• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Timber Rattlesnake as a pet? Ouch...

TBH... A lot of hots could be kept with the minimum of training... Gaboon vipers spring to mind... The biggest danger with gabbys is the feeding response... They hide in the leaf litter/substrate and any movement and they strike, very fast and out of nowhere...
Once out they are quite docile as long as you both respect each others space...
And a fully grown Gabby is very heavy to move with a hook... Other than that, you would probably get away with it....
Elapids on the other hand are a different matter... The positioning of the viv is as critical as your hook work... The way they move etc can present problems..... Add to that arboreal elapids and you get into deeper water.
I would find a mentor that still has all his fingers and do the 1000 hours...
Then start at the easiest to manoeuvre and work upwards... Each species requires it's own tricks..
 
tyflier said:
I would. Absolutely an animal that is in a cage, under my direct care and supervision, and wholly dependant upon me for it's survival is a pet.

Whether or not it can harm you shouldn't come into play. Dogs, cats, and a great many other acceptable household pets can cause just as much traumatic injury as a venomous reptile. Some even more.

Whether or not you can physically interact with it shouldn't come into play. I'm fairly certain that a great number of fish keepers would absolutely call their fish "pets", as do keepers of Canaries, finch, and various other birds that are not suitable for handling and direct interaction.

I think your definition of "pet" is far too limited...
Click to expand...

Than we think differently. I just can't understand why you find it so difficult to express your own opinion without "bashing" the opinion of another.

Was it -that- essential to add "I think your definition of "pet" is far too limited..."?

It's not like you're the authority on such matters mate- your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's... maybe be a bit less forceful?

And a couple of definitions from the web:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/pet

pet1 definition

pet (pet)

noun

1. an animal that is tamed or domesticated and kept as a companion or treated with fondness

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/PET

pet 1 (pt)
n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
2. An object of the affections.

So... I don't see how my perspective is limited... unless you mean to tell me that people keep venomous snakes for their amusement/out of need for companionship.

Fact of the matter is, even these definitions are not conclusive- it's a matter of personal perspective and opinion.

Personally, I would have found it far more enjoyable to debate things had you not articulated yourself in a way that hints that only you are right and I, the ignorant one apparently, am as you describe it "far too limited" in view, scope or knowledge.
 
I have a Timber rattlesnake in my care now. It is at my work place where I teach about it along with the other snakes in my signature. I have to get a permit annually to keep her since she is endangered. They really are a true misunderstood animal. They are a lot more laid back than the myths or ole timey stories that are commonly shared about them. I feel that if you give them their space and respect them then almost anyone of age could care for one. It is the bold idiots that show off that get the stories told about them and the injuries that follow. I have had mine for 4 or so years and she has rattled 3 times. Once when she was in shed, once when my boss sprayed the tank with a water bottle (this no longer happens and I was extremely mad), and once when we built a fire in the cabin fire place and the smoke wasn't getting a good draft and came in the room. All of the snakes went crazy when the smoke came in the room.
The hots I am taking care of and educating with are my favorites. I can't handle them, but I sure can enjoy their beauty. While I have had these snakes a few 1000 people and several 1000 school age children have enjoyed them. They also have learned about them and to respect them. I truly think I have changed a lot of minds about snakes as a whole. In my part of the world probably 9 out of 10 people say this "The only good snake is a DEAD snake!"
 
I love the looks of most "hots". While I myself would never own one. I do agree there should be regulation with some sort of a permit to own them. I feel there should be time spent with a knowledgeable "hot" owner and a home check to be sure that before you bring that animal into your home you are fully equipped to care for that animal.
I hate to think of regulating reptiles, snakes in particular. However, in the case of hots I feel it is very necessary.
 
I am very hesitant to say that I would never own a hot, I have learned especially as I become more involved with snake keeping, that I would love keep many more species than I originally thought. However I believe that there should be regulations on who can keep them. I believe that someone who truly respects the animals will go through the proper process in order to have them. That doesn't mean that everyone who owns hots will have a license or even that everyone that has a license won't make a mistake, but I believe a regulations should be in place.

I am a person who generally shy's away from regulations of anything that you keep or partake in, in your own home. However, if what you keep in your home is an animal that has the potential to kill a person with one bite, there should be regulations.
 
Kokopelli said:
Than we think differently. I just can't understand why you find it so difficult to express your own opinion without "bashing" the opinion of another.

Was it -that- essential to add "I think your definition of "pet" is far too limited..."?

It's not like you're the authority on such matters mate- your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's... maybe be a bit less forceful?

And a couple of definitions from the web:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/pet

pet1 definition

pet (pet)

noun

1. an animal that is tamed or domesticated and kept as a companion or treated with fondness

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/PET

pet 1 (pt)
n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
2. An object of the affections.

So... I don't see how my perspective is limited... unless you mean to tell me that people keep venomous snakes for their amusement/out of need for companionship.

Fact of the matter is, even these definitions are not conclusive- it's a matter of personal perspective and opinion.

Personally, I would have found it far more enjoyable to debate things had you not articulated yourself in a way that hints that only you are right and I, the ignorant one apparently, am as you describe it "far too limited" in view, scope or knowledge.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

I stated my opinion about pets, how pets are defined, and my opinion regarding your definition of the word pet.

I didn't insult or condescend you. I didn't "bash" anything. A simple opinion..."I think your definition of 'pet' is too narrow". That's really a very simple statement of opinion and not at all attacking, bashing or conmdescending you or your opinion..

I never called you ignorant or anything. You stated your opinion, I stated my opinion. You get upset and bent out of shape.

Actually, now that I think about it...it doesn't surprise me at all... :nope:
 
tyflier said:
What are you talking about?

I stated my opinion about pets, how pets are defined, and my opinion regarding your definition of the word pet.

I didn't insult or condescend you. I didn't "bash" anything. A simple opinion..."I think your definition of 'pet' is too narrow". That's really a very simple statement of opinion and not at all attacking, bashing or conmdescending you or your opinion..

I never called you ignorant or anything. You stated your opinion, I stated my opinion. You get upset and bent out of shape.

Actually, now that I think about it...it doesn't surprise me at all... :nope:
Click to expand...

You missquote yourself and then criticize me...

"Far too limited"(which is what you typed like it or not) and "too narrow" are two very different ways of saying it.

If this is your non-patronizing voice than I'll simply avoid it... as I understand it I wouldn't be the first and I daresay I won't be the last.
 
Kokopelli said:
You missquote yourself and then criticize me...

"Far too limited"(which is what you typed like it or not) and "too narrow" are two very different ways of saying it.

If this is your non-patronizing voice than I'll simply avoid it... as I understand it I wouldn't be the first and I daresay I won't be the last.
Click to expand...

Dude...I am entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that your definition of "pet" is far too narrow. FAR too narrow. That's my opinion. It is neither condescending nor insulting towards you for me to have this opinion and to state this opinion, even in this manner.

If you can't handle a different opinion, perhaps you should refrain from participating. I have not insulted or condescended you in any way shape or form. I simply stated my own opinion.

Now my opinion is that you are being too sensitive. FAR too sensitive.
 
tyflier said:
Dude...I am entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that your definition of "pet" is far too narrow. FAR too narrow. That's my opinion. It is neither condescending nor insulting towards you for me to have this opinion and to state this opinion, even in this manner.

If you can't handle a different opinion, perhaps you should refrain from participating. I have not insulted or condescended you in any way shape or form. I simply stated my own opinion.

Now my opinion is that you are being too sensitive. FAR too sensitive.
Click to expand...

My issue is rather simple really,

In order to express an opinion, you don't HAVE TO always do so in a way that suggests that others' opinions are not as valid as yours.

You can say "In my opinion your definition is narrow" or as you chose to say it "Your definition is far too limited".
There's a difference.
Setting that aside though, instead of suggesting that perhaps I misunderstood you- you eagerly reply in a manner which I find quite impolite.

You have a tendency to be aggressive with your opinions, and I am not the first to say that to you.

Allow me to correct any impression I may have left that I was hurt- I was not. I simply find both your tone and manner unpleasant and therefore would rather save myself a debate such at this one.

Also, I remind you that -you- chose to quote me, not the other way around- so please refrain from blaming me for something I did not want. Unfortunately it wasn't entirely in my hands and I usually respond to someone who directly quotes me.

At this I am really bringing my side of things to an end- continue to respond as much as you want.

Have a pleasant day,

Oren.
 
Kokopelli said:
My issue is rather simple really,
Click to expand...
So is mine

In order to express an opinion, you don't HAVE TO always do so in a way that suggests that others' opinions are not as valid as yours.
Click to expand...
No I don't. And I absolutely did not in this case. In fact, here is your original response--
I wouldn't really refer to an animal I keep in a locked enclosure, that can seriously harm me and that I cannot handle a "pet"... that's just terminology, true, but that's the point most of us are talking about... sure you can keep them out of interest or attraction... but they are by no means "safe" nor can be interacted with as one would interact with a pet.
Click to expand...
YOU are the one that says (and I quote), "...that's the point most of us are talking about..." which is absolutely placing your own personal opinion as the opinion of "most".

You can say "In my opinion your definition is narrow" or as you chose to say it "Your definition is far too limited".
Click to expand...
Actually, what I chose to say is, "I think your definition is far too limited..." So inessence, I said almost precisely what you would have liked me to say. Stating "I think" is the same as saying "In my opinion", it just takes less time...

There's a difference.
Click to expand...
See above...

Setting that aside though, instead of suggesting that perhaps I misunderstood you- you eagerly reply in a manner which I find quite impolite.
Click to expand...
Really? I find someone telling me that I am being condescending and arrogant when I am not quite impolite. Just because our opinions are different does not mean I "attacked" you or "bashed" your opinion. I made referances which are acceptable as "pets" by definition yet do not fit YOUR definition of "pet". That's not "bashing" your opinion...it's countering your points. Don't take it so personally...

You have a tendency to be aggressive with your opinions, and I am not the first to say that to you.
Click to expand...
Many people have a tendency to be aggressive with their opinions. However, in this particular instance, I was NOT being "aggressive"...merely pointing out where our opinions differ, and showing you precisely why I find our definition of "pet" limited.

Allow me to correct any impression I may have left that I was hurt- I was not. I simply find both your tone and manner unpleasant and therefore would rather save myself a debate such at this one.
Click to expand...
I don't care if you were "hurt" or not. I find your reaction to be far too sensitive.

Also, I remind you that -you- chose to quote me, not the other way around- so please refrain from blaming me for something I did not want. Unfortunately it wasn't entirely in my hands and I usually respond to someone who directly quotes me.
Click to expand...
I chose to quote you because I disagreed with your opinion, and chose to state my own opinion to the contrary. I didn't "blame" you for anything. You told me I was being condescending. I was not not. Really a very simple misunderstanding that you cannot seem to acknowledge.

At this I am really bringing my side of things to an end- continue to respond as much as you want.

Have a pleasant day,

Oren.
Click to expand...
It never ceases to amaze me how some people will make wildly accusatory statements, than bring "their side of things to an end". You made accusations against me. You were wrong. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The truth of the matter is, Oren, that my original response to you was neither arrogant nor condescending. If you took it that way...you were being too sensitive. I stated my opinion AS an opinion, and made a point to acknowledge that it was a personal opinion. I used other widely accepted "domestic pets" as supportive evidence for my opinion. You took offense to it, for whatever reason, and got bent out of shape about "my tone".

My "tone" was one of opinion, supported by widely accepted definitions that ALSO refute your opinion. Call it whatever you want, but the reality is you got bent out of shape for no reason...

And now you are trying to save face by making statements like "I am not the first to tell you this..." or other such nonsense. The fact that I have pissed in a few cornflakes over the years doesn't change the fact that you overreacted to my reply, and got bent out of shape for no reason. Don't turn this into something it isn't...:nope:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top