Are venomous snakes integral parts of a reptile collection?

In Japan, JAZA parks have nearly completely phased out all venomous snakes. The only ones left, with very few holders, are mamushi (Gloydius blomhoffii), Okinawa habu (Trimeresurus flavoviridis), Hime-Habu (Ovophis okinavensis), and black-banded sea krait (Laticauda semifasciata). These snakes are also pretty much kept only in zoos and aquariums within their geographic ranges in Japan.

 

Why did they phase out venomous snakes specifically?

 

That would be rather self-limiting, given that there are quite a few species of venomous snakes for which no commercially available antivenom exists...

 

Venomous reptiles are not a taxonomic class...

 

According to an expert I asked, these are the reasons:

1) Due to the bureaucratic system in Japanese municipal zoos, top management in zoos often get moved around every few years, so zoos don't accumulate skills and expertise on specialized animal husbandry-related techniques like venomous snake handling.

2) There's no antivenom for non-native snakes that's currently approved by Japanese law. If a Japanese zoo had an exotic venomous snake that bit someone, the doctor administering the antivenom could get into trouble as the antivenom wouldn't be legally approved. Most zoos in Japan are municipal and avoid such risks.

There used to be king cobras and eastern diamondback rattlesnakes in Ueno Zoo, but they couldn't be replaced.

 

Depending on where a facility is located, permits to keep venomous animals can be another expense that makes zoos, especially smaller ones, consider the relative value of keeping venomous animals (snakes or otherwise) in a collection.

As for my view on the subject, I think facilities need to strike a balance. While there are examples of herp collections completely lacking venomous species, there are also collections in which venomous species are overrepresented, and have comparatively few non-venomous species. If a zoo wants to keep a large collection of venomous snakes, I'd hope the facility first invests in having a large collection of non-venomous snakes- especially "smaller" species (e.g. not anaconda, retics, and rock pythons). If every single snake in a collection is a "scary/dangerous" animal, then it doesn't do justice to the education aspect of reptile houses and destigmatizing snakes- as it's important to show visitors that the majority of snake species are completely harmless, and this should be a reality reflected in zoo collections.

I do, however, think that crotalids make excellent display animals, and may be some of my favorite reptile house inhabitants (certainly my favorite snakes), so I completely understand the desire some have to see venomous reptiles in collections.

 

As far as reptile collections go, Berlin Zoo's Aquarium+Herptarium is quite the picture of 'integral' - representatives of all of the major reptile groups except for amphisbaenians. Not many venomous snakes there to my knowledge, though it did have both species of diamondback rattlesnake. I agree it would be nice that if in my proxmity there were a few more collections with venomous snakes, though I appreciate there may be legal/safety restrictions regarding this group of animals. Even if the keepers know better than to regularly handle the animals.

 

Another factor is that a lot of visitors don't find many of the most venomous species to be super-impressive as exhibit animals. A black mamba is scary as hell if you're on the same side of the glass. On the opposite side, it's a somewhat drab, skinny snake of moderate length (I mean, long for an elapid, but not when you're two doors down from a reticulated python). If you don't know it's reputation, it's not that impressive to look at. When I was in Africa, some friends and I visited a snake park. They'd heard so much about mambas - so much bushlore from our guides - and were seriously underwhelmed when they saw one in person. So, in the eyes of some zoo admins, why put your facility through the risk and expense for a snake that most people won't appreciate?

Not my mindset, per se, but one I've encountered.

 

Why? This isn't practical for many zoos. It has a short expiration date, and is expensive to constantly have to replace. If an incident does occur, a hospital is going to want to use their own, anyway, so that they can be sure of what's being given. Unless a facility is far from a hospital or has a decent collection of non-natives and is outside a city (city hospitals often have it for use with private herp owners), or has unusual species, there is no reason for them to keep their own and continue to waste it.

 

I was just thinking that many major hospitals here in the US will have the CroFab antivenin for natives - and in an emergency situation like venomous snakebite the person should be going to the hospital anyway, since they may need several doses along with monitoring and other medications.

Exotics is another story. Funny enough, I have read stories in which individuals who own (legally or not) their own exotic venomous snakes were bitten and given antivenin from a zoo because it was the only place nearby with the right kind! Here's a relevant article:

When venomous snakes bite, Dallas Zoo comes to the rescue

The fact that many zoos here are willing to pay to stock antivenins and keep many species of venomous snake has always seemed like a miracle to me. I'd never fault a zoo for opting not to shoulder the cost burden of keeping hots, but I certainly appreciate zoos that do! Many of those species are beautiful and interesting, not to mention endangered.

There's also a lot of necessary education and outreach that zoos can and should do around venomous snakes. They are often targeted and killed here because of the perceived danger, despite most being not being aggressive and despite their positive role in keeping rodent populations in check... and unfortunately there are often few or no legal protections for them. This targeted killing has led to a wider prevalence of silent or even rattleless rattlesnakes; I don't think I have to explain to anyone why that's not good.

 

I do wonder how much of a cost permits are for venomous snakes - there are a large number of specialty facilities and private hobbyists with significant numbers of species.

I've noted this before too, venomous snakes are often very underwhelming to the public. They're typically lazing around doing nothing, and not nearly as big as most people think. They don't live up to the fierce reputation the media has given them.

A few species have ended up at certain facilities specifically due to limited antivenom. The white Monocled Cobra at SDZ was placed there specifically because the zoo was one of two holding the appropriate antivenin. Little scary when you consider the snake was discovered in a suburban neighborhood...

 

I don't have a number for you, and I'm sure it depends on what state an institution is located. All I know is that one zoo professional I knew mentioned that the costs of the permitting for venomous snakes, and the increased cost of insurance if venomous animals entered the collection were the main reasons one zoo did not have any venomous species in the collection.

 

The current number of venomous snakes at Berlin is a far cry from what both institutions used to have in the past...#schlangenfarm

 

That depends A LOT on the species, the specimen and the husbandry/representation in question. There are various species, in particular of the Trimerusurus genus that are so stunningly beautiful that it makes non-venomous snake keepers green of envy (slight pun intended). The white Southwestern Speckled rattlesnake from Yuma county, the blue Lesser Sunda Island pit viper, the red European Sand vipers from Montenegro, the golden Sumatran spitting cobra, the b & w Siamese spitting cobra, the horned Saharan Sand vipers etc. ...at WdG impress even ophiophobic visitors, who were dragged in by their kids / mates, while the curious behavior of our snouted cobras or inland taipans and the rare rattling of one of our rattlesnakes fascinate young and old. A massive Black mamba (or Forest cobra, West Mexican rattlesnake, Mangshan viper, bushmaster etc.) specimen might not be gaudily colored, but its mere presence does leave a lasting impression when presented accordingly. Sure, snakes and reptiles in general are not as hyperactive as some mammals (especially of the human variety), but they have their strong fanbase among zoo visitors. If I had gotten a dime for every time a parent has said "My child LOVES snakes" in my now six years of running WdG, I could have bought myself at least two spider-tailed horned vipers by now... And venomous snakes, in particular some famous or at least beautifully colored species, are, still today, considered among the distinctions of a truly professional reptile collection in a major zoo. Sure, you don't need to have them, but they do make a difference in the public perception. And yeah, there are reptile curators and zoo directors who exclude them - for rational, fully reasonable reasons. [And because they are more into chelonians...] But once the passion (not "thrill") for them has gotten into you, it's hard not to include them.
Hyped up expectations due to exaggerating medial representation are a general issue with certain species, especially in regard to charismatic mammalian megafauna in zoos. Which is both a toehold for your educational narrative as well as a good counterargument whenever the anti-zoo lobby comes up with its "You can learn everything about an animal by watching movies" mantra.

 

In French zoos the venomous snakes are increasingly rare too, few zoos display them : mainly the two State-run Parisian Zoos (Jardin des Plantes and Zoo de Vincennes), a handful of specialized reptile zoos (Kerdanet, Planet Exotica, Martel...) and probably, for the native species, some European-themed collections (Zoodyssée, Parc animalier des Pyrénées...).
But they remain largely absent from the large generalist zoos (Amnéville once planned to build a pavilion for venomous snakes, but the project has aborted for reasons that I don't know).
I would like that large zoos like Beauval or La Flèche acquire half a dozen species of venomous snakes (I mention that they have already venomous reptile species, as the Beaded Lizard and the Komodo Dragon) representative of the main families (adders, rattlesnakes, cobras, mambas, cat snakes...).

Interestingly it seems that in New Caledonia (overseas French territories) a public aquarium displays sea kraits.

 

The thread title feels like a difficult question to answer, but going by the poll it feels easy: it is absolutely a significant gap in a reptile collection to not include venomous snakes. They are a massive part of the snake family, and while anacondas and pythons can be exciting to visitors, the thrill of a venomous snake can also be attractive, especially the more notorious species. I liked that Denver grouped many of their venomous snakes together, which I think draws more attention and interest towards the unique adaption.

As a side note, I once heard someone suggest Brookfield had closed their reptile house to avoid the liability of holding the venomous species which I found quite silly and did not believe.

 

Yeah, his is obviously not true. They closed it because that ancient building was a liability with animals in it. Venomous snakes are still kept in other parts of the zoo.

 

And makes it much easier for the specific individual staff who are trained/signed off on venomous species to service them

 

I didn't say "taxonomic class", I said "entire class", as in venomous reptiles in contrast to non-venomous.