A Poke in the Eye(s)

[Joy]

Originally posted by BertWright
Joy:

Did you raise your Poke from a spiderling? The reason I asked about how long you've had this beautiful tarantula is that long-time captives, as you know, are much more tolerant and receptive - naturally. Some of the Old World and other baboon types stay too wild to ever befriend them, regardless of how long you've had them. Then again even more docile spiders have their days. Nonetheless,I've always liked to see a keeper holding a tarantula that is generally known as a 'you-just-don't-hold-that-kind' of a spider.

Yes, the regalis is a CB I raised from a spiderling, Bert. It does seem to make a difference in a lot of cases.

I've seen the eye photos on the ATS site--very impressive.

Invertepet, I would agree a disclaimer never does any harm. It seems to me the best thing about these forums is that they allow people to present all different opinions on an issue. I know from experience that as a beginning hobbyist, you tend to believe the first source you consult. If your source makes flat statements like, "Tarantulas should be kept on X substrate at X degrees," then that's what you believe. The reality is more complicated than that IMO. I've seen exceptions to darned near every rule there is. Certainly people should know the risks in handling--and that applies to handling ANY species of tarantula, not just Pokes--before they attempt it. I would further add that no one should feel pressured to handle at all if they don't want to.

Joy

 

[Vys]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
Sort of depends on what you define as accurate. Although they can be used interchangeably, most of the tarantula nuts out there make a distinction between poisonous and venomous. If you went with that definition, then no tarantula or spider is poisonous. I'm coming to the opinion this is more of an online convention than a well established convention, though (e.g. Foelix's The Biology of Spiders uses 'poisonous' for describing spider venom).

If you go with that way of looking at it, technically (with the exception of a handful of spiders that lack any venom) all spiders are venomous/poisonous.

Regarding this and that, as far as I know all spiders are venomous, meaning they inject their venom somehow. For them to be poisonous, it would have to be a bad idea to eat them (because of poison, not three eyes that will stare you down )

 

[LaRiz]

Awesome! Hey aren't they "aggressive" ! LOL

Our Priestess of Pulchra-tude,
may have more balls, than any dude.
She'll wrangle beasts, with care and grace,
gently holds them, on hand, in place.
Understand! That I insist to her,
She's the arachnid whisperer.

Yeah, I know it's sad, just thought since Joy writes one for people like Rick West and stuff, she deserves her own.
john

 

[Joy]

Re: Awesome! Hey aren't they "aggressive" ! LOL

Originally posted by LaRiz
Our Priestess of Pulchra-tude,
may have more balls, than any dude.
She'll wrangle beasts, with care and grace,
gently holds them, on hand, in place.
Understand! That I insist to her,
She's the arachnid whisperer.

Yeah, I know it's sad, just thought since Joy writes one for people like Rick West and stuff, she deserves her own.
john

John, I hereby place the laurel wreath upon your brow

Joy

 

[Cowshark]

Question: Is this the species that some here have nicknamed Pterror? T'anks.

 

[Haploman]

Hey Joy

I am Impressed, I agree to my brothers statement , I like to see your hands on a Tv commercial now ( the new hands for palmolive dish liquid) :} now you got to insure your hands Joy

 

[ArachnoJoost]

Originally posted by Cowshark
Question: Is this the species that some here have nicknamed Pterror? T'anks.

No, that would be the Pterinochilus murinus 'usumbara' (or Red Colour Form)

 

[Tarantula Lover]

WOW!!!!!!!

JOY, nice and awsome pic!!! great camera and great tarantula!! you are so brave, or should i say priviligable!LOL!!

James

 

[invertepet]

Originally posted by Wade
An adult what?

Human being, of course.

Although this statement may turn out to be true, at present it's speculation based on anecdotal evidence. There still hasn't been a recorded human death resulting from the bite if this or any other tarantula.

"Anecdotal" isn't an accurate description of the evidence that has been presented thus far regarding Poecilotheria venom. Reports have been unanimous and symptoms have only varied slightly. I know one person personally who has experienced these lateral and systemic neural reactions to Poecilotheria toxin. It's very well documented.

I'm not saying that it's not possible or that it won't happen, but there just isn't any data to support this statement.

This simply isn't so. Accounts of bites can be presented as data. People have been to the hospital for treatment, I'm sure the records would show clinical evidence of the symptoms. The point is, we do know they have hot venom. It's not some vague theory someone came up with in a vacuum.

All we know is that some who've been bitten have reported some very severe effects. Grounds for advising caution when working with this species? Certainly, but I don't think misleading statements are going to help.

I certainly posted no such misleading statements. The danger lies in downplaying a potentially dangerous species like Poecilotheria, not erring on the side of caution (and I don't consider posting a simple disclaimer to be 'erring' in this case).

Until somebody actually does the research, we probably won't have a definitive answer.

Poecilotheria venom toxicity has been examined - and it is definitely hot. Many species of tarantula venom has been examined, actually. Some get milked for medical research and drug/anesthetic production.

The fact that nobody has bothered to do any research on the dangers of tarantula venom suggests that there hasn't been a need percieved (there has been research into possible usages of the venom, however).

Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions! I think it's very unwise to assume that the lack of widespread tarantula toxin research indicates a 'lack of a need perceived'. And in fact, research HAS been done regarding T venom, not simply for safety reasons, but for medical purposes.

Now that keeping these animals is increasingly popular, perhaps the need will arise. Compare this with scorpions, where there has been a lot of research into venoms and we KNOW that certain species can kill. Even then it's generally infants, the ederly, or the already very ill who succumb, not "healthy adults".

When several healthy adults report systemic reactions to venom including dizziness, nausea, fainting and lack of coordination, you're obviously dealing with a venom that could exploit any pre-existing (possibly unknown) complications (like a touch of asthma or a damaged heart valve) and cause death. I'm not saying *any* Poecilotheria bite *will* kill *any* human - but I am saying the indication is it's possible, given the bite reports I've read and heard of first hand.

Once again, I'm not saying it's not good to warn of potential danger, I'm just suggesting we keep it within the realm of fact.

I don't think anything in what I said took us out of the 'realm of fact', Wade. I said that the species possesses venom that *could* pose a risk, even to a healthy adult (HUMAN). I don't think anyone even vaguely familiar with the species would argue that.

A disclaimer should definitely accompany any depiction of handling Poecilotheria. That's all I'm saying.

b

 

[invertepet]

Joy,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do think a special disclaimer should be used for Poecilotheria. As you noted, nothing is ever just black or white - not all spiders are the same.

bill

 

[Wade]

Originally posted by invertepet
I said that the species possesses venom that *could* pose a risk, even to a healthy adult (HUMAN). I don't think anyone even vaguely familiar with the species would argue that.

A disclaimer should definitely accompany any depiction of handling Poecilotheria. That's all I'm saying.

b [/B]

Bill-

Your original post stated "a good envenomation could easily kill a healthy adult."

Sorry, but that's a far cry from "the species possesses venom that *could* pose a risk, even to a healthy adult."

I have absolutly no problems with the second statement. You may think I'm splitting hairs, but there is a difference. Hell, if you'd substituted the word "possibly" for the word "easily" I probably wouldn't have responded to your original post in the first place, as I would have agreed completely. When you say a spider "could easily kill a healthy adult", it implies that it has happened, at least once.

As to the research that has been done, I am very aware of research that has been done for drug production, I think I mentioned that. But is anybody working on treatments for bites? Is there anybody working on creating an antivenin? Most treatment I've heard of involves treating the symptoms, not counteracting the venom. If there is, I am more than willing to be educated on this topic, I'd be very interested in reading about it, if you could point me in the right direction.

Finnally, I am not trying to downplay the risk assosiated with working with pokes, far from it. While I still don't think we know exactly HOW dangerous they are, we do have enough evidence to suggest that this genus is quite a bit hotter than most. Bites from them have been very severe, so human fatality is certainly possible. I think disclaimers are a good idea, but I do wonder how effective they are. The disclaimers aired before the TV show "Jackass" don't seem to stop kids from setting themselves on fire! I guess they are just a way of covering our own collective butts. Will they stop some dumb kid from getting nailed by his hot spider? Probably not.

Wade

 

[invertepet]

Originally posted by Wade
Bill-
Your original post stated "a good envenomation could easily kill a healthy adult."

And it could. Given the level of reaction to the venom by healthy adults, I don't think it's any stretch to say that one of these days, someone could go into arrest or slip into a coma... To say nothing of someone with a minor or unnoticed health issue like mild hypertension.

Sorry, but that's a far cry from "the species possesses venom that *could* pose a risk, even to a healthy adult."

I'm sorry too, because I don't see how "a good envenomation could easily kill a healthy adult" is a 'far cry' from "...venom that *could* pose a risk, even to a healthy adult."

I have absolutly no problems with the second statement. You may think I'm splitting hairs, but there is a difference.

I do think you're splitting hairs, but that's why we have discussion forums. If every post was in total agreement with the other, it wouldn't be very interesting.

Hell, if you'd substituted the word "possibly" for the word "easily" I probably wouldn't have responded to your original post in the first place, as I would have agreed completely. When you say a spider "could easily kill a healthy adult", it implies that it has happened, at least once.

Ah, but the "could" is the variable. I didn't say "has" or even "evidence shows it can," just "could."

As to the research that has been done, I am very aware of research that has been done for drug production, I think I mentioned that. But is anybody working on treatments for bites?

No, but that's probably because the 'hot' species are a long way away from these shores. The same reason you'd be hard pressed to find Sydney funnelweb antivenin in the US. I don't know if India has conducted any research into Poecilotheria toxin.

Bites from them have been very severe, so human fatality is certainly possible. I think disclaimers are a good idea, but I do wonder how effective they are. The disclaimers aired before the TV show "Jackass" don't seem to stop kids from setting themselves on fire!

I agree with much of your point, but this is a slightly different venue. Beginners could very easily be reading these forums (or the ATS website, for that matter) and easily get the idea that it's OK to hold the pretty ornamentals if they don't hear otherwise. Tarantula info isn't as intuitive or readily available. The Jackass stunts are kind of different insofar as the danger is pretty obvious (the guys usually fail at them and DO suffer the consequences, which is why it amuses people).

I guess they are just a way of covering our own collective butts. Will they stop some dumb kid from getting nailed by his hot spider? Probably not.

Who knows, it may already have. I myself put loads of warnings on my site, because I sure as hell never want any angry mom calling me telling me her little Jimmy is in the ER with respiratory failure because a P. ornata they got from me bit him during handling... You know?

bill

 

[Wade]

Originally posted by invertepet


I'm sorry too, because I don't see how "a good envenomation could easily kill a healthy adult" is a 'far cry' from "...venom that *could* pose a risk, even to a healthy adult."

The first statement implies that the effects of bites are a known quantity...the second statement stresses the potential danger, while acknowledging the unknown aspect. Call me a stickler if you like, but I see a big difference between "could easily kill" and "could pose a risk".

If I point at a timber rattlesnake and say "the bite of that snake could easily kill a healthy adult", it's true because we KNOW that untreated rattlesnake bites often do result in death (fun, totally off-topic fact: here in VA, death by snakebite is almost always associated with snakehandling churches where the members refuse treatment if biten). In order to make this statement (in my opinion, of course) about these spiders, we'd need a lot more data, all we have is a handful of bite reports where the symptoms were severe. Surely, there are unreported bites, considering how many of these spiders are in the hobby, but we only hear about the ones that result in a hospital visit. Only including the severe cases gives a rather skewed picture.

In the end, our disagreement is mainly about word choice. I, too, think about what beginners see and take away when they visit forums like this. Newbys, and the general public, tend to catogorize spiders as either "deadly" or "harmless", but we both know there's a wide range of possibilities in between those extremes. From a saftey standpoint, it might be a good thing if they mentally start putting Poecilotheria in the "deadly" category, but we could see some negative effects in the hobby. If these spiders become regarded by the gemeral public as "deadly", we're going to find all sorts of people who want to regulate sales of the genus, and probably tarantula keeping in general. Right now, most reptile shows that don't allow sales of venomous herps do allow tarantula sales, but that could change if suddenly tarantulas become regarded as "deadly". In terms of keeper's saftey, I don't put ANY arachnid in the same risk category as keeping vipers or elapids, regardless of venom toxicity. Nothing has the ability to "reach out and touch someone" like a hot snake (not that I feel that they should be regulated, but that's annother topic)! It's so easy to AVOID being bitten by a spider that to compare the two is absurd. The uninformed public and polititians, however, would lump them together.

Of course, if someone dies, then all of the above may happen anyway, which brings us back to disclaimers, which I would use, even if I doubted their effectiveness. It bothers me that politicians would seek to regulate our hobby (because of the risk we willingly assume), while other dangerous hobbies are unregulated, simply because of the stigma our culture associates with spiders. But, you're right, that's what would happen, and it's best to avoid it if we can.

I apologize if my orignal post came off as insulting, I didn't mean it to be. You have to adimit, however, an interesting discussion came from my getting hung up on the word "easily"!

Wade

 

[looseyfur]

scared

Fear goes a long way. I am moderately new to the hobby and even with just over a year under my belt I know , through research, that I am not NOT ready for the pokes. This to me is common sence. I am more then sure some noob someplace has just aquired him/herself a poke and thinks its the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I must admit they are more then attractive, but he/she is in a dangerous position if you ask me and perhaps they would have avoided the species IF there was asuccficent level of fear there. I honestly dont keep pokes cause I am not ready and when I have researched them I do in fact hear their warnings worded all sorts of ways. I think what keeps me from keeping them is a healthy dose of fear and I think they should be respected and kept only by very expierenced keepers. If ( or maybe when) I keep them and do trade or sell them , I will be very choosey and will make it very clear their venom is HOT. I hope to disuade and to weed out and I think that that is MY and YOUR responciblity as keepers. All it takes is one death to ruin what is a great hobby and I dont want anything to do with that for a buck or anyother reason. We should be very very guarded and not mince words when all it takes is a mistake in wording to ruin our ability to keep a species. Your aruging the wrong point , perhaps it should be more along the lines of what can be said to disuade inexpierenced ppl from keeping them versus the "IF's" and "maybes" letting some ppl think there is no worries keeping them. ALOT needs to be researched about their and some others venom and untill thats in the bag I say best to be as forthright with warnings as We can.

er sorry for the spelling mistakes -
yer pal-
looseyfur
e.

 

[invertepet]

Originally posted by Wade
The first statement implies that the effects of bites are a known quantity...the second statement stresses the potential danger, while acknowledging the unknown aspect. Call me a stickler if you like, but I see a big difference between "could easily kill" and "could pose a risk".

Not if you believe both. I see the point you're making, but since I find the evidence of severe reactions among healthy adults rather significant, I feel the 'could' modifier in the previous statement qualifies it as no more implication of hard fact than the second. And I do think the venom toxicity is in fact well known to be strong.

If I point at a timber rattlesnake and say "the bite of that snake could easily kill a healthy adult", it's true because we KNOW that untreated rattlesnake bites often do result in death

A 'good' bite by a Timber rattler (or any number of other crotalids) is probably more life threatening, but I don't think that means we can't refer to Poecilotherias as also dangerous and potentially lethal. If it can knock down a healthy adult human as it has been known to, then it *could* kill one - especially if, as I said, there were any latent health issues.

Surely, there are unreported bites, considering how many of these spiders are in the hobby, but we only hear about the ones that result in a hospital visit. Only including the severe cases gives a rather skewed picture.

I don't think we're 'only hearing about the most severe cases'. Nor do I think the reports we've seen thus far give a 'skewed picture' of Poecilotheria toxicity.

Just like any other aspect of the tarantula hobby, we go on what people's experience dictates, and that experience strongly indicates medically signicant venom. I've heard of dry Poecilotheria bites before, but that's exactly what they were - just like a dry bite from any other venomous animal, there were no extended symptoms beyond the actual puncture wound. Any Pokie bite I've heard of that involved any envenomation resulted in alarmingly severe neurological reactions. That includes a good friend of mine who told me about his experience first hand. IMHO, that's good enough for me.

From a saftey standpoint, it might be a good thing if they mentally start putting Poecilotheria in the "deadly" category, but we could see some negative effects in the hobby. If these spiders become regarded by the gemeral public as "deadly", we're going to find all sorts of people who want to regulate sales of the genus, and probably tarantula keeping in general.

I'd rather run that risk (hasn't happened yet, anyway) than have some kid seing a pic online then holding their regalis, bang, lawsuit, media, government action... etc.

Right now, most reptile shows that don't allow sales of venomous herps do allow tarantula sales, but that could change if suddenly tarantulas become regarded as "deadly".

Since they still allow WELL KNOWN deadly scorpions to be sold, I doubt making sure people know Poecilotherias are potentially also dangerous would suddenly shut down spider sales at shows.

In terms of keeper's saftey, I don't put ANY arachnid in the same risk category as keeping vipers or elapids, regardless of venom toxicity.

Well, I would put L. quinquestriatus up there with many of the lower or mid-range crotalids, but that's another issue, IMHO.

Nothing has the ability to "reach out and touch someone" like a hot snake (not that I feel that they should be regulated, but that's annother topic)! It's so easy to AVOID being bitten by a spider that to compare the two is absurd. The uninformed public and polititians, however, would lump them together.

I agree, but again, we have established some species of scorpion and in fact many dealers DO make venom disclaimers for Poecilotheria and other spiders... And no such leglislative reaction has occurred. I think the preventative measures are far better enacted by us than the government, don't you think?

I apologize if my orignal post came off as insulting, I didn't mean it to be. You have to adimit, however, an interesting discussion came from my getting hung up on the word "easily"!

Yes, and I agree 'easily' is a strong word to use given a lack of any evidence that a human has ever died from a Poecilotheria bite... But I think we can both agree it's a possibility and that any depiction of handling same should carry that warning.

b

 

[Chris]

These are just starting to get WAY too long to read lol

Look what you have started Joy tsk tsk (jk)

What I wanna know is... how in hell do you get them to sit still long enough for a clear pic?! Out of everything I have handled, the only think that will sit still is a rosie, and nobody gets impressed by rosie pics lol

 

[Joy]

Originally posted by Chris
These are just starting to get WAY too long to read lol

Look what you have started Joy tsk tsk (jk)

What I wanna know is... how in hell do you get them to sit still long enough for a clear pic?! Out of everything I have handled, the only think that will sit still is a rosie, and nobody gets impressed by rosie pics lol

It would be hard to give any general rule for it, because every spider is different. In general, however, I find they're more likely to sit still on my hand than when I'm just trying to photography them by themselves--something to do with the warmth of the hand, maybe? That's why so many of my pictures do show them in my hands, as I've had better luck photographing them that way than any other.

One trick you can try with more docile species is to cup your hand over the top of the tarantula while it's sitting in your other hand. This "enclosed" feeling seems to have a calming effect on a lot of tarantulas, but I'd be very cautious about trying it with Africans or Asians

Joy

 

[Vayu Son]

><

Maybe a cavern like hand on top of the other, but get too close and 95% likely to freak an arboreal out.

-V

 

[Chris]

Originally posted by Joy


One trick you can try with more docile species is to cup your hand over the top of the tarantula while it's sitting in your other hand. This "enclosed" feeling seems to have a calming effect on a lot of tarantulas, but I'd be very cautious about trying it with Africans or Asians

Joy

Yes I have noticed this with a lot of NW species... it makes them ball up though and when I stretch the legs out again they start to wander. They dont run or anything but they just dont like sitting still. I have a good touch for them not getting aggressive so I guess I should just feel good about that... I can leave the photos up to others lol