# Are Western Hognose snakes considered "venomous"?



## Tarantuloid (Aug 17, 2013)

It's sort of a controversial topic a bite isn't really harmful to humans unless you have an allergic reaction, I hear some saying they are considered venomous while others say they aren't.

It appears that they don't possess true venom glands, but their saliva has a slight toxicity. I get kind of confused because if the snake isn't venomous and does not constrict prey, wouldn't they need something to paralyze or help kill their target?


----------



## BrettG (Aug 17, 2013)

I have a lot of respect for these  snakes,as they CAN give you a fairly dirty bite( seen it myself).They are also terrible hunters,and just subdue their prey with their mouths/fangs.Once a hognose is on something,it is quite hard to remove it.


----------



## fenhawk1 (Aug 17, 2013)

Even human saliva is considered slightly toxic but that doesn't make us venomous; though I think they might be Opisthoglyphous (rear-fanged), like boomslangs or mangrove snakes. I think they have quite a mild venom but not sure.


----------



## BrettG (Aug 17, 2013)

fenhawk1 said:


> Even human saliva is considered slightly toxic but that doesn't make us venomous; though I think they might be Opisthoglyphous (rear-fanged), like boomslangs or mangrove snakes. I think they have quite a mild venom but not sure.


They are rear fanged.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 17, 2013)

All members of the _Heterodon_ genus are Opistoglyphs, which means that they are true "rear-fanged" snakes, and do possess both well-developed enlarged, grooved fangs at the rear of the upper jaw and well-developed Duvernoy's glands, connected to the rear fangs by a duct.  Dr. Bryan Frye considers this feature to be a primitive venom gland and refers to it as such.  He has documented some rather pronounced symptoms following a person allowing a Western Hognose to chew on their finger or hand for an extended time in a feeding response that were NOT consistent with allergic reactions, but with true envenomation, but does not consider these snakes to have "medically significant" venom, in terms of being able to inflict a truly dangerous bite, one capable of tissue damage or life-threatening in any way.  Dr. Frye and other "venomologists" dismiss the "toad-popping" theory to explain the presence of the enlarged teeth at the rear of the mouth of these snakes, btw, and describes these teeth as true rear fangs intended to deliver venom by chewing.  Keep in mind, though, that unless you entice and allow a _H. nascicus_ to grab and chew on you, you re highly unlikely to experience envenomation in the first place.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lancej (Aug 17, 2013)

Just watching a hognose eat a live toad or frog can demonstrate this.  Before the toad or frog is swallowed completely (sometimes before the snake starts to actually swallow), the amphibian is completely limp.  When I was a teenager, I had a 2 foot long Eastern Hognose that tried to eat a large bullfrog.  It was an accidental introduction and the frog was too big to swallow.  After about a minute or two of coaxing the snake to let go, it finally spit out the frog.  The frog lost most of its coordinated motor skills - it couldn't sit straight, couldn't jump, basically looked really drunk.  It was like this for over 24 hours without any improvement (actually got a little worse) until it was fed to the 4 foot hognose it was intended for.


----------



## Tarantuloid (Aug 18, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> All members of the _Heterodon_ genus are Opistoglyphs, which means that they are true "rear-fanged" snakes, and do possess both well-developed enlarged, grooved fangs at the rear of the upper jaw and well-developed Duvernoy's glands, connected to the rear fangs by a duct.  Dr. Bryan Frye considers this feature to be a primitive venom gland and refers to it as such.  He has documented some rather pronounced symptoms following a person allowing a Western Hognose to chew on their finger or hand for an extended time in a feeding response that were NOT consistent with allergic reactions, but with true envenomation, but does not consider these snakes to have "medically significant" venom, in terms of being able to inflict a truly dangerous bite, one capable of tissue damage or life-threatening in any way.  Dr. Frye and other "venomologists" dismiss the "toad-popping" theory to explain the presence of the enlarged teeth at the rear of the mouth of these snakes, btw, and describes these teeth as true rear fangs intended to deliver venom by chewing.  Keep in mind, though, that unless you entice and allow a _H. nascicus_ to grab and chew on you, you re highly unlikely to experience envenomation in the first place.
> 
> pitbulllady


Although I've quoted you, I've had a chance to read everyone's replies now that I'm off work. I always found it a strange subject as I was always told that hognoses have some form of venom or toxic saliva to paralyze prey since they're not constrictors. Someone I know had argued that Western Hognoses are not venomous at all, and while I believe they are probably as dangerous as a corn snake due to their docile nature, I'm still thinking this snake has to have some form of toxicity or venom in order to hunt.


----------



## lancej (Aug 18, 2013)

There are quite a few snakes that don't use venom or constriction to catch prey.  The racers, coachwhips, indigos and cribos don't use any type of venom or constriction to subdue their prey.  They grab and swallow their prey quickly.  Reptiles and amphibians make up a bulk of their diet in the wild which makes constriction not a very effective way of dispatching them - it's too time consuming.  This would make the snake vulnerable to other predators during the struggle to kill before consuming, resulting in either the death of the snake or the loss of the meal.  The point to this is that there are snakes that are neither venomous nor constrictors.


----------



## The Snark (Aug 18, 2013)

Obviously they are venomous. What is in question is the efficacy of the venom. Given the correct victim, the evolution of the animal has determined what it needs in order to survive. Maybe in a few more millenia the snake will lose the venom glands entirely. It is also possible that the venom substance is used by the animals digestive system to stimulate secretions of digestive chemicals. Just because an animal possesses an attribute doesn't mean it uses it. Look at the venom of the Latrodectus. When was the last time they had crustaceans on their menu? Or the cobras eating tadpoles, gulping them down whole, alive and unvemonated. Or the wolves eating mice, it's main diet in some locales. Those needle sharp fangs and neck musculature aren't exactly getting put to heavy use.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 18, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Obviously they are venomous. What is in question is the efficacy of the venom. Given the correct victim, the evolution of the animal has determined what it needs in order to survive. Maybe in a few more millenia the snake will lose the venom glands entirely. It is also possible that the venom substance is used by the animals digestive system to stimulate secretions of digestive chemicals. Just because an animal possesses an attribute doesn't mean it uses it. Look at the venom of the Latrodectus. When was the last time they had crustaceans on their menu? Or the cobras eating tadpoles, gulping them down whole, alive and unvemonated. Or the wolves eating mice, it's main diet in some locales. Those needle sharp fangs and neck musculature aren't exactly getting put to heavy use.


Best example I can think of to add to that would be sea snakes eating fish.  In this case, you have a snake with some of the most potent venom in the entire reptile kingdom, which normally does not need it at all to subdue their prey.  In videos I've seen of sea snakes eating, they eat like our water snakes-grab and swallow, while the fish is still struggling and very much still alive.  It doesn't take them long to devour a fish, either, since most fish just slide right on down.  The venom does not seem to deter bigger predators like sharks from eating sea snakes, either. The sea kraits, which are highly toxic and one of the few marine snake species to actually come on land, are also very docile and do not bite.  What's the point in having such highly toxic venom if it's not used for either obtaining/killing prey OR self defense?  

pitbulllady


----------



## Tarantuloid (Aug 18, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> Best example I can think of to add to that would be sea snakes eating fish.  In this case, you have a snake with some of the most potent venom in the entire reptile kingdom, which normally does not need it at all to subdue their prey.  In videos I've seen of sea snakes eating, they eat like our water snakes-grab and swallow, while the fish is still struggling and very much still alive.  It doesn't take them long to devour a fish, either, since most fish just slide right on down.  The venom does not seem to deter bigger predators like sharks from eating sea snakes, either. The sea kraits, which are highly toxic and one of the few marine snake species to actually come on land, are also very docile and do not bite.  What's the point in having such highly toxic venom if it's not used for either obtaining/killing prey OR self defense?
> 
> pitbulllady


It's kind of funny because the wikipedia page (though not always accurate) is the first page that shows up for hognoses with the venom section stating that while it's controversial, it's agreed that hognoses are NOT venomous.

It just doesn't sound right to me, I understand that there are snakes that are neither constrictors or have venom, but considering how terrible hunters they are I would've imagined some kind of venom to subdue prey.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 18, 2013)

About "toad popping", I've watched many eastern hognose do this, I disagree with those that dismiss it.  I suspect many that dismiss it are speculating without enough observation.  I can especially understand scientists speculating with little observation since many are more into taxonomy and chemistry rather that housing and observing behavior.  Some sps may not carry out this behavior but I know(in my own mind) the Eastern does, it's not every time though, it's the bigger toads it's having a hard time swallowing that they will do this to.  I could see "experts" feeding several medium sized toads to the eastern and not seeing it take place and so dismissing it as rumor.  At first it appears the snake is having a hard time grasping a large toad with it's rear fangs, sometimes you will hear a scraping noise.  You can take a closer look to see it stabbing, a kind of cutting/scraping motion with one fang on one side, letting go and coming down again, over and over again, then after a while it will work the other side.  I think people are mistaking it for trying to swallow the toad at that moment.  Could I be wrong in thinking the snake is 'not' trying to swallow the toad?  I've just seen it too often and to me it is an obvious behavior, something you have to see to believe I suppose.  And a problem is, I guess the behavior is open to some interpretation as the what the snake is doing.  But anyway, finally you will see bleeding and bloody bubbles coming up through an injured area on top of the toad's body where the lung was finally punctured, the big toad deflates and down it goes.  If I come across another hog, I plan to finally document the behavior unless somebody beats me to it.


----------



## pouchedrat (Aug 20, 2013)

Just watching them eat you can see those teeth work back and forth.  I love my crazy mean hoggies


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 20, 2013)

Tarantuloid said:


> It's kind of funny because the wikipedia page (though not always accurate) is the first page that shows up for hognoses with the venom section stating that while it's controversial, it's agreed that hognoses are NOT venomous.
> 
> It just doesn't sound right to me, I understand that there are snakes that are neither constrictors or have venom, but considering how terrible hunters they are I would've imagined some kind of venom to subdue prey.


I would definitely trust the word of one of the world's leading venom researchers over anything posted on Wikipedia, just sayin'.  ANYONE can post to Wikipedia, after all.

pitbulllady


----------



## The Snark (Aug 20, 2013)

Why the Wikipedia bashing? EVERYTHING found on wikipedia must eventually have verified citations. As for Hognoses being venomous, from the wiki page "The venomous nature of hognose snakes is controversial, however it is generally agreed upon that *they are indeed venomous*. Although the venom is not considered dangerous to humans, a bite from a hognose can result in swelling and numbness at the site of the bite, though this is likely the result of a simple allergic reaction. Similar symptoms can result from dog and cat bites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hognose

Now before wiki bashing, if you disagree with anything on a wiki page, CHANGE IT and give your citation/reference! If you don't give a proper citation/reference you will almost certainly get the old revert. Wiki pages get millions of accurizations every day. It is up to YOU to help out.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 20, 2013)

Really agree with you here Snark, the pendulum swings too far doesn't it.  I know some people that would read one thing on the internet that wasn't true and then try to discredit everything on the internet!  Those people are really missing out imo.  They just haven't learned to dig deeper trying to verify or haven't found more reliable sources.  Though with a topic like this one, I think wiki will be subject to wishy-washy info because there are so many out there, unlike us, that just aren't interested and don't care.  "A snake!, cut it's head off!, and don't get near the head, it can stay alive for 3 days and jump!"


----------



## skar (Aug 20, 2013)

They are venomous .


----------



## The Snark (Aug 20, 2013)

Okay, here is the quote from Dr. Bryan Frye which the wiki page I quoted has been inaccurately paraphrased. From his forum, http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4484&highlight=heterodon
"The toad popping mythology is completely wrong. They do have venom, they do use it but they are not medically important to humans. The most severe recorded bites have been limited primarily to localised swelling and blistering and these were under extreme circumstances (deliberate allowing of prolonged chewing). Effects that are utterly inconsistent with allergy."

Galapoheros. What I constantly find astounding the the gullibility level of people and their unwillingness the execute the rudiments of scientific methodology. With thye web as a resource at ones fingertips, it's so bleeping simple a person should always try to shoot down any fact they come across. Set a medium high bar and go with what your web searches find in the first 10 or 15 minutes. Sheesh. I remember doing research for a couple of profs that entailed me driving about 500 miles a week and walking another 20 miles as I scoured libraries. But anyway, swallowing the first hunk of foo that pops up is ridiculous unless it supports findings you already have and appears based on facts and not personal opinions. I just shot that wiki page in the arse and have submitted a correction. I am now waiting for Dr. Frye to get back to me re: my inquiry.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 20, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Why the Wikipedia bashing? EVERYTHING found on wikipedia must eventually have verified citations. As for Hognoses being venomous, from the wiki page "The venomous nature of hognose snakes is controversial, however it is generally agreed upon that *they are indeed venomous*. Although the venom is not considered dangerous to humans, a bite from a hognose can result in swelling and numbness at the site of the bite, though this is likely the result of a simple allergic reaction. Similar symptoms can result from dog and cat bites.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hognose
> 
> Now before wiki bashing, if you disagree with anything on a wiki page, CHANGE IT and give your citation/reference! If you don't give a proper citation/reference you will almost certainly get the old revert. Wiki pages get millions of accurizations every day. It is up to YOU to help out.


I don't normally rely on Wikipedia because even if you DO edit it, chances are the original author will go back and delete the changes.  I have had that happen more than once.  Tarantuloid posted that the Wikipedia page stated that Hognoses were NOT venomous, so I took his word rather than reading that page for myself.  Now, if the page does verify that they are venomous, then someone must have misread it.  They ARE venomous.  Not medically-significant, as in capable of causing lasting or serious tissue damage or illness or fatalities, but they do have venom.  For that matter, so do all Natricine snakes, including the Garter and Water Snakes, which also have well-developed rear fangs, and I have seen some folks experience some pretty nasty effects from a Garter bite, too, that are not consistent with allergic reactions, including numbness at the bite site, tingling and numbness of the extremities, headaches, ringing in the ears, etc., which are indicative of a neurotoxin, albeit a mild one.  Many of the snakes previously thought of as non-venomous have been found to possess a Duvernoy's gland and grooved rear fangs for the delivery of venom.

pitbulllady


----------



## The Snark (Aug 21, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> I don't normally rely on Wikipedia because even if you DO edit it, chances are the original author will go back and delete the changes.  I have had that happen more than once.  Tarantuloid posted that the Wikipedia page stated that Hognoses were NOT venomous, so I took his word rather than reading that page for myself.  Now, if the page does verify that they are venomous, then someone must have misread it.  They ARE venomous.  Not medically-significant, as in capable of causing lasting or serious tissue damage or illness or fatalities, but they do have venom.  For that matter, so do all Natricine snakes, including the Garter and Water Snakes, which also have well-developed rear fangs, and I have seen some folks experience some pretty nasty effects from a Garter bite, too, that are not consistent with allergic reactions, including numbness at the bite site, tingling and numbness of the extremities, headaches, ringing in the ears, etc., which are indicative of a neurotoxin, albeit a mild one.  Many of the snakes previously thought of as non-venomous have been found to possess a Duvernoy's gland and grooved rear fangs for the delivery of venom.
> 
> pitbulllady


Sad but true about the wiki, at least in part. In fact upon retrospect, if a person hasn't worked extensively in higher academic circles where getting your efforts shot in the tukus is matter of fact and a nice surprise if it doesn't happen, editing wiki pages is extremely frustrating. I'm still waiting for the doc to give me the actual clinical findings then we can get the wiki page fully corrected and cite it here as accurate. IE they do, end of discussion.

Let's clarify something slightly. Medically significant as defined by 2 paramedic handbooks is *Any medical incident which is beyond the expertise of the average lay person to accurately diagnose and which requires some degree of intervention by a qualified medical practitioner in order to prevent a lasting or prolonged condition that could have been reduced or eliminated by the intervention*.
Note the use of the words 'some' and 'could have'. That entire glop translates as the judgement call of a physician in modern medicineeze.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 21, 2013)

What I've seen is that sometimes people jump on info too fast like you said and start quoting like they know something.  Then later when discovered wrong, the get their ego hurt and express exaggerated blame on the www, trying to dismiss it all.  btw, "...no matey its fangs are for popping frogs to its an allergic reaction to its saliva.", a quote in the link you posted, I barely understand the sentence lol.  It's only the big toads I've seen them pop/deflate because they puff up with air as a defense as we know, trying not to fit.  I know, the threads not about "toad popping", it's just annoying me a little since I've seen the behavior several times ....must ....let ....gooooo!


----------



## The Snark (Aug 21, 2013)

Galapoheros said:


> What I've seen is that sometimes people jump on info too fast like you said and start quoting like they know something.  Then later when discovered wrong, the get their ego hurt and express exaggerated blame on the www, trying to dismiss it all.  btw, "...no matey its fangs are for popping frogs to its an allergic reaction to its saliva.", a quote in the link you posted, I barely understand the sentence lol.  It's only the big toads I've seen them pop/deflate because they puff up with air as a defense as we know, trying not to fit.  I know, the threads not about "toad popping", it's just annoying me a little since I've seen the behavior several times ....must ....let ....gooooo!


I will confess to a trick I learned back in my university dazes. If you approach a professor with some half cocked theory they ignore you. If you whip out some scintillating brilliance they ignore you. If you barf up some goop that is up their alley but deliberately toss something loopy into it they will pin you against a wall and give you the full explanation complete with four part harmony why you are wrong and full of impacted fecal material. So the rule is always be just a bit wrong if on the right track.
As for toad popping let's make a formula. One quarter zillion years of evolution /= absolute exactness. There is no absolute in science. So if, incidentally, toad popping came about in Hognoseia evolvement, one cannot say it doesn't happen and be scientific. That's the beauty of evolution, it's the purest form of experimentation without bias or prejudice, constantly being pushed one way or another by an almost limitless number of variables.


----------



## pouchedrat (Aug 21, 2013)

See now, I like calling my hoggies rear-fanged venomous, because it makes me seem like a badass who owns hots.   The pokies should be more impressive to others, but fancy arboreal spiders don't seem to excite people as much as a little snake that sort of resembles a rattlesnake.  

Actually, I used my hogs in a reptile show I put on for my manager's son, explained they were rear-fanged venomous but it wasn't medically significant to humans, and let them touch the snakes while I held them.   They were allowed to hold my enormous corn snake (who's even longer than my adult ball python), but I sided on precaution for most everything I brought with me.  Except the bearded dragon.  She just hung out almost the entire time either on the table or on my shoulder.  Kids were allowed to pet her all they wanted, she's a very chill girl.   My big tegu girl was a sweetie as well but she was kept on a harness and leash.

Anyway, I see the "venomous" debate argued over hogs and garter snakes constantly.   There used to be a ton of debate over some of the more medically significant rear fangs as well, until some serious bites occurred


----------



## Tarantuloid (Aug 21, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Why the Wikipedia bashing? EVERYTHING found on wikipedia must eventually have verified citations. As for Hognoses being venomous, from the wiki page "The venomous nature of hognose snakes is controversial, however it is generally agreed upon that *they are indeed venomous*. Although the venom is not considered dangerous to humans, a bite from a hognose can result in swelling and numbness at the site of the bite, though this is likely the result of a simple allergic reaction. Similar symptoms can result from dog and cat bites.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hognose
> 
> Now before wiki bashing, if you disagree with anything on a wiki page, CHANGE IT and give your citation/reference! If you don't give a proper citation/reference you will almost certainly get the old revert. Wiki pages get millions of accurizations every day. It is up to YOU to help out.


The irony in this is that the part where it says "They are indeed venomous" I edited the other day. The original content of the page stated that although the topic was controversial, it is agreed upon by professionals that hognoses are not venomous, but their saliva is toxic in the same way a cat or dog's saliva can be to small animals.

I edited that portion that portion myself the other day because most likely, people who are considering getting a hognose will check out the wikipedia page, and I think the whole toxic saliva/venom topic might be a big deal.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 22, 2013)

Another good discussion about the topic;
http://www.ssnakess.com/forums/heterodon/92706-hognose-venom-debate-over-2.html


----------



## Quazgar (Aug 27, 2013)

As has been stated already, (I guess a quick summary), they are indeed venomous, but not dangerous. This is much like the tarantulas we keep. The real question is what difference does it really make to argue about it? If you are looking for just the correct information, you have it. If you are looking for legal reasons (i.e. is it legal to keep in some particular state that restricts or bans venomous snakes), then you have to read and interpret the legalese for that particular location, which doesn't always follow complete accuracy or sometimes even common sense.


----------



## The Snark (Aug 28, 2013)

Naw. We got two PHuDs now duking this out. Time for lay persons to back off and wait for a definitive publication of findings.


----------



## Tarantuloid (Sep 4, 2013)

Quazgar said:


> As has been stated already, (I guess a quick summary), they are indeed venomous, but not dangerous. This is much like the tarantulas we keep. The real question is what difference does it really make to argue about it? If you are looking for just the correct information, you have it. If you are looking for legal reasons (i.e. is it legal to keep in some particular state that restricts or bans venomous snakes), then you have to read and interpret the legalese for that particular location, which doesn't always follow complete accuracy or sometimes even common sense.


Thank you for summarizing, I bought one hognose awhile back thinking they were venomous, but about on the same level as my scorpion or tarantula (venomous, but not life threatening). There really needs to be a good article or something regarding this topic, as there are still many people in my area who are convinced that hognoses are NOT venomous. This topic started when someone saw my hognose and wanted one as well, but the parents didn't want their family owning an animal that possessed venom as he was allergic to bee stings.


----------



## XbioChiro (Sep 2, 2017)

The Snark said:


> Sad but true about the wiki, at least in part. In fact upon retrospect, if a person hasn't worked extensively in higher academic circles where getting your efforts shot in the tukus is matter of fact and a nice surprise if it doesn't happen, editing wiki pages is extremely frustrating. I'm still waiting for the doc to give me the actual clinical findings then we can get the wiki page fully corrected and cite it here as accurate. IE they do, end of discussion.
> 
> Let's clarify something slightly. Medically significant as defined by 2 paramedic handbooks is *Any medical incident which is beyond the expertise of the average lay person to accurately diagnose and which requires some degree of intervention by a qualified medical practitioner in order to prevent a lasting or prolonged condition that could have been reduced or eliminated by the intervention*.
> Note the use of the words 'some' and 'could have'. That entire glop translates as the judgement call of a physician in modern medicineeze.


I'd like to chime in here. We are seeing arguments that really stem from our desire to fit things into well-defined boxes and boundaries. Nature and evolution produce a pluthera of variations that only follow one rule. If it works, if it functions... Then it is utilized. There is no black and white. Is a Komodo Dragon venomous? Is the venom from from Loxosceles reclusa the real reason for such terrible wounds and their "medical significance" or is it the soup of bacteria harbored by the spider that takes advantage of the bodies first lines of defenses being broken and cause secondary infection that really cause the damage? Loxosceles doesn't care. If it's means of subduing and digesting prey also function as a predatory deterant, then it is none the wiser, it's offspring are simply more likely to survive and therefore the environment selects for these characteristics, and thus a characteristic is born within a species. If a hognose has a system of prey sedation that works, then it is used and the characteristic is propagated in the species. There are 3 classes of noxious/damaging chemicals in nature. 1. Toxic-inorganic molecule (mercury)
2. Poisounous-organic, derived from living organisms without a delivery system (poison dart frog, fungus, poison ivy)
3. Venomous- organic and with a delivery system ( Jelly fish, bees, wasps, spiders vipers)
Sometimes the lines between poisonous and venemous become blurred because nature doesn't care about definitions or categories. Its easy to see that all spiders are venomous, but is a komodo dragon poisonous or venous? After all, it is the bacteria that produce the toxins, so a Komodo doesnt even produce the actual noxious chemical but actually has a symbiotic relationship with an organism that does it's dirty work for it. What about the Gila monster? Again, they don't care, but we do. We love controversy. The best thing to do here is to really outline our defimition of what venomous is. For me, the hognose fits the definition of venomous. It produces, by its own metabolic biology, produced by a gland, a noxious chemical, coupled with a grooved fang delivery system, which it utilizes to inject into prey that functions to sedate and possibly has a role in digestion. This puts the hognose into the same category as vipers, spiders, etc. Please remember that to be "venomous" an organism doesn't even need to use their noxious chemical to feed, but can be used defensively like stingrays. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## XbioChiro (Sep 2, 2017)

But... If we are talking about legal reasons regarding the keeping of snakes, we are really talking about if the snake is dangerous. Obviously an animal can be venomous and not dangerous. Anyone with a pet scorpion or tarantula knows that their pet is not particularly dangerous. You don't have to have a license. There are plenty of animals out there that pose a threat much greater than a hognose. That includes a bee. So, is it safe to keep keep a hognose snake? For the human, yes... For the snake, no. Many die in captivity. Should you need a venomous snake handler's license to own one? No. Should you? I suggest catch, ID, document, release. If you feel you must keep one, please make it worth while by observing it's behavior then releasing.


----------

