I have no problem with people being allowed to keep and breed venomous animals as long as they are willing to take full responsibility for the consequences of their hobby should they occur.
For example, I think keeping and breeding venomous snakes should be treated at least as seriously as we treat driving a car. You should have to take a course and then demonstrate competency and then be given a permit. Your permit ought to be renewed every year with recertification/testing every 5 years or so.
And you should also have to register each individual animal that you have. They should all need to be pit tagged and registered with local animal control. And if one of your dangerously venomous animals is found escaped (dead or alive) you should be liable for a HEAVY fine ($10,000 seems reasonable). You should be required to maintain the appropriate liability insurance. If someone gets bitten and injured or dies by an animal under your care, you are criminally and civilly responsible.
In other words, you are responsible for those animals to the other people who live around you. If you aren't prepared to be responsible and demonstrate that you are, you shouldn't be allowed to keep them. You can't reap the benefit without assuming the risk as well.
Philosophically I agree with the main thrust here - people need to take some responsibility for their own and others' safety. I also agree that it is not unreasonable that government or a trade association help individuals assume and maintain some of that responsibility (via e.g. licensing that includes 1) some sort of periodic collection inventory, 2) safety- and animal-welfare-oriented caging & facility specs, and 3) regular and "pop" inspections).
I would also point out, firmly, that 1) society
already has ways of imposing responsibility for gross or petty negligence (lawsuits, fines, imprisonment, etc), and 2) we all have to accept some degree of risk in life. And let each other do that for themselves. (For example, I would not appreciate being fined for an accident I personally suffered, that put nobody else at risk.) So, I would urge some restraint in curing problems that, thus far, haven't really presented (I know of
no cases where an escaped venomous reptile has harmed "an innocent victim" in the US - unlike the case with giant constrictors).
Some of the prescribed details are problematic. For example - PIT tagging. I assume the purpose is to be able to prove ownership in the event of an escape from the facility,
and subsequent recapture. There are other ways to do this, that do not expose the animal or the handler (owner, vet, whatever) to the hazards of this procedure. I would start with a facility that is well-hardened to outward - or inward - breach. As for unique ID, how about molecular approaches, which would also be helpful in the event of provenance questions elsewhere? (Where'd ya get that animal? CBB or maybe poached?) Also, consider the liability taken on by the state in requiring PIT-tagging be done to every single venomous reptile in captivity.
There will be an accident rate associated with this procedure -
accidents that would not have happened without the procedure being forced upon the regulated community. Who picks up that tab?
The comparison with driving is inapt - virtually everyone wants to drive, virtually everyone gets out on the road as a passenger or a driver on a regular basis, we Americans drive about 3 trillion vehicle-miles a year so the exposure is constant and horribly high, and in consequence
we die in numbers exceeding 30,000/year. And don't forget sub-lethal maiming and crippling, property damage losses, etc. We regulate the hell out of driving because IT CAUSES REAL HEALTH PROBLEMS to our society. Venomous snakes in captivity (or the wild) just don't present real health problems to our society.
Finally - the thing about cheap snakes. A major determinant in the price equation is demand. Demand for venomous snakes is low. There just aren't many people who are interested. I'm comfortable helping those few people not constitute a real threat to themselves - or more importantly, others - but I also urge folks to not put the hurdle so high that venomous enthusiasts simply duck under (ignore) it. Back to the driving analogy - we don't demand everyone have the eyesight and reflexes of a teenager. If we did, we'd just have a lot of people driving without a license. Instead, we have license requirements that are "good enough for what we need them to accomplish" -
a fair and workable balance between personal freedom and collective security.
Let's not violate the principle of proportionality. It is a gross injustice to crush the personal freedoms of those who pose no threat to our collective security. Even if we're just crushing a few oddballs who want to do stuff most people don't &
never will understand.
Cheers,
Jimi