Are Western Hognose snakes considered "venomous"?

[Galapoheros]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Quazgar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.