Weigh in on Rattlesnake Republic?

[Ryodraco]

I'm not much of a believer in online petitions, boycotting etc. However I think this could be an opportunity to potentially make a real difference. Seems this part of the animal planet website is currently open to people giving their opinions on the "controversy" of keeping this show on their network. Course it could just be a publicity stunt, given the show just started its second season, but at the same time it might be the closest we can get to giving input that people involved with the channel might actually read.

Weigh in on Rattlesnake Republic: Rattlesnake Republic: Animal Planet (http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/rattlesnake-republic/your-view.htm)

Regardless of your particular feelings on whether all rattlesnake roundups are bad or not, I think everyone can agree a show glorifying the mass slaughter of wild animals for profit has no place on a channel that is supposed to support animals. It did my heart good to see that all 170 + comments so far have been against the show.

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this topic. Be gentle with me.

<><><>

My own comment reads as this:

I grew up watching documentaries on snakes and other reptiles. Often times there was some sensationalizin­g going on, music and narration that made the situations more frightening or cruel than they were, but this was acceptable as the overall message remained positive and in support of the animals it was covering.

One thing these shows had in common was their treatment of rattlesnake round-ups. They did cover the various justifications for the practice, but the overall message was always that they were not truly regulated and did not serve the purposes they claimed to serve.

Above all those programs taught me the utter pointlessness and cruelty of the slaughter that occurs in the roundups. Hundreds, even thousands of snakes removed from habitats far from where they would ever bother humans, brain-damaged by toxic gasoline fumes, denied food, water, proper temperatures for great lengths of time, handled improperly, ultimately slaughtered, I could go on forever.

So the mere existence of this show on Animal Planet came as a shock to me, let alone it being renewed for another season. I don't see the point of boycotting the network or its funders as I doubt it would do anything and there are still good programs, but I do think those involved in deciding that shows like this air take a look back at those old documentaries and ask themselves if there isn't a less harmful way to get ratings, a way that doesn't run counter to everything the network stands for.

Heck, "Monsters Inside Me" is a good example of a show that manages to be educational and sensational at the same time.

[alexknott]

I don't believe out should be on animal planet either. I also don't believe in what they're doing. Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes are almost extinct in Louisiana due to similar circumstances

[RandyRhoads]

I don't need to read this, or care about it being inhuman, either way it's garbage. Most shows, even on previous credible channels, have become mindless dribble to entertain morons...

[Ridge Runner_20]

Complete crapola, period. As much as I love snakes and all things associated, I can't watch this garbage. It has all the educational and redeeming value of The Jerry Springer Show, and Animal Planet should be ashamed of themselves. This is the kind of nonsense that gives snakes a BAD reputation, as well as the people who enjoy and/or keep them. Other than that, I have no opinion on the subject... :yes:

RR_20 (Mike)

[snakeman2222]

yeah here in middle ga they tryin turn them into educational aspects instead of slaughters. they should do the same on the show. senseless killings are just that

[Falconeer999]

Animal Planet has been adding more and more of these anti-animal shows to their network. Earlier in the year they had a show with a former wrestler doing "extreme fishing" - he'd go out on an inner tube and fish for sharks or swordfish, take a jet ski out to an oil rig and fish for tuna, etc. Always killed the fish. In one episode he was using a trident to spear flounder and then throwing their bloody bodies around. Seemed contrary to the large majority of their shows which preach conservation and study (heck, even "River Monsters" while sensationalized, has never killed a fish - it's always catch and release).

This show is just as horrible. And now they have begun to throw in a person who is going to start preaching about conservation, but the previews (and couple appearances he's had on the show so far) make him look like not the best spokesman and the main characters do nothing but disparage him.

[Rickyrick]

Ok,

I live in and work in one of the communities in which the show is filmed.
Let me begin by saying that its just a show for entertainment only, as any tv show, no matter the subject.

I know some of the characters along with some of the production crew. No snakes are killed as a part of the show. The show is in no way affiliated with the roundups. Rattlesnakes are a big problem. Several people a year are injured by these animals. Hundreds of domestic animals such as, cows, goats, sheep, cats and dogs ect ect are killed and injured by rattlesnake bites. These snakes must be removed, it just a fact of life.

In addition to the characters, other locals were employed to help make the show. I beg u if you are gonna protest, please watch the show in its entirety before hand. You may not like the show, that's fine, but please note that the show hasn't had any killings and is not affiliated with, and to this date hasn't shown footage of any roundup.

Hunting has been around since the dawn of man, and will not go away.

I am not condoning any wanton waste af an animal. I find all animals fascinating and I do not hunt snakes. I love animals and the outdoors. If you feel the need to protest something, please know the whole story. This handful of guys aren't going to hurt the rattlesnake population, more snakes are killed on the road than are captured by thes guys. If these guys didn't remove snakes, the snakes would probably be hacked up by a property owner with a hoe or worse.

[infernalis]

Thank you kindly for chiming in Rick.....

[Falconeer999]

I've watched nearly every episode of the show and they always focus on the price of the snakes (from $2-6/pound usually), in addition with showing the skins hanging up and I've seen several shots of snakes being cooked. They may not show the actual killings, but it's no doubt about how the vast majority of them end up (they do talk about some of the larger ones, and albinos, being "trophy animals" to be sold at shows to collectors). They also show in every show a "stunt" being performed. Last night a guy was sealed in a glass coffin with 100 snakes for 5 minutes. Hardly the stuff of good snake handling.

I have no problems with the nuisance calls where they remove animals from farms, houses, etc. However, they almost always do so while complaining that it's taking time away from hunting them in far off locations (abandoned farms, abandoned rock quarries, etc.). On a couple episodes they've had to take horses to get to where they were taking the snakes from because it was so remote and definitely no threat of harm to any people or farm animals.

[Rickyrick]

I assure you that to this point the show has not had any association with the roundups.

In tv shows dealing with animals, shots are prearranged. That means that the rescue the animals shows with animals in neglected and abusing environments....means that the animals are not helped until after the lengthy filming process has taken place-probably over a few days. Those shows are more concerning to me than Rattlesnake republic. It is not the worst show as far as animal treatment is concerned in my book. Hog hunters, swamp people, duck dynasty and others show animals being killed on air.

Believe it or not, the terrain depicted is exactly like one of the ranches I work on.

I even heard that one of the snake handlers refused to film because the weather was too hot for the snakes.

I'm not distracting from your concerns, just giving another point of view.

[Ryodraco]

It'd be one thing is the snakes were shown as a resource that needs to be managed and treated properly, but the whole premise of the show seems to be that the snake's only worth is monetary, and that otherwise they are a dangerous pest.

And I doubt any individual hunter or even group of hunters could have an adverse effect on a widespread species as a whole, but the fact remains that the show encourages wasteful practices and negative stereotypes of snakes.

Course I welcome any other mitigating facts that you could give, like the show condemning rattlesnake roundups, condemning the use of gasoline in rattlesnake hunting (even if you believe it doesn't pollute the habitat it still damages the snake's brain), and having characters show a real admiration for the creatures.

[KORBIN5895]

It'd be one thing is the snakes were shown as a resource that needs to be managed and treated properly, but the whole premise of the show seems to be that the snake's only worth is monetary, and that otherwise they are a dangerous pest.

And I doubt any individual hunter or even group of hunters will have an adverse effect on a widespread species as a whole, but the fact remains that the show encourages wasteful practices and negative stereotypes of snakes.

It's never about one group of hunters but that mentality is what causes so many problem. People say well I only take a few but they forget that other are another1000 people saying the exact same thing. Before you know it the animal is endangered.

[Rickyrick]

Use of gasoline has been prohibited as a means of hunting snakes. It is no longer allowed. Also, in the past, snake hunting did not require a license, now illegal to hunt them without a license.

Public land in Texas is almost non-existent. That means you can't hunt without landowners permission and that equates to a substantial fee paid by the hunter.

These hunters are few, hunting is either for monetary reasons or recreation. Lots of things are done for monetary reasons. Hunting is part of human history. Humans damage the environment. No one stops driving their cars, eating, wearing clothes, posting to the Internet and goes and lives off of the land. The tv that you watched the show on, the computer you posted to this forum on damaged the environment more than a handful of snake hunters ever could.

In Texas we half to kill wild pigs by the scores and pile them up, all due to human error. Pigs love to eat rattlesnakes. This ain't Disneyland. This is real life. The show is only a dramatization, that's it, nothing more.

Who hunted the snakes and other pets that u have living under glass? How much power do the lamps heaters and filters use? Are they truly better off for being captive?

Items made of hides and fur are way more environmentally friendly than all of the synthetic stuff that replaces it.

[KORBIN5895]

Use of gasoline has been prohibited as a means of hunting snakes. It is no longer allowed. Also, in the past, snake hunting did not require a license, now illegal to hunt them without a license.

Public land in Texas is almost non-existent. That means you can't hunt without landowners permission and that equates to a substantial fee paid by the hunter.

These hunters are few, hunting is either for monetary reasons or recreation. Lots of things are done for monetary reasons. Hunting is part of human history. Humans damage the environment. No one stops driving their cars, eating, wearing clothes, posting to the Internet and goes and lives off of the land. The tv that you watched the show on, the computer you posted to this forum on damaged the environment more than a handful of snake hunters ever could.

In Texas we half to kill wild pigs by the scores and pile them up, all due to human error. Pigs love to eat rattlesnakes. This ain't Disneyland. This is real life. The show is only a dramatization, that's it, nothing more.

Who hunted the snakes and other pets that u have living under glass? How much power do the lamps heaters and filters use? Are they truly better off for being captive?

Items made of hides and fur are way more environmentally friendly than all of the synthetic stuff that replaces it.

So how much stick do you own in that show?

[millertime89]

Use of gasoline has been prohibited as a means of hunting snakes. It is no longer allowed. Also, in the past, snake hunting did not require a license, now illegal to hunt them without a license.

And yet, both still happen...

In Texas we half to kill wild pigs by the scores and pile them up, all due to human error. Pigs love to eat rattlesnakes. This ain't Disneyland. This is real life. The show is only a dramatization, that's it, nothing more.

and yet, people still see the need to hunt and kill indigenous species that are eaten by an invasive when the populations of the native is already in decline, how smart is that?

Who hunted the snakes and other pets that u have living under glass? How much power do the lamps heaters and filters use? Are they truly better off for being captive?

The breeder when he pulled the eggs from the snakes that he has raised from eggs. Or, in very rare cases for the majority of people that own snakes now-a-days, a "farm" owner in the country where the species originates from. Perhaps you should learn a little about that process before spouting off about it.
Re: power for lamps, heaters, and filters, depends, my personal collection uses 72 watts

Items made of hides and fur are way more environmentally friendly than all of the synthetic stuff that replaces it.

You won't get any argument from me but there's a catch, this is only true when the animals are collected in a somewhat humane manor(that's a stretch in the best cases) and euthanized in a similar manor. I have no probably with hunting as long as the entire animal is used and the process isn't crueler than it needs to be.

[Rickyrick]

I'm not arguing anyone's expertise here. Most have made good educated rebuttals. However, violating tpwd rules carries steep penalties.

I think the show is actually designed to make these guys look like slack jawed locals. It sure has caused a lot of protests, could this be the network's intention?

I just don't think the nine guys, and the handful of snakes that I suspect are reused show after show is hurting much. The Sweetwater roundup strictly forbids stunts with snakes, and many hunters speak out against the stunts also. I think the stunts are stupid as well. I frequently get rattlers and other snakes in and around my house, but I have never killed one. I just catch and relocate. I, one time, chilled a rattler with cold water until it became sluggish enough to capture, may have been the wrong method but I didn't want to kill it.

[Ryodraco]

I just don't think the nine guys, and the handful of snakes that I suspect are reused show after show is hurting much.
And what of the message the show gives? Does it do anything to increase our knowledge of animals, our respect for them? Does it showcase their beauty? Does it tell interesting or funny stories? Really what is the point of it beyond catering to people's fears of snakes and feeding those fears? Why air it on Animal Planet when it only insults the animal?

Certainly habitat destruction is a greater threat to rattlesnakes overall than hunting and roundups, but hunting and roundups effect healthy habitats, and encourage ill feelings towards snakes that make it more difficult to protect their habitats.

On another note, I seem to recall research that indicated some populations of rattlesnakes were being badly effected by hunting, to the extent that it was driving the survival of rattlesnakes that do not readily rattle, as those that more readily announce their presence got weeded out of the population.

Also, as I understand it the permits to hunt rattlesnakes are very easy to get, and the hunting is still pretty much not regulated. There is nothing wrong with hunting, but shouldn't caution be given when there is no real research to indicate just how much hunting a population of snakes can take before collapsing?

[Volcom269]

And what of the message the show gives? Does it do anything to increase our knowledge of animals, our respect for them? Does it showcase their beauty? Does it tell interesting or funny stories? Really what is the point of it beyond catering to people's fears of snakes and feeding those fears? Why air it on Animal Planet when it only insults the animal?
If your going to go that far with it, what about all the other shows that put a negative outlook on snake keeping? Shows like Fatal Attractions and Untamed and Uncut, that on several occasions they have done stories that put a negative outlook on what we do. If your wanting to go as far as saying, does the show do anything to increase our respect for the animals you have to take in consideration of all the shows they air. The shows I mentioned are the reason my family is scared to death of me getting a python or boa because of the horror stories that the show focuses on. Rattlesnake Republic doesn't really increase our knowledge of rattlesnakes, but I think its really trying to show more of the culture behind it. If you think about other TV stations that have shows that are similar to Rattlesnake Republic such a Swamp People. Discovery channel has had several seasons of Swamp People and the main focus of that show is the hunting and killing of alligators, the show is more on the culture of the hunters and I think that's what Rattlesnake Republic is trying to do.

[Ryodraco]

If your going to go that far with it, what about all the other shows that put a negative outlook on snake keeping? Shows like Fatal Attractions and Untamed and Uncut, that on several occasions they have done stories that put a negative outlook on what we do. If your wanting to go as far as saying, does the show do anything to increase our respect for the animals you have to take in consideration of all the shows they air. The shows I mentioned are the reason my family is scared to death of me getting a python or boa because of the horror stories that the show focuses on.
To be fair, I have watched a good number of Fatal Attractions and they seem fairly fair in their presentations. Those who die are pretty much universally shown as having died not simply due to owning a particular animal but due to taking unnecessary and often stupid risks with them. Quite often they showcase interviews with experts and others who keep the animals properly.

Heck the primary message I got from the episodes I saw regarding snakes were:

1. Don't believe your snake loves you like a human and thus will do you no harm no matter what.

2. Don't believe that simply because you had a bite or two from a venomous snake and not had seriously ill effects that you have somehow become "immune."

3. Don't isolate your hobby from the world and alienate yourself from people to such a degree that if you have a problem there is no one there to help you.

4. Don't keep animals that you lack the space and money to care for properly.

5. If you keep venomous animals and interact with them then be prepared that you will likely be bitten someday.

[RandyRhoads]

To be fair, I have watched a good number of Fatal Attractions and they seem fairly fair in their presentations. Those who die are pretty much universally shown as having died not simply due to owning a particular animal but due to taking unnecessary and often stupid risks with them. Quite often they showcase interviews with experts and others who keep the animals properly.

Heck the primary message I got from the episodes I saw regarding snakes were:

1. Don't believe your snake loves you like a human and thus will do you no harm no matter what.

2. Don't believe that simply because you had a bite or two from a venomous snake and not had seriously ill effects that you have somehow become "immune."

3. Don't isolate your hobby from the world and alienate yourself from people to such a degree that if you have a problem there is no one there to help you.

4. Don't keep animals that you lack the space and money to care for properly.

5. If you keep venomous animals and interact with them then be prepared that you will likely be bitten someday.

...and most likely you wont be found weeks later decomposed and half eaten by your lizards.

Only seen a few episodes but they seem to be fair and always blame the moron trying to make out with the tiger, not the animal....

[Rickyrick]

All valid points. I haven't read the research on snake populations and hunting, but I will look up and read. As a resident of the area, I often get asked about rattlesnakes. Usually because of it notoriety from the roundups, everyone is supposed to be an expert lol.
It's rumored here that rattlesnakes have stopped rattling because of the pig troubles, might be a myth.
It's all about hunters, handlers and snake owners doing their chosen hobby responsibly. Like someone mentioned about pet owners being irresponsible. I wouldn't protest all snake owners because some are idiots.

Back to the show, I don't think it's an accurate portrayal of these hunters. That's only my opinion and nothing more. I would hope that most Americans understand that tv shows are nothing more than that. Early in the "reality" show craze, I realized that all these shows were mere dramatization that are made to seems like its real. Cheap to make and profitable. Finding Bigfoot is on animal planet for gosh sakes.
BTW, did you know that TPWD has an official stance on Bigfoot? Th department considers them an invasive species and there's no bag limit on Bigfeet :D

[infernalis]

I know for a fact that they skew these "reality" shows.

A friend of mine was asked to use his captive snakes in a scene portraying a home invasion of wild snakes.!!!

This was for the reality show "invasion" about unwanted pests taking over homes.

Seems the "invasive" snakes didn't want to cooperate for filming, so they used captive pets to make the scene look "better"

[millertime89]

I think I posted here previously about my acquaintance Danny Steele's encounter with the producers and presenters of Fatal Attractions. Anymore almost any show on Animal Planet sickens me, RR is no exception.

[Sorraia]

I refuse to watch this show. The previews look awful, and interest me in no way, shape, or form. There are many other programs on Animal Planet and other related channels that make me feel the same way. Many, if not all, of these shows are indeed sensationalized, and don’t show true reality. For example there is a certain show about a certain rescue, and every episode has some blurb about how these animals need homes, there isn’t enough money or space to care for them, woe is me. Yet when good people who can provide good homes applies to adopt an animal from said rescue, asking for help to be matched up with the right animal for their home, they are refused. As a result, those animals sit in the rescue for years. You don’t see that side of it on the tv program… Duck Dynasty makes those guys look like complete goof offs, but is that really how they are? I wouldn’t know, since I don’t know them personally, but I can’t help but wonder. A couple programs I do enjoy, like River Monsters, but the dramatizations are sometimes over the top.

So having said that… I have no desire to watch this rattlesnake program because of the way the previews present the program. What I see in the previews is a show about the rattlesnake roundups, a show promoting fear and hatred of a certain species of snake, a show that glorifies snake killing. Is this really what the show is about? Maybe not, but I have no desire to find out, because if it is how the previews present it, it would sicken me to watch it.

I am a wildlife biologist in a highly developed area, which ironically is also one of the most biodiverse areas in the United States. Every day I face opposing interests: on one side is the development, and as someone who has a home and lives in a city, I am a part of that; on the other side is conservation of species, their habitat, and the environment, and as a wildlife biologist I am a part of that. Being a highly populated area, I also face a lot of the myths and stereotypes against animals, including rattlesnakes. Did you know a rattlesnake’s sole purpose in life is to bite and kill as many people as they can? Did you know they’ll actually leap out of the bushes to bite a person? Did you know they’ll chase horses? These are some of the myths I get to hear about. As a wildlife biologist I DO come across rattlesnakes. I know more about where the rattlesnakes can be found, and how many are out there, than most people. I have not yet been bit, but do not let that fool you into thinking I do not believe it could happen. I recognize it as a very real possibility. Every year in this area people are bitten by rattlesnakes, but more often than not it is because those people were either careless or foolish, people either purposefully harassing rattlesnakes or just not paying attention to where they put their feet (if you hear a rattlesnake buzzing, do NOT run like a blind rabbit!). Sometimes it is through no fault of their own. But all of these instances do not mean rattlesnakes need to be “controlled” or exterminated. They are already in danger. There is one species in this area that is listed as a “sensitive species” because its habitat is quickly disappearing to development. It is only a matter of time before other rattlesnake species (not to ignore other snakes, reptiles, and animals) follow. These are some of the reasons I cannot bring myself to watch certain shows on tv. I get to hear enough of it in real life, I do not want to see or hear it on the tv when I am trying to relax.

[Will0W783]

I flat-out refuse to watch Rattlesnake Republic....the premise infuriates me. Yes, rattlers are common in the southwest, and they can be dangerous. However, it is US who are invading their territory, not the other way around. Humans have developed the land to the point where these snakes have no choice but to occasionally cross paths with people. The vast majority of wild snakes, rattlers included, will happily escape and leave the area at the sight or scent of a human. They don't want to waste their venom and risk tangling with us; they'd rather retreat. It's when we don't pay attention and step on them, or trap them, that they defend themselves. I can't stand the idea of rattlesnake roundups; they are cruel and disgusting, so I won't watch any show that condones them, even indirectly.

I do, however, enjoy "Monsters Inside Me" a show on AP about parasitic infections, and I used to watch Fatal Attractions, and felt that it was fair in its descriptions. The people who died, died because of foolish liberties they took with their animals, not because they owned the animals.

[Rickyrick]

Well,
The fact of the matter is, humans have a primal fear of snakes. The existence of a hunting show or not will not change that fact.

Humans hunt and kill, a tv cannot change that.

Plenty of bites occur without warning, that's a fact.

If you are invenomated (sp?) you will be debilitated for a lengthy time, that's a fact.
Human safety is first priority, domestic animals is second. Dangerous snakes must be removed, another fact. Humans are the dominant animal in this era, so, humans win.

There is a market for snake skins and other items, therefore as long as its legal people are going to hunt them. Many human activities are disapproved of by others, but disapproval doesn't necessarily make it illegal or immoral.

Many good intentioned, environmentally friendly ideas don't turn out so well. For example hundreds of thousands if acres of habitat have been destroyed to erect wind farms that can't output enough power to replace one clean gas burning turbine. But they are probably not in your back yard.

If you truly wanna protest the show, then get from behind your computer and walk out of your safe bubble and show up at Animal Planet headquarters. Go talk to your congressmen and state legislators. It's easy to fight the good fight from behind a keyboard. I find it laughable to complain about animal safety on modern conveniences that has caused more suffering(animal and human) than a handful of rednecks on a tv show.

I say good luck finding a way to travel to Washington without killing something.

Like I said, all of you have made sound arguments. I do love animals and the outdoors. I just think its ridiculous to think a tv show is going to end snake life as we know it.

[Danimal]

I agree with you Ricky. I don't watch the show or any shows like it, not something I find interesting or entertaining. My hope is that one day common sense will prevail. There are far worse things on television that a child could be influenced by. I am not a big fan of what is described as reality TV anyway so I do what I should do, I don't watch it. If a show doesn't get the numbers it doesn't stay on the air.

Calling for boycotts and protests, IMO, are just as likely to hurt a cause as help it.> (occupy ws) I am scared to death that at some point someone like that will be given a voice in the HR511 debate and make us all look like a bunch of whiney idiots. Call me crazy but I think you win a debate by having a better argument not stomping your feet. You win over your opponents with better alternatives and you assuage fears not tell them that they are stupid.

I really like reptiles but I will kill one in a second if I perceive a threat to myself of anyone around me. That also includes any other animal on the planet especially the Rabbit of Caerbannog.

[Ryodraco]

Plenty of bites occur without warning, that's a fact.
Have any sources to back that up? About the only time I can see a snake biting "without warning" is also probably the most common source of snake bites, namely stepping on or next to one that is hiding or sleeping. This is "without warning" only from the perspective of the person and is better termed a defensive bite.

That is when one hears "without warning" they tend to imagine the snake going out of its way to attack someone, which almost never happens.

I really like reptiles but I will kill one in a second if I perceive a threat to myself of anyone around me. That also includes any other animal on the planet especially the Rabbit of Caerbannog.
Said rabbit would have been no threat at all if those stupid knights hadn't gotten too close to it.:wacky:

[Rickyrick]

You are right, the snakes don't go out of there way to attack people and when they do they perceived a threat. Diamondbacks are well camouflaged and invisible if they don't move.

I did find one statistic that said 20% of bites, alcohol was involved. Lol.

[Rickyrick]

This is from The New England Journal of Medicine. It supports your claims

The true incidence of bites by venomous snakes in the United States is probably 7000 to 8000 per year, of which 5 or 6 result in death.6 The eastern and western di- amondback rattlesnakes account for most fatalities. Deaths typically occur in children, in the elderly, and in victims to whom antivenom is not given, is given after a delay, or is administered in insufficient quan- tities.7
Typically, victims are male and between 17 and 27 years of age.8 Ninety-eight percent of bites are on ex- tremities, most often the hands or arms, and result from deliberate attempts to handle, harm, or kill the snake. Most bites occur between April and September, when snakes are active and humans are outdoors.8 Alcohol intoxication of the victim is a factor in many envenomations.8

[Ryodraco]

That instinctive fear thing is doubtful to me as well. Seems like most people learn to fear snakes. I for one have never been any more fearful of them than any other creature that can potentially bite me (well a venomous one is obviously more dangerous, but you get what I mean).

[Rickyrick]

Sadly, records and data are pretty much non existent.

I still don't think the show is going effect much, it may shed a negative light on snake hunting. It is stated several times that the guys are doing for the money.

But this much is true;

I have had rattlers in my home.

I have had rattlers in my yard.

I have lost animals to rattlers.

I have stumbled upon rattlers at work.

I know people who have been bitten.

I know scores of people who have lost animals and have others injured by rattlers.

I believe that they do need some type of control. The correct answer may not be the roundups, but some level of management is needed. Snake stunts are plain dumb. Did you know that one of the characters recently had a leg amputated for a bite he received doing a stunt?

[Falconeer999]

Did you know that one of the characters recently had a leg amputated for a bite he received doing a stunt?
Did not know that.
Found an article on it. Daring handler loses lower leg after snakebite : Hood County News- A twice-weekly newspaper serving Granbury and Hood County, Texas (http://hcnews.com/pages/archive/page_one_news-archive/daring-handler-loses-lower-leg-after-snakebite/)

[KORBIN5895]

That instinctive fear thing is doubtful to me as well. Seems like most people learn to fear snakes. I for one have never been any more fearful of them than any other creature that can potentially bite me (well a venomous one is obviously more dangerous, but you get what I mean).

There are a lot of things that are instinctual fears. It really is in some peoples genetics.

[Sorraia]

Human safety is first priority, domestic animals is second. Dangerous snakes must be removed, another fact. Humans are the dominant animal in this era, so, humans win.

There is a market for snake skins and other items, therefore as long as its legal people are going to hunt them. Many human activities are disapproved of by others, but disapproval doesn't necessarily make it illegal or immoral.


Dogs are very dangerous animals to. They bite or attack thousands of people every year, and some even die from those bites and attacks. Children, especially babies, are most at risk of injury from dogs. Dogs also attack domestic animals: other dogs, cats, livestock, poultry, rabbits, and more. Since humane safety is first priority, and domestic animals are second, maybe we need to remove dogs from our world too.

Did you know rattlesnake venom is being used in experimental treatments for cancer?

There are more uses for a rattlesnake than to kill it. I am not opposed to responsible use of animal, BUT I am opposed to wanton destruction of species and habitat. Research and development is finding new uses for our natural resources (including animals) all the time. These experimental treatments began last year, so this is new research and development. The properties in rattlesnake venom are being explored for other applications as well. If we destroy this resource, we can never tap into the full potential. I do not believe putting them in farms would be ideal either. Wild populations need to be left intact in enough locations so they may continue to evolve naturally (without selective pressures from humans, which can go very well or very wrong) and are less likely to die off from stochastic events.

Many good intentioned, environmentally friendly ideas don't turn out so well. For example hundreds of thousands if acres of habitat have been destroyed to erect wind farms that can't output enough power to replace one clean gas burning turbine. But they are probably not in your back yard.

Need to keep in mind, not all "environmentally friendly" ideas are what they appear to be. Wind farms are NOT environmentally friendly. As you say, hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat have been destroyed to erect inefficient wind farms. On top of that, they kill hundreds of thousands of migrating birds and bats every year. Some of these birds and bats are already critically endangered. Wildlife biologists, in general, are NOT in favor of wind farms, for these reasons. The general public is, because they are not told the whole story and ignorantly believe these are a "safe", "eco-friendly" alternative to coal burning and fossil fuels.

Solar farms fall in the same category. They not only destroy hundreds of thousands of acres, but they make that acreage inappropriate for any species co-existence. A better alternative for solar is to put the panels on top of buildings or over parking areas (creating shade for cars in addition to solar power) rather than on vacant land. BUT again... the general public doesn't recognize that. All they hear is "safe" and "eco-friendly" and run with it. They don't think beyond those terms.

Hydro-energy has another set of problems. We all know the problems with nuclear energy, as well as coal burning and fossil fuels. There is no single alternative that is better, and believe it or not, many wildlife biologists are actually more in favor of fossil fuel burning than some of the other alternatives, because of the pros and cons of each. What the "majority" says, is not always true.

So having said that, if the "majority" rules rattlesnakes are dangerous animals and must be destroyed, does that absolutely make it true?


But this much is true;

I have had rattlers in my home.

I have had rattlers in my yard.

I have lost animals to rattlers.

I have stumbled upon rattlers at work.

I know people who have been bitten.

I know scores of people who have lost animals and have others injured by rattlers.

I believe that they do need some type of control. The correct answer may not be the roundups, but some level of management is needed. Snake stunts are plain dumb. Did you know that one of the characters recently had a leg amputated for a bite he received doing a stunt?

The problem with humans attempting to control nature, it often does not work. Humans cannot control the world we live in. Furthermore, humans do not completely understand the world we live in, there are too many variables we have not yet discovered or do not yet fully understand. Often times when humans attempt to control something in nature, it goes very wrong, to the point of complete alteration and destruction of the natural environment. How many times have humans introduced exotic and invasive species to an area in an attempt to control something? Plants introduced as a form of erosion control end up taking over, killing off the native habitat, and therefore killing off the native animals that live there, many times resulting in a monoculture of the invasive and changing more about the environment in the area. (i.e. California, where I live and work: Native habitat, including grasslands and chaparral have a "burn regime" of several years to decades. Non-native annual grasses have a burn regime of one or two years. These invasive exotic grasses tend to out-compete the native species and take over, resulting in a monoculture of invasive exotic grasses in what was once varied native habitat. Native animal species cannot use the monoculture of invasive exotic grasses the way they could use the native habitat, and may leave the area, resulting in less biodiversity. The burn regime also changes, resulting in more frequent burns which further damages the native plants that may be hanging on. This results in more exotic grasses, few native plants, fewer native animals, more burn, etc. Add to this the fact that California is a rapidly developing area with many housing developments backed right up against "wildlife areas", the resulting burn regime puts humans in danger. As a result humans attempt to control the fires. This results in brush clearing, more destruction to native habitat, more danger to native animals, more favorable to exotic grasses which further encourages more frequent fires, but in addition to all of that also increases erosion. Now erosion control is needed. More exotic plants put in place to control erosion, more native habitat destruction, more reduction in native animals, etc etc. Vicious positive feedback loop.) How m any times have humans introduced non-native animals to an area, intentionally or unintentionally, and resulted in drastic changes to the natural habitat? (i.e. hogs in California are destroying habitat AND eating native animals as well as spreading disease to humans and domestic animals, think of cane toads in Australia, brown snakes in Hawaii, rats all over the world, so on and so forth.) Humans do not know how to properly control natural, nor the plants and animals found in natural. An attempt to "control" animals often end up very very wrong, to near extinction or even full extinction. Wolves have been "controlled" to the point where they almost became extinct in the United States, were reintroduced successfully, and are now being "controlled" again because livestock farmers would rather kill them than learn other ways to protect their livestock. Will wolves continue to persist in the US, or will they again be "controlled" into near extinction? Many other species were once numerous, but have been "controlled" to near extinction. What is going to stop the same from happening to rattlesnakes? Because people don't like them, fear them, hate them, and would rather be able to go about their merry way than to pay attention to the world they live in, we must destroy them? Yes accidents happen, but if people actually paid more attention to the world they lived in, there would probably be far fewer "accidents". Rattlesnakes are not out to get us, and I can give multiple first-hand examples of that.

[Rickyrick]

Yes, dogs are controlled. Feral and dangerous dogs are captured and euthanized in the cities. In the country feral dogs are shot on sight. Feral dogs are the most dangerous to farm animals.

Funny that you mention dogs and invasive species. I am an expert predator hunter but, I only do this when I'm off from my regular work. Some native species must be removed. However, it's not a bloodlust, kill everything that moves type of thing. I only remove the animal or group of animals that have been causing trouble. If Mr. Coyote keeps eating mice, rabbits, road kill, berries and such, he will get a pass from me. Once one decides to pull the intestines out of a goat or a calf, he will probably be seeing me real soon. I do not seek out or kill any animal that goes on with its natural business. I do not enjoy the activity, but somebody has to do it and I posses the skills to get the job done. I do not hunt snakes... Pigs are a different story and at times keep me quite busy.

I don't hate rattlesnakes, I'm just stating things as they exist in the world we are in now. Protesting a private corporation presenting a TV show about a legal activity isn't going to get you very far. As I said earlier, if you want to get the rattlesnake trade to end, it must be legislated out of business.

A diamondback in its natural territory is impossible to spot if laying motionless, so paying attention may not always be effective.

Wind turbines killing birds is a common myth, but not true. That's a great example of something that sounds plausible being accepted as fact. Auromobiles pose the most birds and other animals. They do use enormous amounts of oil for lubrication. And take a lot of fuel, for transporting them to the site of erection, Construction and to service and maintain them. To replace a failed component, a large are must be bulldozed again for the cranes.

This TV show in question does nothing manipulate rattlesnake populations. It may inform someone that people actually hunt and kill snakes, and that theres a market for it. So, if anything it is bringing awareness that this activity existed. I doubt people are going to grab a sack and a stick and go after rattlesnakes.

[Sorraia]

Yes, dogs are controlled. Feral and dangerous dogs are captured and euthanized in the cities. In the country feral dogs are shot on sight. Feral dogs are the most dangerous to farm animals.

Funny that you mention dogs and invasive species. I am an expert predator hunter but, I only do this when I'm off from my regular work. Some native species must be removed. However, it's not a bloodlust, kill everything that moves type of thing. I only remove the animal or group of animals that have been causing trouble. If Mr. Coyote keeps eating mice, rabbits, road kill, berries and such, he will get a pass from me. Once one decides to pull the intestines out of a goat or a calf, he will probably be seeing me real soon. I do not seek out or kill any animal that goes on with its natural business. I do not enjoy the activity, but somebody has to do it and I posses the skills to get the job done. I do not hunt snakes... Pigs are a different story and at times keep me quite busy.

Dogs aren't controlled that well. Perhaps in your area, but around here dogs run loose far too often. And since gun control laws have run amok, shooting a dangerous dog is pretty much out of the question.

I don't hate rattlesnakes, I'm just stating things as they exist in the world we are in now. Protesting a private corporation presenting a TV show about a legal activity isn't going to get you very far. As I said earlier, if you want to get the rattlesnake trade to end, it must be legislated out of business.

I personally am not protesting it. I don't have any interest in it, I do not want to watch it. But I'm not protesting it. There are a lot of things I don't have any desire to watch.There are a lot of shows I find stupid or disgusting, but if someone else wants to watch it, that's their business.

A diamondback in its natural territory is impossible to spot if laying motionless, so paying attention may not always be effective.

They can be extremely hard to spot, but not always impossible. The problem is most people don't take the time to train themselves on what to look for.

Wind turbines killing birds is a common myth, but not true. That's a great example of something that sounds plausible being accepted as fact.

And what makes you think it is a myth? I'm not saying this just because it "sounds" plausible, I say this because I am in fact a wildlife biologist, and I work with and around the people who study this. Pretty interesting thousands of bird carcasses are found under and around wind turbines if those turbines don't in fact kill birds. Even more interesting those are just the carcasses accounted for, and do not include those carried off by scavengers or decomposed between surveys. This "myth" has even been caught on video.
Eagle Hit by Spinning Propeller - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Wjsh0TeOg)

[Terranaut]

I was avoiding this thread but had to skim through it.
So I see there are 2 very seperated sides to wether or not it,s ok to hunt rattle snakes.

Just thought I would throw this out there so bare with me here.
Most of my family live in Northern ontario. Batchawana Bay and Montreal River areas on Lake Superior. Up there they have this exact issue but with bears. They are everywhere. In years past a group of people in Toronto decided that the spring bear hunt should not continue and that the bear population was suffering so they stopped it. within 2 years the bear population exploded and guess what , they ate all the food in the forest or reduced it anyway to the point of them coming into places they typically would never go. Like into the villages along HWY 17 and onto camping properties and trailer parks. Sunddenly they became a menace. A bear can legally be shot on your property if you are threatened by it.BUT!!! you can not keep the animal. You are to report it and dispose of the body. So now we have gone from organized population control from people who use the hide, the claws,the meat and teeth of the animal for $$ or personal use to a bunch of rotting bears in the bush. So yes man has moved into bear country and the bear is at a loss of habitat but at one point every single city/town/street or house was natural habitat for something and we destroyed it to make it human friendly. So wherever you are right now reading this is destroyed habitat with you to blame. It would not be nessesary unless you use it as you do. You are 100% responsible just because you exist.
How do these things and the snake hunters all tie together??
If you think the snake or the bear or whatever animal you fancy the most is being needlessly destroyed remember this. It's your fault. Yup it is. You are living in a destroyed area that once was the home for someone elses animal of choice and they hate you for being there and killing it the same as you hate the people killing your snakes. You are the apex predetor. Humans are the only ones who kill the strong over the weak, wipe out habitat permenantly and allow/support breeding out of control in areas where there are not enough natural resources to supply the population. All wildlife on earth other than humans can live in a balance. We can only live with us. I also used to be against shark finning which I still am against the inhumane practices that are common I am no longer against the killing of sharks. Why ? I had it put in perspective. In an anti shark finning documentry I watched the bioligist says something like this. " if we keep the shark population as low as it is fish will run out of control and eat all the plankton. The plankton make oxygen so we need it and them to keep this under control"
I thought yeah wow are we ever dumb. Then I thought about it, we kill way more fish than sharks ever could. So killing a lot of sharks isn't as big a deal as I was lead to believe.
Please don't get me wrong. I hate all this organized killing of animals for food or fun or TV or whatever. BUT the truth of the matter is this. Your little bickering here is meaningless. The biggest issue this planet will ever face EVER is on the horizon and while we struggle and argue over who is killing what for why this issue is getting bigger and bigger and you not paying attention. Humans are overpopulating the planet. We will eventually kill every other living creature on earth anyway. It is impossible to stop at this point. Every single thing I read above is a pointless argument and has nothing to do with the real problem. It all boils down to when people live there nature is ruined. Want to save your animals? Stop humans from using the areas they live in. End of story. But there is a lot of short term money in this over population. Greedy short sighted humans will always go for the cash or power. Human poulation control is the only way to save rattle snakes,bears,sharks all of it.
I am sorry if this is deep and beyond the scope of this thread but I fear my unborn grandchildren will live in a world of horror as the world population doubles in there lifetime and the food nor the space required to house them does not.

[Rickyrick]

The previous post was probably the best one I've read.

[Rickyrick]

This is from a department of energy study:

Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (<1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats.


It doesn't mention the amount of habitat destroyed to build them.

[BrownSugar92]

I don't need to read this, or care about it being inhuman, either way it's garbage. Most shows, even on previous credible channels, have become mindless dribble to entertain morons...

Wow, I couldn't agree more. It's like you almost can't find anything decent or humane to even watch anymore

[infernalis]

Wow, I couldn't agree more. It's like you almost can't find anything decent or humane to even watch anymore


BBC - it's the best!!

BBC - TV Homepage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/)

I don't even turn on Animal Planet anymore.

[millertime89]

You all should watch the recent episode of Richard Hammond's Crash Course. He joins a exotic animal sanctuary in Hawaii and a "rattlesnake wrangler" (relocator) in California. Not entirely what I expected.

[Sorraia]

This is from a department of energy study:




It doesn't mention the amount of habitat destroyed to build them.

From the department of energy. I would like to know what kind of study they conducted to make that statement. Also makes me ask, would cigarette companies report on the negative health effects of cigarettes if they didn't have to? ;)

BTW, I do not dispute other causes of mortality, nor am I comparing impacts. My point was and is, "green energy" as so many call it, is NOT as green as it would appear.

Terranaut - I agree. That's the kind of thing I see time and time again as a wildlife biologist. The effects of human actions are far reaching, and don't stop where the development stops and wildlife begins. Even out in the "middle of nowhere" (which doesn't truly exist where I live) you can find human trash. Education is needed, but unfortunately people don't want to be educated.

And I personally am not against hunting, IF the results of the hunt are to be used to the fullest extent. My opposition is using "control" to completely destroy a species that may merely be a "nuisance" (that is NOT true of every location, but it is an experience and attitude in my area), rather than first exhausting methods to live with the species. I am NOT speaking for any particular member here, just speaking from my own perspective and experiences.