experiance with snake and done under proper anesthetic procedures the devenomoid procedure isnt all that bad i mean it can save lives and can also allow alot of research on the venom glands and making anti toxins. Well thats just my opinion

Cheers matt

[hornet]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue

sounds to me like there is another incompetent ven handler out there, shouldnt be keeping, handling or doing courses if he cant safely handle a hot herp. simple as that imo.

he may not be incompetent, if its for a ven course hes not going to be the only one handling it so it may simply be because of the inexperienced people thats he is training

[moosenoose]

Originally Posted by Mayo

The benefit's are the logical reason, and that is the point.

You’re still missing my point. Re-read my last post.

Why handle these animals at all? If it’s all too hard, people shouldn’t be allowed to keep them.

[stencorp69]

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

The fact is venomous reptiles are dangerous animals and if they cannot be handled safely without risk to either the animal or the handler then they should not be kept.

There is always a risk, even experienced handlers get bitten - so no one should keep vens?

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

I would have an issue with using a vet who had no moral fortitude. The same as I have little respect for vets who de-bark dogs, tail dock or bleed horses. It's old school, time these people got into the 21st century and realised that animals cannot be treated as a commodity but should demand our respect and empathy.

Moral Fortitude? you would have done ethics at uni - that's a non existent ideal. Animals are a still commodity in the 21st Century - have a look at the prices we pay for reptiles especially here in WA. We inject horses with venom to produce AV and then remove their blood don't we? Ideals are great bed time stories and good to debate but rarely apply in real life.

Most breeder of reptiles I know would and do keep repitles in conditions that others may frown on - my self included. However from the breeder's perspective there is no moral issue and the reptiles still breed - Morals are all relative to your perspective. If your vet does a great job and saves your reptile's health and for another client removes venom glands from their vens - so what! His morals (or his lack of morals from your prespective) don't dictate his ability to be able to provide care.

[HerpDoc]

[quote][Ideals are great bed time stories and good to debate but rarely apply in real life.
/QUOTE]
That is untrue, each day as a vet you are faced with decisions about right or wrong, eg: should I treat this animal or should it be euthansed and you have to make a decision based on what is best for the animal, and try to ignore the human element involved. At graduation we like doctors do take an oath to relieve animal suffering and while all decisions should take into account owners opinions etc ultimately a decision should be made with what is best for the patient.
Yes we use horses for production for anti-serum but that is a different debate, these animals are saving human lives but in the process should still be treated with respect and dignity.
I fail to see how this venomoid procedure is saving lives??? I re-iterate, if venomous animals cannot be kept safely without risk then they should not be kept, it is not a difficult concept.

[moosenoose]

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

I would have an issue with using a vet who had no moral fortitude. The same as I have little respect for vets who de-bark dogs, tail dock or bleed horses. It's old school, time these people got into the 21st century and realised that animals cannot be treated as a commodity but should demand our respect and empathy.

Couldn't agree more! And I'll also agree with your statement, which I missed reading earlier, that if we can't manage these animals in their natural state, then we shouldn't be allowed to keep them!

Perhaps if people want to keep a venomous snake without the risks they should visit a taxidermist! It's that simple! Even then the kids can see them and touch them. There are no logical or ethical arguments for their production! End of Story!

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by HerpDoc

you have to make a decision based on what is best for the animal, and try to ignore the human element involved.

Based on that HerpDoc could we assume that if the Vet in question was offering the best care available for your own animals you would continue to use him despite the moral issue?