View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Jase Captivebred Colonel
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 2602 Location: Wolverhampton
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FWCs arent DWA _________________ A lil bit of Madagascar
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ultimate_boides I've settled in...
Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 35 Location: Uk
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
FWC are on DWA mate |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jase Captivebred Colonel
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 2602 Location: Wolverhampton
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
No they arent _________________ A lil bit of Madagascar
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Drymarchon32 Key Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 271
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
leeroytheboy Contributing Member
Joined: 02 Jun 2007 Posts: 99 Location: Belfast
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was just looking at my own list....maybe he is mistaking the part where it says "certain rear-fanged venomous snakes" as meaning Hydronastes are in that pretty open field too! But they definately aren't there. Where are you seeing that information ultimate boides?
To me, apart from temperament, Hydronastes are no more dangerous than a hognose. So unless you have a bad reaction (which you can have with a ratsnake or any other common colubrid), then its not a dangerous snake. _________________ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy" - Tom Waits |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Drymarchon32 Key Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 271
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | "certain rear-fanged venomous snakes" as meaning Hydronastes |
possibly, but they are very specific about which rear fanged they are talking about especially when you compare the old list and the new one.
Anyway I think it is safe to say that FWC are not DWA.
Just my two cents
Al _________________ Complacency killed the keeper |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arietans Contributing Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 101
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
One must be careful assuming the danger level of these back fangers.
http://www.sareptiles.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7675
This snake is considered mildly venomous. The victim asn't even chewed. _________________ ngiyakuthanda Sonvanger |
|
Back to top |
|
|
leeroytheboy Contributing Member
Joined: 02 Jun 2007 Posts: 99 Location: Belfast
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually heard a while ago about a whipsnake killing a guy in melbourne......it was on a news article "Harmless snake proves deadly".....would like to look into the follow up of, see if that particular snake was classified any differently after that. _________________ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy" - Tom Waits |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arietans Contributing Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 101
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every single bite, even by the same snake, is different from victim to victim. There are so many factors involved in the effects of envenomation.
To assume that a FWC will only give a headache or a little bit of swelling is a huge underestimation, and could even be a costly mistake. Keep in mind that whilst that bite may prove minute, it does introduce your body to venom. This may even develop into hypersensitivity to snake venom in general.
Being bit by any venomous snake, mildly or dangerously venomous, is not a joke. Anyone that has been bitten by a so-called mildly venomous reptile will attest to the discomfort and pain a bite causes.
Personally, I think a large FWC could deliver a potentially dangerous bite and should never be underestimated. _________________ ngiyakuthanda Sonvanger |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arietans Contributing Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 101
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, anyone that has ever seen a large FWC kill a rat will know how destructive this animal could be if it were to bite as a feeding response. _________________ ngiyakuthanda Sonvanger |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|