Venomous snakes as pets?

Here in Finland a hot discussion has arised:

Should people plead for authorisation/permission before being allowed to have venomous snakes as pets?

This is very inflammable subject at the time and people who own venomous snakes are totally against the idea of a requred permit - mostly I think because it would cost some money...

I'd like to hear your opinions and experiences. And even more I'd like to know the policy in your country.


Personally I can understand the urge to restrict keeping venomous animals. Yet again here in Finland people need a permit to own a gun as well, no matter what the gun is for. I think it's only fair to let for example officials (police, fire dpt., ambulance staff etc.) know you've got an animal whose bite can be deadly. Just in case something (like a fire) should happen.

I do agree with requiring a permit for venomous reptiles. It's one of those things that SHOULD help prevent every body and their brother from owning a black mamba. Sorry, but there are just some people that have no right owning anything dangerous.

I think there should be a permit for venomous snakes, and maybe even a mandatory training class/inspection of where you're going to be keeping it... Just to make sure that you can handle the snake, and the habitat for it is acceptable for preventing escapes.

Yes. I like the Florida laws.

372.86 Possessing, exhibiting poisonous or venomous reptile; license required.—

No person, firm, or corporation shall keep, possess, or exhibit any poisonous or venomous reptile without first having obtained a special permit or license therefore from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as herein provided.

History.—s. 1, ch. 28263, 1953; s. 165, ch. 99- 245.

372.87 License fee; renewal, revocation.
—The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is hereby authorized and empowered to issue a license or permit for the keeping, possessing, or exhibiting of poisonous or venomous reptiles, upon payment of an annual fee of $100 and upon assurance that all of the provisions of ss. 372.86-372.91 and such other reasonable rules and regulations as said commission may prescribe will be fully complied with in all respects. Such permit may be revoked by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission upon violation of any of the provisions of ss. 372.86-372.91 or upon violation of any of the rules and regulations prescribed by said commission relating to the keeping, possessing, and exhibiting of any poisonous and venomous reptiles. Such permits or licenses shall be for an annual period to be prescribed by the said commission and shall be renewable from year to year upon the payment of said $100 fee and shall be subject to the same conditions, limitations, and restrictions as herein set forth.
History.—s. 2, ch. 28263, 1953; s. 166, ch. 99- 245.


372.88 Bond required, amount.—
No person, party, firm, or corporation shall exhibit to the public either with or without charge, or admission fee any poisonous or venomous reptile without having first posted a good and sufficient bond in writing in the penal sum of $1,000 payable to the Governor of the state, and the Governor's successors in office, conditioned that such exhibitor will indemnify and save harmless all persons from injury or damage from such poisonous or venomous reptiles so exhibited and shall fully comply with all laws of the state and all rules and regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission governing the keeping, possessing, or exhibiting of poisonous or venomous reptiles; provided, however, that the aggregate liability of the surety for all such injuries or damages shall, in no event, exceed the penal sum of said bond. The surety for said bond must be a surety company authorized to do business under the laws of the state or in lieu of such a surety, cash in the sum of $1,000 may be posted with the said commission to ensure compliance with the conditions of said bond.
History.—s. 3, ch. 28263, 1953; s. 588, ch. 95- 148; s. 167, ch. 99-245.

372.89 Safe housing required.—
All persons, firms, or corporations licensed under this law to keep, possess, or exhibit poisonous or venomous reptiles shall provide safe, secure, and proper housing for said reptiles in cases, cages, pits, or enclosures. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, whether licensed hereunder or not, to keep, possess, or exhibit any poisonous or venomous reptiles in any manner not approved as safe, secure, and proper by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
History.—s. 4, ch. 28263, 1953; s. 1, ch. 57- 415; s. 168, ch. 99-245


372.90 Transportation.—
Poisonous or venomous reptiles may be transported only in the following fashion: The reptile, or reptiles shall be placed in a stout closely woven cloth sack, tied or otherwise secured. This sack shall then be placed in a box. The box shall be of strong material in solid sheets, except for small air holes, which holes shall be screened. Boxes containing poisonous or venomous snakes or other reptiles shall be prominently labeled “Danger—Poisonous Snakes” or “Danger—Poisonous Reptiles.”
History.—s. 5, ch. 28263, 1953; s. 1, ch. 57- 41

372.901 Inspection.—
Poisonous or venomous reptiles, held in captivity, shall be subject to inspection by an inspecting officer from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The inspecting officer shall determine whether the said reptiles are securely, properly, and safely
penned. In the event that the reptiles are not safely penned, the inspecting officer shall report the situation in writing to the person or firm owning the said reptiles. Failure of the owner or exhibitor to correct the situation within 30 days after such written notice shall be grounds for revocation of the license or permit of said owner or exhibitor.
History.—s. 2, ch. 57-415; s. 169, ch. 99-245.

372.91 Who may open cages, pits, or other containers housing poisonous or venomous reptiles.—
No person except the licensee or her or his authorized employee shall open any cage, pit, or other container which contains poisonous or venomous reptiles.
History.—s. 7, ch. 28263, 1953; s. 589, ch. 95- 148.

I think i'm right in saying this that in the uk you need a dwa licence (dangerous wild animals licence) to keep any venomous snake. the price of this licence changes in different countys ranging from £25 upto £1000 depending on what snake it is.

kizzer said:

I think i'm right in saying this that in the uk you need a dwa licence (dangerous wild animals licence) to keep any venomous snake. the price of this licence changes in different countys ranging from £25 upto £1000 depending on what snake it is.

Click to expand...

Nearly right.... It ranges from £25 - whatever the council for your area wants to charge you...plus the fee for a vet visit..... Nothing to do with snake type... You can have an Atheris or a cobra and they are both the same price...

I agree with all of you guys! Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Like I've said on a finnish forum concerning this matter:

If someone really wants to have a venomous snake because of the interest in the specie perse, little paper work shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore IF someone is going to get a snake that costs hundreds, put it in a viv which with all the gadgets costs even more hundreds....one little permit fee shouldn't be a problem!

AND if someone for some reason doesn't get the permit....isn't it then the time to look in the mirror?

In my state they are prohibited. No permits given to anyone. Certain institutions like zoos can have them but no private individuals.

Thanks for putting me right snakewispera.:cheers:

marinneli said:

Like I've said on a finnish forum concerning this matter:

If someone really wants to have a venomous snake because of the interest in the specie perse, little paper work shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore IF someone is going to get a snake that costs hundreds, put it in a viv which with all the gadgets costs even more hundreds....one little permit fee shouldn't be a problem!

AND if someone for some reason doesn't get the permit....isn't it then the time to look in the mirror?

Click to expand...

The thing is venomous snakes (in the UK) are worthless...The market isn't there for them, you can pick them up for pennies. Obviously some things like King cobras are an exception to the rule, but in general a corn is more expensive than some of the more 'common' hots...
But the DWA (for me) costs £338, the vets visit is £200, and the public liability insurance (which you must have) is around £400... Thats nearly £1000 ($2000) every year just to own 1 snake........Thats what stops a lot of keepers over here....

wade said:

In my state they are prohibited. No permits given to anyone. Certain institutions like zoos can have them but no private individuals.

Click to expand...

That sounds a bit unfair Wade..... After all a snake gets only the owner in most cases, but a gun can get anyone it's pointed at... And they let you have one of those....

That's what people are concerned about here: what if they'll become prohibited one day, or what if they decided that a permit is needed to keep ANY reptiles.

Nonsense.

Well of course venomous snakes MAY be prohibited one day, but fighting against the permit policy will most definitely not help with preventing that from happening.

snakewispera snr said:

But the DWA (for me) costs £338, the vets visit is £200, and the public liability insurance (which you must have) is around £400... Thats nearly £1000 ($2000) every year just to own 1 snake........Thats what stops a lot of keepers over here....

Click to expand...

I can't believe the fee would be that much here! No way would that be possible. But for what I've seen, everything is much more expensive in UK than in Finland (except for make-up and other cosmetics )

In California, it is nearly impossible to get a venomous reptiles permit. I know retired DFG wardens that have been "processing" for venomous permits for years, and they simply can't get one. A venomous handler's permit is required for any non-native venomous reptile.

On the other hand...native venomous reptiles are almost completely unregulated by the state. Rattlers, beaded lizards and gila monsters are all perfectly legal to go out and catch and keep without any sort of permit required...not even a fishing license for the collection(except maybe the lizards...not sure on that).

So there is a conundrum...It's everything but impossible for a responsible breeder/keeper to acquire, say, an Eastern Coral Snake legally or a Copperhead...but I can go out and catch and keep as many Northern Mojave Rattlers as I want. I can't own a Cottonmouth, but a Western Diamondback is fine. No Arizona Coral Snake, but Sidewinders are fine. No AZ Black Tail Rattlers, but Panamints are OK.

I don't agree with this regulation...but I understand why it is the way it is. The DFG has established that hikers, campers, packers, and outdoors enthusiasts are terrified of rattlesnakes, and as such, removing the regulations from them allows people to kill them if they feel threatened when confronted. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But it alos opens the door for any idiot to go out and catch a Southern Pacific and bring it home...

With that said...I fully support a fair and unbiased permitting system. I believe that there should be written exams pertaining to the species you intend to acquire, site inspections at least annually,renewal procedures and fees, Liability requirements, and identification techniques used, such as Avid Chips.

I think that anyone wishing to keep venomous reptiles for a true love and appreciation of the animal s probably wouldn't mind going through even a rigorous permitting process because, quite frankly, it keeps people that will lose interest and people that just think "it's cool" away from getting them. Most responsible keepers will understand the need for regulations, and will be happy to provide necessary documentation and submit to exams and inspections in order to persue their passions. I also believe these regulations should START at a Federal Level, with states making addendums and additions as necessary.

After all...you need to pay your fees, take a written test, prove your knowledge in an actual situation, and submit to regular renewals to drive a vehicle...why not for keeping dangerous animals??

tyflier said:

On the other hand...native venomous reptiles are almost completely unregulated by the state. Rattlers, beaded lizards and gila monsters are all perfectly legal to go out and catch and keep without any sort of permit required...not even a fishing license for the collection(except maybe the lizards...not sure on that).

Click to expand...

I wonder if they figure, if a native hot escapes, they're no worse off than before it was captured, in terms of danger to the public. If a king cobra escapes, that's a different story.

If I could go out and catch and keep a gila monster- I might! Venomous snakes don't really tempt me at all.

Thats the strange thing ... There is no need to do any training or exams or anything over here..... Just apply to your local council and hand over the money...As long as the vet says you have the right environment for your snake..eg a dedicated snake room, fire extinguisher and a window in the door, your in.....I know of a few people who have hots with no other snake experience......
There is now a few of us lobbying for mentor training... We'll just have to wait and see how DEFRA handle it.....

Nanci said:

I wonder if they figure, if a native hot escapes, they're no worse off than before it was captured, in terms of danger to the public. If a king cobra escapes, that's a different story.

If I could go out and catch and keep a gila monster- I might! Venomous snakes don't really tempt me at all.

Click to expand...

I don't think the intention was to allow people to keep them, per se. I believe the intention behind the regulations is to allow people to kill them when encountered either while hiking, fishing, horseback riding, or at your home.

The regulation is written to say that rattlesnakes can be taken by any means, by any person, any time of day, and any time of year...with no limits. This is the regulation as written in the Fishing Regulations guide. A fishing license is required for the capture and collection of reptiles.

So it is written to allow "hunting" of rattlesnakes, basically. The side effect is that without regulating the killing of them, you can't regulate the live capture of them, and this is the conundrum. It's really tough for a environmentally-friendly, wildlife regulating body to say "You can kill as many as you want, any time you want, by any means you want...but you can't keep one alive"...especially in such a "hippie-minded" state as California...and I don't mean that as an insult to anyone...just that California is generally a very pro-animal, pro-environment state. People here would rather kill a baby than a puppy, I think...but that's a whole 'nother can-o-worms...

In Utah we have a great program for training and licensing to keep falcons and birds of prey. The enclosures are inspected and the licensee is tested. It works out great. Something like that would be good for hot snakes but we don't have it. Our dept of Wildlife Resources is pretty closed minded when it comes to snakes.

wade said:

In Utah we have a great program for training and licensing to keep falcons and birds of prey. The enclosures are inspected and the licensee is tested. It works out great. Something like that would be good for hot snakes but we don't have it. Our dept of Wildlife Resources is pretty closed minded when it comes to snakes.

Click to expand...

:-offtopic Would you like the chance to keep hots Wade, if the offer was made to you. I know you've had a few things, but do hots interest you?

Maybe. I think the prettiest snake on the planet is a Gaboon Viper.

I'd have to think about it. We have snakes get out from time to time. If it were a black mamba, things would be a lot different.

wade said:

Maybe. I think the prettiest snake on the planet is a Gaboon Viper.

Click to expand...

That's my dream! One day, I won't have any kids in the house (my 4 plus the 9 girls we take care of) and I'll go ahead and get my ONE Gaboon Viper. That's my dream and it has been my dream for the last 8 years.

So, the laws better allow it! LOL!

Part of me thinks that regulation (licensing, etc) is ONE step from prohibition. However, as someone mentioned previously, there are those that shouldn't be able to own ANYTHING out there. Soooo, because of that, it remains a very delicate balancing act.