Weigh in on Rattlesnake Republic?

[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]

Originally Posted by Rickyrick

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

[KORBIN5895]

Originally Posted by 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).

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

[Sorraia]

Originally Posted by Rickyrick

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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

[infernalis]

Originally Posted by BrownSugar92

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

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]

Originally Posted by Rickyrick

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.