Handling controversey (yet again)

[Crotalus]

From BTS website:

"THE BRITISH TARANTULA SOCIETY CONSTITUTION 6th SEPTEMBER 1997

8. To educate and allay fears of individuals concerning common prejudices towards tarantulas. To encourage SAFETY in the keeping of all arachnids, including the policy of not handling tarantulas."

http://www.thebts.co.uk/constitution.htm

 

[FryLock]

Why the BTS has a no handling policy. Unless every single person in England who I've corresponded with or otherwise read something from are the liars, it's because animal rights nutters would have your shows shut down and possibly even the hobby, not because the BTS felt that it was risky to the spiders and the handlers. If this is not the case, then this thread is the first time I've ever heard someone make the "it's for the spiders" claim.

Code I don't think any of the UK exotic society's have been kowtowing to the RSPCA to anything like that degree (if at all) quite a few i hear have tried to work with them so they can try to make animal welfare policies that protect exotic's as well as "normal" pets but remain fair, but that's kind of hard when many of the people working in so called animal welfare groups (some of which have hard line AR types hiding in there ranks) are vehemently anti exotic and some even anti animal ownership in total .

If i remember rightly the RSPCA's stance on T's was yes you can keep them but they should really be covered by the DWA , and frankly i can't see the BTS comm working "hand in glove" with them, and in any event what you say here to support your original statements is a long way from the "actual truth" and is a personal belief founded on the personal belief of others.

 

[FryLock]

From BTS website:

"THE BRITISH TARANTULA SOCIETY CONSTITUTION 6th SEPTEMBER 1997

8. To educate and allay fears of individuals concerning common prejudices towards tarantulas. To encourage SAFETY in the keeping of all arachnids, including the policy of not handling tarantulas."

http://www.thebts.co.uk/constitution.htm

Yup Lelle also it's from 1997, which im pretty sure is before the first before the herp show ban's in the UK..

 

[MrDeranged]

Having met both Ray and Chip in person, I think I know what the problem is....

What we have here are two people, who are passionate about the hobby, are crass, blunt, sarcastic & are coming at the same thing from views engendered on different continents with completely different political climates.

Guys, take a breather.

The only real solution here is for us to drag Chip along in February and pay for a round...

The law situation in both our continents are completely different and neither of you are experts in the other countries litigation, try to remember that. (and I'm referring to laws regarding the animals, not libel )

Scott (& Debby)

You guys know we love both of you...

 

[syndicate]

mad drama!!
to stay on topic i side with ray here.i enjoy reading his posts and i think he has alot more knowledge on tarantulas than most people think.
i think the point is here people can handle there spiders if they want to but remember that some of these species can screw you up bad with there bites.be responsible!

 

[Henry Kane]

Having met both Ray and Chip in person, I think I know what the problem is....

What we have here are two people, who are passionate about the hobby, are crass, blunt, sarcastic & are coming at the same thing from views engendered on different continents with completely different political climates.

Guys, take a breather.

The only real solution here is for us to drag Chip along in February and pay for a round...

The law situation in both our continents are completely different and neither of you are experts in the other countries litigation, try to remember that. (and I'm referring to laws regarding the animals, not libel )

Scott (& Debby)

You guys know we love both of you...

Not without me you're not! ...Seriously...can I come??? I gotta pound a real stout pint (or a few) sometime in my life.

I think the discussion could serve better to go in this direction, the differences between UK and US regarding tangible threats to our right to keep our inverts. It seems rather apparent that negative media exposure, in tandem with possible medical documentation are a great threat to the UK keepers. Is this correct? Here it's always a threat too I suppose but not quite to that extent, at least not nationally. I reckon we are more cavalier about it but now and then when a story does hit the media, it's forgotten as quick as it was read it seems...most of the time. Still a risk but not quite the risk it is across the water. Granted, not every city of every state is passive on the issue. Some legislators can be very tenacious in their anti-exotic animal bureaucracy but this situation doesn't seem very common in the states.

I honestly don't think this thread is a waste or "silly". I feel it's important for us to have a better understanding of these differences. It may even help alleviate future heated discussions and provide for more productive ones. There's actually a lot to be learned here, as passionately as it's all stated.

G.

 

[Code Monkey]

Code I don't think any of the UK exotic society's have been kowtowing to the RSPCA to anything like that degree (if at all) quite a few i hear have tried to work with them so they can try to make animal welfare policies that protect exotic's as well as "normal" pets but remain fair, but that's kind of hard when many of the people working in so called animal welfare groups (some of which have hard line AR types hiding in there ranks) are vehemently anti exotic and some even anti animal ownership in total .

I know we're on different sides of the pond here, but my take is that the only proper response to animal rights groups is to point and laugh and then go eat a steak. Over here we have the USHS with the same goals as the RSPCA, but they'll almost certainly never get anywhere because people inherently distrust such organisations because of what they are: a bunch of looney nutters. I admit that the BTS policy may be a mixture of both reasons, but that's as far as I go - I can't honestly believe that sapient beings would actually make such a policy purely out of concern for welfare of the spiders since the risk is so low that, like I said, if the arguments for the spider's safety were true, then keeping them at all is a sin.

What you have is situation where people are taking a faith-based ethical stand, which in and of itself is fine, but are then trying to come up with all manner of rationales to support it. Saying that we realise that handling is relatively safe but we've got a bunch of nutjobs over here with the political clout to make sure every exotic show in the E.U. would have to be held in a vacant field 20 miles outside of the nearest city if a minor got bit at one is a solid argument grounded in reasonable outcomes. Painting nightmarish scenarios or appealing to respect for a spider are just distortions and dogma and I don't care much for either one.

 

[angelarachnid]

You have the PMs about exactly which three points I consider lies so I'm not even real clear on why you posted all of the above:

• 1) Why the BTS has a no handling policy. Unless every single person in England who I've corresponded with or otherwise read something from are the liars, it's because animal rights nutters would have your shows shut down and possibly even the hobby, not because the BTS felt that it was risky to the spiders and the handlers. If this is not the case, then this thread is the first time I've ever heard someone make the "it's for the spiders" claim..

• 
  
  Dont you mean the REPTILE shows?
  
  AR tried to shut down REPTILE shows by saying that there was a threat from salmonella being caught from handeling the REPTILES. (most) inverts dont carry diseases especially spiders. While some reptile show organisers went scurrying of hiding the BTS held its head pround and carried on with the BTS Exhibition.
  
  
  

  [*]2) That a person can be held liable for making factual statements or even non-factual statements about the suitability of a tarantula for handling. It's called informed consent, which means that short of me selling you a 100% guaranteed not to bite spider (and probably not even then) you are automatically assuming the risks since no reasonable person can be expected to believe it's an activity that's not risky on the face of it. .

  When some one getts bitten by a dog they can sue the owner for damages. If someone gets bitten by one of my spiders (which happened) i could very well be sued (thankfully i have public liability insurance, and the public dont handle my spiders).
  
  The whole sueing thing (and you should know being an American) has become totally stupid and i am told in America you can be sued for almost anything.
  
  Just like the guy who sued McDonalds when HE spilt his coffee on HIS leg and sued them because it was TO HOT
  
  

  [*]3) The matter of the hospital reporting statistics, which you just repeated, only this time you reworded it to leave yourself a back door. .

  Here you go again
  
  Quote:
  Originally Posted by angelarachnid
  = the more spider bites are recorded =
  
  RECORDED not REPORTED
  
  Dont accuse me of making a back door when you are the person twisting my words.
  
  I am trying to find the Vivarium article give me a few mins
  
  Ray
  
  BTW i am getting really bored with this there are other threads i could be spending my time on instead of trying to prove i am not lieing to some one of no real significance to my life.
  
  Ray

 

[Crotalus]

Code,
BTS policy is from 1997. Before the time of the crazy animal right groups such as PETA etc.
Why are you trying to make it look differently? You know nothing about european animal laws and european animal right groups, still you try to make it look here like you know it all. Take a rest.

 

[angelarachnid]

Code I don't think any of the UK exotic society's have been kowtowing to the RSPCA to anything like that degree (if at all) quite a few i hear have tried to work with them so they can try to make animal welfare policies that protect exotic's as well as "normal" pets but remain fair, but that's kind of hard when many of the people working in so called animal welfare groups (some of which have hard line AR types hiding in there ranks) are vehemently anti exotic and some even anti animal ownership in total .

If i remember rightly the RSPCA's stance on T's was yes you can keep them but they should really be covered by the DWA , and frankly i can't see the BTS comm working "hand in glove" with them, and in any event what you say here to support your original statements is a long way from the "actual truth" and is a personal belief founded on the personal belief of others.

It wasnt the rspca it was some other bunch of Ar terrorists what was her name the leader:? :? Jenny? something:?

But it was against the reptile shows not the invert shows and exhibitions.

The protection of animals act (in the UK) does not cover inverts, so invert groups were left alone.

Ray

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi,
With respect for both of you, please kill the topic. For starters, the handling debate is as old as it is controversial. For some reason, which frankly is beyond me, the ones who worry too much are the keepers. I'm still not sure why, maybe a loving sense for the animals themselves that goes far beyond the norm, that can't be wrong for an arachnofreak surely.

Chip, as I'm sure you know, Ray's not the only one with years and years and more years (sorry Ray ) of experience. Ray's opinion is shared exactly by Andrew Smith, who's been in it longer then most of us are old (and I'm old), among many other numerous well experienced keepers and further, among those not all THAT side of the pond. I don't see Ray getting overly aggressive here, he's we'll within his rights to defend against "slander" (if that's what it is, I can't say) and I would honestly prefer to see that than some ridiculous flame war between two people over semantics.

And Ray, you know this has all been thrashed out before, time and again, why buy into it, Chip's points are well worthy of consideration, he also knows his stuff and the base of the whole argument (which is why I say it's been done and done and done).

It's a shame to see two of the most kowledgable people on these boards butt heads over something like the redundant handling debate. Why don't you two go at it on identification, then we'd ALL learn a thing or two.

No offense to either of you, I have much respect for you both
Steve

 

[FryLock]

It wasnt the rspca it was some other bunch of Ar terrorists what was her name the leader:? :? Jenny? something:?

But it was against the reptile shows not the invert shows and exhibitions.

The protection of animals act (in the UK) does not cover inverts, so invert groups were left alone.

Ray

There are so many these day's it's hard to keep track as they keep spilting and forming new groups.

The RSPCA remark is from here >Here< and Andy's post, may have been lower ranking officer that made the per comm to Andy, but i have heard of the simmler policy before (not first hand i have to point out, and not 100% fact, my pers opinion ect ect long list of arse covering).

 

[Code Monkey]

BTW i am getting really bored with this there are other threads i could be spending my time on instead of trying to prove i am not lieing to some one of no real significance to my life.

Then why bother? You're really making a mountain of a speck of dust on the ground.

Here's what you need to know: I completely disagree with anybody who says that people should never handle their tarantulas. I am not interested in having my mind changed, but I at least respect objective, unemotional arguments against it...

The tarantula doesn't get anything from it, check. The tarantula is at greater risk of falling and becoming injured, check. The handler is at an increased, arguably only slightly increased but still increased, risk of receiving a bite if a tarantula is handled, check. A tarantula isn't really a pet and there are better animals if you feel the need to have a physical bond with an animal, check.

And that's it. Those are the only points that I recognise as having validity against handling (and I agree 100% with each of them). Whether I'm completely off my gourd in discounting alleged risks to the hobby or liability for exotic organisations isn't real high on my list of things to question, "Do I have the ultimate truth on this subject or not?"

So, when you come into the original thread with your "NO Get a hamster!", you were already off to a bad start with my reaction to you. When you followed up others' challenges to you with words to the effect of "You're all probably too stupid to understand my points" along with a confabulated scenario that I doubt is much more probable in the U.K. than in the U.S. I figured you for someone with an agenda.

You may actually believe everything you wrote, I'm not psychic, but, to be perfectly blunt, I have a hard time accepting that intelligent people actually believe all this stuff. I know a lot of people want others to believe it, but I figure it for propoganda for the express purpose of deceiving people to think like you want them to. Because if you can get everyone in the U.K. to believe there are significant bite risks from handling combined with liability risks, you know the hobby will be safe, at least temporarily, from nutters like the RSPCA.

The key word there is "deceiving". Whether I'm right or wrong in an absolute sense, I believed that your posts were deliberately deceptive to try and get people who may not be as informed as others to think like you want them to, I've got a problem with that, and I made it clear in this thread.

So, again, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. One of three scenarios is true:

• 1. You were knowingly being deceptive, what I believed to be the case, and why I called your points lies instead of just wrong.
• 2. You were unknowingly being incorrect, in which case we would both be wrong. You for being incorrect, me for saying those points were intentionally deceptive.
• 3. You were right and I was wrong. If this is the case, so what? What are you going to prove by pulling out some 1983 article with some statistics about spider bites? You're arguing minutiae, I'm arguing intent of posting.

We won't come to an agreement on this subject so we should just drop it and find something we do agree on.

 

[angelarachnid]

I am trying to find the Vivarium article give me a few mins

Ray

Found it

In support of keeping Boas and Pythons in the private sector, Philippe de Vosjoli.

Vivarium magazine Vol 4 No 4 pages 34-44. 1993 (sorry got the date wrong)

Ok the only relevent bits here will be the sources for thier information:

NEISS : National Electronic Injury Surveillance System,

National Safety Council

Dont know if these bodies are still around in the US.

A relevant comment here :

6 Figures from ...........................NEISS, a part of the U.S. Consumer Product Saftey Commision. Neiss recorded horse related accidents that go to emergency rooms ..............................


Hospitals record injuries (in any form) that are presented to the hospital for treatment. This is where goverments get thier statistical information from for gunshot woulds etc,,

NOtice i have used the word RECORD and not REPORT like monkey insists i keep on saying.

Ray

 

[angelarachnid]

There are so many these day's it's hard to keep track as they keep spilting and forming new groups.

The RSPCA remark is from here >Here< and Andy's post, may have been lower ranking officer that made the per comm to Andy, but i have heard of the simmler policy before (not first hand i have to point out, and not 100% fact, my pers opinion ect ect long list of arse covering).

Cheers Fry i forgot about that, i think Cris said they had thrown it in assomething they would be willing to shed when the slicing of of bits started.something like that.

Ray

 

[FryLock]

I think the discussion could serve better to go in this direction, the differences between UK and US regarding tangible threats to our right to keep our inverts. It seems rather apparent that negative media exposure, in tandem with possible medical documentation are a great threat to the UK keepers. Is this correct? Here it's always a threat too I suppose but not quite to that extent, at least not nationally. I reckon we are more cavalier about it but now and then when a story does hit the media, it's forgotten as quick as it was read it seems...most of the time. Still a risk but not quite the risk it is across the water. Granted, not every city of every state is passive on the issue. Some legislators can be very tenacious in their anti-exotic animal bureaucracy but this situation doesn't seem very common in the states.

I think you hit the nail on the head there Gary , over here we have seen bad precedences set in law (at least in small county court's) against herp show's due to over blown evidence being presented in courts, many open to the public bird shows have gone the same way due to a range of augments over yet again the risk of salmonella to the public that visit them and the trapping of W/C stock (you know like the green budgies being the W/C one's, that was from an AR campaigner i kid you not ).

All these are vert examples i know but the will is there to get as much control as possable over all exotic's of that i have little doubt, iv heard it said in the past that what happens to vert's won't affect the invert hobby's but would the ban of cricket and other invert life food farming that was stopped getting in to law in the UK have not affected T's also, that was at attack aimed at herps and soft bills but would have helped to under mine inverts too in.

 

[Code Monkey]

NOtice i have used the word RECORD and not REPORT like monkey insists i keep on saying.

And in the great tradition of usenet...

PLONK

 

[angelarachnid]

I think you hit the nail on the head there Gary , over here we have seen bad precedences set in law (at least in small county court's) against herp show's due to over blown evidence being presented in courts, many open to the public bird shows have gone the same way due to a range of augments over yet again the risk of salmonella to the public that visit them and the trapping of W/C stock (you know like the green budgies being the W/C one's, that was from an AR campaigner i kid you not ).

All these are vert examples i know but the will is there to get as much control as possable over all exotic's of that i have little doubt, iv heard it said in the past that what happens to vert's won't affect the invert hobby's but would the ban of cricket and other invert life food farming that was stopped getting in to law in the UK have not affected T's also, that was at attack aimed at herps and soft bills but would have helped to under mine inverts too in.

Frys right, they even tried to claim crickets were "sensiant" beings which should not be fed to other living creatures.

We ahve to be really carefull over here as the AR terrorists, peta etc, will use any excuse to jump all over us.

On hindsight, i replied to the handling thread after a conversation with some complete and utter MORON from channel 5 who wanted to use some spiders in a kids show.

The back ground to this is we have had a couple of weeks of bad spider press, and then some one from TV land contacted Phil from the Tarantula store to ask if someone could bring a spider (note singualr) for the show i thought of some positive spid promotion without handeling.

I voluntered (under guidance) to go on this show but refused point blank when they told me what they wanted to do. Cut a long story short, he wanted to have an 11 year old kid lying on the floor with heart monitors attatched to him and have 5 theraphosids walk over him....you can guess i told him where to go.

Even though i KNEW i could cope with 5 theraphosids wandering around at one time, i refused.why because of the scenarios i mentioned earlier.

I dont know if they found someone else to do this, but this sort of stunt is just asking for trouble. and if it was my kid on the floor, and if my kid got bitten to right i would sue them.

NOW THIS IS THE HARD BIT TO BELIEVE but it is true

When i told them i would not do this with Tarantulas they asked if i would do it with WANDERING spiders instead.

After my reply they have not contacted me again, and this was only 2 weeks ago

I could have made a few bucks from that, but turned it away why?

diss respect of spiders welfare and total ignorance as to what might happen to the kid(s).

And a simple draught causing one spider to run into another.............you can only guess where that might lead to.

This is not another of my so called lies, i have proven i have not been lieing, this is another reason why spiders should be treated with the respect they deserve, if peopel want to handel thier spiders............and from what i have read, its mainly newbies.with little or no experiance of spiders the last thing that they shold be told is that thier spider is OK to handel....at least until they have some experiance.

But that is just my opinion, fortunately for me i will hold a no handeling stance, so if ever (and we have tempted fate here) things do go as the worst scenario I will be OK.

I am going to play some where else now

Ray

 

[Merfolk]

You have the right to hold you animal, as much as it has the right to disagree about it, since being lifted off the ground is not exactly natural T activity.

An healty T simply dislikes to be handled. But my other pets also dislike being kept indoor. Abiding to a pet's will all the time and you'll end up hiring a psy for your cat!!!!


Nothing wrong with handling per see, if the animal is made aware of your presence. I can make a difference between simply allowing it on your hand resting on a cushion and grabbing it and swinging it in the air to impress drinking buddies.

 

[ShadowBlade]

An healty T simply dislikes to be handled.

I have to disagree with that statement.
Some species, and a lot of juvies, just don't care. They show no different behavior whatsoever. Its hard to say they 'dislike it'.
I mean, a B. smithi walks on your hand, and just keeps walking, onto your other hand.. etc.. What does it dislike? Does it think, "Shoot, I hate walking on this smelly stuff"?
Now, there are alot of species/specimens that SHOW their dislike of 'handling' in which case, their behavior is clearly warranted!