# Rattlesnake roundup



## Jacobchinarian (Feb 14, 2011)

Has anyone heard of this?!?! I can't believe it's still legal. I wish I knew how to virus the website. Those @$$ holes didn't even put anything to contact them and face people that don't like slaughtering snakes by the tons. Here's the link: http://www.rattlesnakeroundup.net/    Even worst they milk all the snakes before they chop their heads off with a machete to justify it as helping medical science with their contaminated venom. Does anyone know how to help illegalize this.


----------



## kevin91172 (Feb 14, 2011)

Yes I heard of it..Unfortunately my estrange father of mine I have not talked to for years goes every year,He has been going for years.He invited my one to catch up on some things But I said I would just pass.I actually keep 6 rattlesnakes and do not enjoy this kind of a  show in my opinion.

 But to each is....

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

Oh BTW lets not let our government go poking around as far as getting to be illegal ,it may do more harm than good.....:?


----------



## madamoisele (Feb 14, 2011)

I watched an hour long documentary on this once.  While I don't agree with some of the things they do, it is absolutely necessary to "cull" a certain amount in order to keep them away from human dwellings.

Even so, not enough respect is shown this majestic animal, in my opinion.


----------



## spydrhunter1 (Feb 14, 2011)

madamoisele said:


> it is absolutely necessary to "cull" a certain amount in order to keep them away from human dwellings.


WHAT!! Maybe we should think before we build our homes where they live, we have crowded wildlife in to such little spaces its ridiculous. Populations of wildlife are facing increasing threats for inbreeding, isolated populations and other man created problems.Maybe we should think before building a house in the desert or on the edge of the Florida everglades.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

Great idea...

Do you feel the same about the trucks that spray pesticides every 6 (or so) months to kill the mosquitoes?

What about lobster season?  Scallop season?  Grouper season?  Deer season?  Alligator season?

Did you know they put a bounty on the mongoose in Hawaii a few years ago because their numbers were ridiculously high?

*sigh*


----------



## Jacobchinarian (Feb 14, 2011)

Nature was working before we came in. Humans are more overpopulated than any other animal. In school I was tought how if you lower one preditor the population of it's pray increases inversely. Since nature was working before we came in that ment there were rattlesnakes keeping other animals from gaining to high of a population. You kill a ton of rattlesnakes and you get a ton rats and mice. So then humans kill those which makes another population lower since rats are the prey of that animal and they have less to eat so more die.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

Um...            .


----------



## spydrhunter1 (Feb 14, 2011)

xhexdx said:


> Great idea...
> 
> Do you feel the same about the trucks that spray pesticides every 6 (or so) months to kill the mosquitoes?
> 
> ...


1) there is something called IPM (I was a Public health Entomologist for nine years), although it (Spraying) is small part of an the IPM system.

2) lobster, scallop grouper, deer and alligator seasons are HIGHLY regulated.

3)Mongoose in Hawaii (man introduced) predator destroying an island habitat. Lets talk what the introduced animals (iguanas, pythons, etc.) are doing to the everglades.


----------



## Bigboy (Feb 14, 2011)

xhexdx said:


> Great idea...
> 
> Do you feel the same about the trucks that spray pesticides every 6 (or so) months to kill the mosquitoes?
> 
> ...


Not sure I follow, what are you saying?


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

What exactly are they doing with the rattlesnakes?  Killing them and burning their bodies, or putting their meat, skin, etc. to good use?

Pretty sure they actually use them, so it's not like they're putting them to waste.

If I'm wrong and they're just killing them to kill them, then that's another story.  Otherwise, there are other animals I'd be more worried about going extinct than rattlers.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 14, 2011)

xhexdx said:


> What exactly are they doing with the rattlesnakes?  Killing them and burning their bodies, or putting their meat, skin, etc. to good use?
> 
> Pretty sure they actually use them, so it's not like they're putting them to waste.
> 
> If I'm wrong and they're just killing them to kill them, then that's another story.  Otherwise, there are other animals I'd be more worried about going extinct than rattlers.


Whales are "put to good use" when harpooned. Doesn't mean we should.


----------



## madamoisele (Feb 15, 2011)

I don't like a lot of things we humans do.  In the documentary I watched of the actual event, which included educational materials, the rattlers were indeed eaten, their skins used, and in some cases, the heads as well.  

It's a fact that rattlesnake overpopulation in urban areas endangers human and other animal life without culling on the outskirts.  There's only a certain time period they are allowed to capture the rattlers.  It's quite regulated.

It's also a fact that alligator hunting here in Florida is an absolute necessity to keep the population from exploding to a point where human life is endangered.

Deer hunting in many areas is crucial to prevent the deer from overpopulating, and then starving to death because there's not enough food for all of them.  There are no more natural predators to balance them out in these areas - we humans must fill this role now.

All of the animals above are completely used.  Regulations are in place.  

That's the way it is.


----------



## Scythemantis (Feb 15, 2011)

> Great idea...
> 
> Do you feel the same about the trucks that spray pesticides every 6 (or so) months to kill the mosquitoes?


I sure as hell do, for one. WAY more harm than good.


----------



## Jorpion (Feb 15, 2011)

I don't agree with this culling, or whatever one calls it. I can only hope that there are hundreds of thousands that remain free, wild and happy for the rest of their lives. It's a real shame when you see the major impact human civilization has on native wildlife. Then you add this spectacle on top of it all..


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 15, 2011)

Hedorah99 said:


> Whales are "put to good use" when harpooned. Doesn't mean we should.


If they were responsible about it instead of killing every whale they find, then there probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.

In my opinion, killing an animal for food, clothing, tools, etc. shouldn't be discouraged unless it endangers the species.

People on these boards get fired up when they see the videos of hundreds of _Haplopelma_ being fried up to eat...it's not hurting their numbers, and the townspeople get to eat.



Scythemantis said:


> I sure as hell do, for one. WAY more harm than good.


<ignorance> Could you elaborate? </ignorance>

My apologies if this question causes the thread to veer too far off-topic.

Scythemantis, how do you feel about the other examples I gave in that post?


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Feb 15, 2011)

Fewer than a dozen people are killed by venemous snakes in the US annually, and while rattlers are the most common culprit, they aren't the only one. On the other hand, in addition to these mass culls, people kill venemous snakes willy-nilly on a day to day basis all over the US (as well as non-venemous species they're too stupid to properly identify). I can't tell you HOW often I hear of people beating snakes to death with shovels or shooting them on sight down here. Safe and humane removal _isn't_ exactly that difficult, and in many areas there are wildlife removal services that will take care of it for you. Heck, when we were checking out the property we bought here, there was a copperhead in the shed that we relocated ourselves. 

I think the "threat" is blown more than a little bit out of proportion and doesn't really justify slaughtering large numbers of snakes. In many areas, rattlers are already threatened or endangered by habitat loss and deliberate killing, and frankly as human settlement expands we're only going to see further declines in their populations even in areas where they presently have strongholds. We're not exactly the "at risk" species in this situation.

The "but it helps medical science!" claim also strikes me as a load of BS. Simply enough, you needn't kill a snake to milk venom; individuals who research snakes and collect venom all over the world routinely do so WITHOUT killing their specimens. There are facilities that exist expressly for the purpose of raising and milking snakes as well. To me, this is very plainly an attempt to try and cast something blatantly grotesque and inhumane in a more positive light.

I also find it a little surprising that on a board with so many herp enthusiasts that anyone defends a practice where the primary method of killing the snakes is decapitation. Anyone who knows "cold blooded" animals knows that decapitation is NOT an AVMA approved method of dispatching reptiles for a darn good reason: the head can live for over an hour after decapitation. 

Based on what footage of seen and accounts I've read of these events, they are a far cry from a noble, conservation-minded cull. It is a money-making spectacle that results in wildlife being inhumanely handled and killed, and callously disregarded primarily for the sake of public entertainment.


----------



## Jacobchinarian (Feb 15, 2011)

“culling” is BS. How could there be so little leaves, grass, vegetables, fruit even twigs that we have to kill dear because they would otherwise starve? Not only that but the rattle snake roundup is just a bunch of hilbilleys trying to justify killing something else. They are literally killed by the ton. Thousands of snakes are slaughtered senselessly.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Feb 15, 2011)

Jacobchinarian said:


> Does anyone know how to help illegalize this.


The Pacific Northwest Herpetological Society was able to lobby against permitting for a roundup in WA some years ago and I don't believe the subject has been broached since(brief overview towards bottom page):

http://www.pnwhs.org/About/History

That may be a good 1st step.


----------



## syndicate (Feb 15, 2011)

RoachGirlRen said:


> Fewer than a dozen people are killed by venemous snakes in the US annually, and while rattlers are the most common culprit, they aren't the only one. On the other hand, in addition to these mass culls, people kill venemous snakes willy-nilly on a day to day basis all over the US (as well as non-venemous species they're too stupid to properly identify). I can't tell you HOW often I hear of people beating snakes to death with shovels or shooting them on sight down here. Safe and humane removal _isn't_ exactly that difficult, and in many areas there are wildlife removal services that will take care of it for you. Heck, when we were checking out the property we bought here, there was a copperhead in the shed that we relocated ourselves.
> 
> I think the "threat" is blown more than a little bit out of proportion and doesn't really justify slaughtering large numbers of snakes. In many areas, rattlers are already threatened or endangered by habitat loss and deliberate killing, and frankly as human settlement expands we're only going to see further declines in their populations even in areas where they presently have strongholds. We're not exactly the "at risk" species in this situation.
> 
> ...


Well said Ren!:clap:


----------



## tiger cowboy (Feb 15, 2011)

Jacobchinarian said:


> “culling” is BS. How could there be so little leaves, grass, vegetables, fruit even twigs that we have to kill dear because they would otherwise starve?


Pretty easily. You can walk around in many state and national parks, or other places where hunting is restricted, and see where deer have browsed the entire understory almost clean. Eventually they will hit a point where they are eating things so nutritionally poor that they starve to death with full bellies. Or they are so weakened overall and in such poor condition they are killed by disease, lesser predators (coyotes), or the weather. I'm sorry but you are very wrong.

You do eventually get a stable population (the carrying capacity of a given habitat for a given species under certain conditions) but a lot of deer die in the process.

I don't want to defend roundups. I personally disagree with them. Just defending accepted wildlife science and management.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Feb 15, 2011)

Yeah I'm appalled by some of the posts on the first page defending this practice, people seem to be exhibiting a complete ignorance of ecology at the very least and probably an anti environment worldview as well.  I'm glad to see Ren and others on this page speak out against that stupidity.  Personally i would support rounding up and slaughtering the humans who do this.
As for deer what we really need to do is reintroduce their natural predators such as wolves back to their former range.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Feb 15, 2011)

> You do eventually get a stable population (the carrying capacity of a given habitat for a given species under certain conditions) but a lot of deer die in the process.


I've always wondered why we are so bothered by the thought of the deer dying off when overpopulated. In any wild population, there is a finite carrying capacity and a resulting cycle of population booms and bursts. I personally am totally fine with deer starving and dying when they become overpopulated; it creates an important food source for predators and scavenging animals, adds nutrients to the soil, etc. Plus, when deer do not have sufficient access to nutrition, they tend to produce fewer offspring. All good things for decreasing overpopulation.

Right now, we cull off a large numbers of deer RIGHT before winter, when they would naturally starve off and/or be in poorer condition that would result in fewer fawns. This pretty much keeps the cycle of overpopulation in full swing. I recall reading a study on a managed plot vs. an unmanaged plot, and the unmanaged plot ultimately wound up having a sustained lower population than the managed plot because in addition to starvation, birthing was down. 

Generally I'm a fan of letting nature take care of its own business, even if something sad has to happen, because we haven't exactly done a bang-up job of trying to control the show. And frankly, deer management isn't going to work too well until we stop trying to strike a balance between ecosystem protection and an 'acceptable' level of overpopulation to maintain hunting activity. Well, that and we've created endless border habitats with ample grazing area along highways, in lawns, etc. that are very conducive to supporting a HUGE number of deer in a small area. You never see population densities like that in wooded habitats because getting fat and reproductive isn't as easy as hanging out next to the interstate and stuffing your face all day. But then, I'm getting a bit off topic now (and bound to rouse a debate to boot).


----------



## wayneo (Feb 15, 2011)

Hedorah99 said:


> Whales are "put to good use" when harpooned. Doesn't mean we should.


Yes we should. People eat whales have been doing it for centuries. 
In some cultures cows are sacred and are not eaten so should we not eat steaks.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 15, 2011)

wayneo said:


> Yes we should. People eat whales have been doing it for centuries.
> In some cultures cows are sacred and are not eaten so should we not eat steaks.


BIG difference between a domesticated species that was "created" to be food and a wild species that has very little capacity to bounce back from being killed off by anything other than occasional natural predation and old age.


----------



## Bigboy (Feb 15, 2011)

RoachGirlRen said:


> I've always wondered why we are so bothered by the thought of the deer dying off when overpopulated. In any wild population, there is a finite carrying capacity and a resulting cycle of population booms and bursts. I personally am totally fine with deer starving and dying when they become overpopulated; it creates an important food source for predators and scavenging animals, adds nutrients to the soil, etc. Plus, when deer do not have sufficient access to nutrition, they tend to produce fewer offspring. All good things for decreasing overpopulation.
> 
> Right now, we cull off a large numbers of deer RIGHT before winter, when they would naturally starve off and/or be in poorer condition that would result in fewer fawns. This pretty much keeps the cycle of overpopulation in full swing. I recall reading a study on a managed plot vs. an unmanaged plot, and the unmanaged plot ultimately wound up having a sustained lower population than the managed plot because in addition to starvation, birthing was down.
> 
> Generally I'm a fan of letting nature take care of its own business, even if something sad has to happen, because we haven't exactly done a bang-up job of trying to control the show. And frankly, deer management isn't going to work too well until we stop trying to strike a balance between ecosystem protection and an 'acceptable' level of overpopulation to maintain hunting activity. Well, that and we've created endless border habitats with ample grazing area along highways, in lawns, etc. that are very conducive to supporting a HUGE number of deer in a small area. You never see population densities like that in wooded habitats because getting fat and reproductive isn't as easy as hanging out next to the interstate and stuffing your face all day. But then, I'm getting a bit off topic now (and bound to rouse a debate to boot).





Jacobchinarian said:


> “culling” is BS. How could there be so little leaves, grass, vegetables, fruit even twigs that we have to kill dear because they would otherwise starve? Not only that but the rattle snake roundup is just a bunch of hilbilleys trying to justify killing something else. They are literally killed by the ton. Thousands of snakes are slaughtered senselessly.


I'll address this in another thread when I have the time, I'm currently at work.


----------



## Spidershane1 (Feb 15, 2011)

I've found rattlesnakes around my property on more than one occasion. Instead of killing them, I just put them into a rubbermaid tub and drive them way out into the desert and let them free. 
If I could resort to killing a living creature needlessly instead of taking an hour or two out of my life to relocate it, then I would feel that I would be the one who didn't deserve to live.


----------



## kevin91172 (Feb 15, 2011)

Ha! Ha! This is why I love this board so much rather than the venomous boards I belong to.I get a kick out yall and love all you silly/wise characters.

Now this is entertainment! Yet very knowledgeable from both sides of this fence.
I really need to support this site,already bought my a shirt!

Besides I got my own kinda of a rattle snake round up going on...


----------



## tiger cowboy (Feb 15, 2011)

RoachGirlRen said:


> I've always wondered why we are so bothered by the thought of the deer dying off when overpopulated. In any wild population, there is a finite carrying capacity and a resulting cycle of population booms and bursts. I personally am totally fine with deer starving and dying when they become overpopulated; it creates an important food source for predators and scavenging animals, adds nutrients to the soil, etc. Plus, when deer do not have sufficient access to nutrition, they tend to produce fewer offspring. All good things for decreasing overpopulation.


Do you want to know the dirty, dirty reason that many wildlife managers do what we do for things like this? Money and public perception.

A good portion of the money for all natural resource management in the U.S. comes from licensing, Dingell-Johnson (fishing equipment) and Pittman-Robertson (hunting equipment) taxes, and a few other sources. However, a lot of the burden falls on the hunters and anglers. The more game species out there the happier the hunters and anglers are. The happier the hunters and anglers are the more money they spend. The more money they spend the more money there is to go to ALL natural resource management including non-game. Therefore the game managers keep the hunters and anglers happy. So! Money.

The other is public perception. Have you ever seen a starving deer? I have. It's not pretty. I understand that not everything is gonna make it so I accept it but that does not make it more pretty. When Joe, Jane, Jimmie and Jennie  Public see a starving deer and don't give a spotted owl for "This is the Law of the Jungle" they get very upset and complain to the wildlife managers or rangers. When they get told "Can't do anything, just the way it is" they get upset and go to their friendly local congressman. Friendly local congressman gets righteous and goes after the ranger or wildlife manager and gets angry. The game manager calls Wildlife Services (I.E. Gopher Choakers) and wildlife services solves the deer problem with sharpshooters in night vision goggles with silenced rifles. Notice a certain voice of experience.

On a related note, rattlers are extremely hard to get listed because of public opinion as well.

As you can tell I get a little worked up. 

On a related note


----------



## kevin91172 (Feb 16, 2011)

tiger cowboy said:


> Do you want to know the dirty, dirty reason that many wildlife managers do what we do for things like this? Money and public perception.
> 
> A good portion of the money for all natural resource management in the U.S. comes from licensing, Dingell-Johnson (hunting equipment) and Pittman-Robertson (fishing equipment) taxes, and a few other sources. However, a lot of the burden falls on the hunters and anglers. The more game species out there the happier the hunters and anglers are. The happier the hunters and anglers are the more money they spend. The more money they spend the more money there is to go to ALL natural resource management including non-game. Therefore the game managers keep the hunters and anglers happy. So! Money.
> 
> ...


Ditto Tiger.
I notice there are a whole a lot of people smarter than me.But I do the best I can on limited knowledge I have in front of me.So I care not to acknowledge that,which I just did.I enjoy all creatures and hope that the man up stairs would judge what nature should be and not us men.I am sure he is shaking a stick at us and not at his nature.:worship:
MPO


----------



## Kaimetsu (Feb 16, 2011)

wayneo said:


> Yes we should. People eat whales have been doing it for centuries.
> In some cultures cows are sacred and are not eaten so should we not eat steaks.


In addition to the point made by Hedorah i should also point out that there is a tremendous difference between the intelligence of cows and the intelligence of cetaceans such as whales and dolphins.  To make a comment like this implies you can't even begin to grasp how big the difference is.



			
				Kevin91172 said:
			
		

> I notice there are a whole a lot of people smarter than me.But I do the best I can on limited knowledge I have in front of me.So I care not to acknowledge that,which I just did.I enjoy all creatures and hope that the man up stairs would judge what nature should be and not us men.I am sure he is shaking a stick at us and not at his nature.


We only have ourselves to blame for the destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity, and we can't count on any divine entity to protect "his nature."  Unfortunately it's in our hands.  A bit off topic but I find the idea of a personal god who plays an active roll in the universe and in the lives of us insignificant carbon based replicators to be completely absurd.  A deistic god that simply set the formation of the universe in motion and stepped back isnt as absurd just completely unnecessary and superfluous as an explanation for anything.


----------



## kevin91172 (Feb 16, 2011)

Kaimetsu said:


> In addition to the point made by Hedorah i should also point out that there is a tremendous difference between the intelligence of cows and the intelligence of cetaceans such as whales and dolphins.  To make a comment like this implies you can't even begin to grasp how big the difference is.
> 
> 
> 
> We only have ourselves to blame for the destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity, and we can't count on any divine entity to protect "his nature."  Unfortunately it's in our hands.  A bit off topic but I find the idea of a personal god who plays an active roll in the universe and in the lives of us insignificant carbon based replicators to be completely absurd.  A deistic god that simply set the formation of the universe in motion and stepped back isnt as absurd just completely unnecessary and superfluous as an explanation for anything.


All righty then..


----------



## Bigboy (Feb 16, 2011)

Kaimetsu said:


> In addition to the point made by Hedorah i should also point out that there is a tremendous difference between the intelligence of cows and the intelligence of cetaceans such as whales and dolphins.  To make a comment like this implies you can't even begin to grasp how big the difference is.


I don't believe intelligence is a point.  Ever eat a cephalopod?  It is a matter of sustainability in the end.  Modern whaling methods are unsustainable as compared to those pre-industrialization.  That said there are still some sustainable harvests of cetaceans.  Norway is a prime example of this.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Feb 16, 2011)

Bigboy said:


> I don't believe intelligence is a point.  Ever eat a cephalopod?  It is a matter of sustainability in the end.  Modern whaling methods are unsustainable as compared to those pre-industrialization.  That said there are still some sustainable harvests of cetaceans.  Norway is a prime example of this.


There are plenty of marine biologists and people who have studied the brains of dolphins who have made very strong arguments for providing the same legal protections to cetaceans that we provide to mentally disabled people.  Many of them have proposed that the legal term non-human person be created for them.


----------



## Bigboy (Feb 16, 2011)

Kaimetsu said:


> There are plenty of marine biologists and people who have studied the brains of dolphins who have made very strong arguments for providing the same legal protections to cetaceans that we provide to mentally disabled people.  Many of them have proposed that the legal term non-human person be created for them.


My point is that as far as intelligent creatures go, we have and continue to eat:
Monkey
Squid
Octopus
Cuttlefish
Pig
Dog

The difference is that unlike commercial whaling, they are sustainable harvests and or animals that can be farmed.  There is a difference between emotional and objective arguments.  Saying cetaceans are like mentally disabled people is an insult.  It is akin to thinking in black and white.


----------



## dtknow (Feb 17, 2011)

Agreed with Bigboy-cetaceans are definetly smart animals but it is hard to quantify intelligence. Pigs are smart yet we continue to eat them with no hard feelings.

I used to agree with limited take(even for commercial use such as roundups) but for the most part I am now against it. The gears of commercialism just don't allow harvesting from scarce population of animals without damaging them eventually. Think of the current bluefin crisis.

(it is amusing/sad to me how people can be some adamant on protecting and refusing to eat something so useless as wild :wallferal!) horses yet we have no qualms eating what is basically an endangered species...fish and rattlesnakes just can't tug at our heartstrings I guess)


----------



## jebbewocky (Feb 17, 2011)

I don't see how people killing and eating deer isn't "nature"--animals hunt to eat all the time.  It doesn't sound like this rattlesnake roundup is really needed, or done in a "respectful" manner, but more to go out and murder some animals for something to do.

If they were sustainably harversting them--that'd be different of course.

And octopodes are intelligent, not squid.  I've never heard anything about squid being intelligent.

EDIT: My point being, Human beings are animals as well.  Deer are made of meat, and tasty.  I'm not even going into the necessity vs. non-necessity of managing wildlife, just that deer are tasty and overpopulated (which means they cause more property damage resulting from car accidents).


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Feb 17, 2011)

> Do you want to know the dirty, dirty reason that many wildlife managers do what we do for things like this? Money and public perception





> I don't see how people killing and eating deer isn't "nature"--animals hunt to eat all the time.


I'd like to reply to these two, but I'm going to do it in the "Deer Management" thread.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Feb 18, 2011)

Bigboy said:


> My point is that as far as intelligent creatures go, we have and continue to eat:
> Monkey
> Squid
> Octopus
> ...


None of the animals you listed come close to the intelligence of the smarter cetaceans.  I have to ask what is it that makes human life more valuable that the life of other mammals.  The only reason i can come up with is intelligence, or potential intelligence in the case of children, by this metric i have no problem saying that the life of a bottlenose dolphin has more value than say, the life of a human with down syndrome.


----------



## Bigboy (Feb 18, 2011)

Kaimetsu said:


> None of the animals you listed come close to the intelligence of the smarter cetaceans.  I have to ask what is it that makes human life more valuable that the life of other mammals.  The only reason i can come up with is intelligence, or potential intelligence in the case of children, by this metric i have no problem saying that the life of a bottlenose dolphin has more value than say, the life of a human with down syndrome.


Intelligence is a relative value and it cannot be quantified in the way you are representing it.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Feb 18, 2011)

Bigboy said:


> Intelligence is a relative value and it cannot be quantified in the way you are representing it.


No but in terms of language, creativity, abstract thought, problem solving ability, social intelligence, or any other thing that can be tested, a bottlenose dolphin is much closer to a human than it is to any of the other animals you listed.  These things can and have been tested in bottlenose dolphins.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Feb 18, 2011)

"For the animal shall not be measured by man."

Personally, I don't like arguments defending an animal because it's so much "like us," especially when the intelligence card is thrown into the mix. That shouldn't matter. Wildlife should be protected because wildlife protection is important in and of itself; it benefits not just the individual animal or its species, but the ecosystem as a whole. And while unscientific, there is something to be said about the inherent worth of a unique species; regardless of how like or unlike us they are, they ought to matter simply because they exist.

*This* is what we should emphasize, not how smart or cute or human-like an animal is, or it reinforces the cultural norm of only caring about and wishing to protect species we find personally appealing. It reinforces the kind of bias that allows people to bring their families to laugh and cheer as thousands of snakes die slow, painful deaths from decapitation.


----------



## LeilaNami (Mar 1, 2011)

First, I would like to say that I agree with what RoachGirl has stated for the most part.  I would not be against highly regulating culling provided that there was protocol that was illegal to break (such as number etc) simply for the reason that these snakes could be viable meat sources.  

I am against the practice as it stands because many people don't do ethical round-ups.  If the meat is not used and illegal practices are used to capture the snakes, I have a big big problem.  Many people will pour gasoline down burrows (because they think every burrow is a rattlesnake burrow) consequentially killing any animal in it AND making the meat inedible not to mention the EPA violations.  This is a huge reason why Gopher Tortoises and Texas Indigos are protected due to threatened status.


----------



## dtknow (Mar 2, 2011)

I'd agree for the most part Leila-if the meat is not being sold. Again...the moment commercialism enters into the equation then exploitation is very likely to happen when dealing with a slow reproducing species. Personal use would be ok. If any commercial activity were to take place DFG would have to do some studies on rattlesnake population dynamics and figure out an acceptable number-which I'd guess would not be very high.

Again, bluefin tuna is a great example of commercialism gone wrong(different than a pot. rattlesnake harvest due to $$$ and international issue). Of course-no one really seems to care as they are not cute or smart like dolphins.


----------



## Shrike (Mar 2, 2011)

Jacobchinarian said:


> “culling” is BS. How could there be so little leaves, grass, vegetables, fruit even twigs that we have to kill dear because they would otherwise starve? Not only that but the rattle snake roundup is just a bunch of hilbilleys trying to justify killing something else. They are literally killed by the ton. Thousands of snakes are slaughtered senselessly.


The starvation scenario you describe with deer is entirely possible.  Such a population of would also be more susceptible to the spread of disease.  One of the reasons these situations occur is that natural predators have been taken out of the equation (in many states).  Didn't you acknowledge the impact that the loss of one species can have earlier in this thread?


----------



## BrettG (Mar 2, 2011)

Jacobchinarian said:


> “culling” is BS. How could there be so little leaves, grass, vegetables, fruit even twigs that we have to kill dear because they would otherwise starve? Not only that but the rattle snake roundup is just a bunch of hilbilleys trying to justify killing something else. They are literally killed by the ton. Thousands of snakes are slaughtered senselessly.


Well,being from N.Illinois I can say this.... We had TOO MANY DEER. I cannot count how many times my garden was destroyed,or my landscaping was destroyed. They were a nuisance.Everyone I knew totaled cars hitting them when they darted out across roads as well.A good friend lost 2 cars in less than 6 months due to the overpopulation of whitetails that we had.I supported the hunting seasons due to that fact. That,and the processed meat was donated to homeless shelters.When there are 15 deer in your yard at any given time,and people and smearing them all over every single road/highway,SOMETHING has to be done......................And have any of you eaten rattlesnake? It is delicious.......


----------



## Tleilaxu (Mar 2, 2011)

What does rattlesnake being delicious have to do with your argument? Rattlers are not deer, and unlike deer they are fairing poorly when people encroach on their territory, and unlike deer rattlesnake populations are declining not increasing. Also round ups are very different than simply some random dude going out and getting one or two to eat.


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Mar 2, 2011)

Pssst, brettg and mking: There's a deer management thread to talk about deer in. And that poster's point was already well trounced in said thread. 


And yeah, on the rattler discussion, "delicious" is a pretty moot point from a conservation perspective, unless of course the aspect of conservation you're discussing is "threats to survival." A depressing number of species have gone extinct on account of being tasty. The deer situation vs. the rattlesnake situation are apples to oranges.


----------



## jebbewocky (Mar 2, 2011)

I still fail to see what's wrong with hunting. Deer are made of meat, not endangered, and delicious.  Meh.


----------



## Shrike (Mar 2, 2011)

Thanks for the tip, but I was responding to misinformation in _this_ thread, not the deer management thread.  I should have further specified that "rounding up" rattlesnakes and sustainably hunting deer make for a poor comparison.


----------



## LeilaNami (Mar 4, 2011)

dtknow said:


> I'd agree for the most part Leila-if the meat is not being sold. Again...the moment commercialism enters into the equation then exploitation is very likely to happen when dealing with a slow reproducing species. Personal use would be ok. If any commercial activity were to take place DFG would have to do some studies on rattlesnake population dynamics and figure out an acceptable number-which I'd guess would not be very high.
> 
> Again, bluefin tuna is a great example of commercialism gone wrong(different than a pot. rattlesnake harvest due to $$$ and international issue). Of course-no one really seems to care as they are not cute or smart like dolphins.


Yes I should have clarified that the meat should only be for personal use.  It prevents over-culling the animals by a large degree. 

mking and RoachGirl, even round-ups should be halted, however, if the population exhibits any signs of an inability to bounce back the next season to satisfy the conservation side of the issue.  I'm making the argument that if the round-ups were held to standards that would keep it sustainable and have protocol that protected the environment, it would be fine to continue them.  since now they are an unmonitored free-for-all, I am against them as they stand.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Mar 4, 2011)

Occasionally I see rattlesnake offered at local butcher shops...are these typically coming from roundups?  Are there any particular legalities regarding collecting rattlers for consumption?  Any reason why they couldn't be farmed for such purposes?  I'm rather ignorant of rattler reproduction...mostly just curious.


----------



## super-pede (Mar 4, 2011)

we oughta outlaw breeding cats. they are the worst invasive species.


----------



## LeilaNami (Mar 5, 2011)

zonbonzovi said:


> Occasionally I see rattlesnake offered at local butcher shops...are these typically coming from roundups?  Are there any particular legalities regarding collecting rattlers for consumption?  Any reason why they couldn't be farmed for such purposes?  I'm rather ignorant of rattler reproduction...mostly just curious.


It's possible but most likely they are farm-raised snakes if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## The Snark (Mar 8, 2011)

*My 2 cents*

(I'm serious here).
We definitely need to start culling animals. Let's start with the homo stultus. 

We need to be brutally honest, which people are unwilling to do if it could possibly cause them the slightest discomfiture or inconvenience. Humans have the frontal lobes and apposable thumbs. With that going for them and they are still unable to live harmoniously with and accommodate nature, the humans need to go.

I've lived with rattlers underfoot (and bed). They are safer and more predicable than humans.

Now that I've vented my spleen...
I used to run a pack station in the Sierras. I killed rattlers on an almost daily basis. I found a 'nest' 6 feet from our hitching rail and killed 44 of them around it during a summer. I had a horse spooked by a rattler and a girl fell and broke her neck. And the bottom line was, we were in their territory. We didn't belong, they did. It's the little thing that is missing for the most part in the modern age of sloth and gluttony. It's called respect. Accept, live and let live. 

It can easily be proven that humans are the apex of evolution on this planet. It's time we started acting like it.


----------



## RyTheTGuy (Mar 8, 2011)

The Snark said:


> (I'm serious here).
> We definitely need to start culling animals. Let's start with the homo stultus.
> 
> We need to be brutally honest, which people are unwilling to do if it could possibly cause them the slightest discomfiture or inconvenience. Humans have the frontal lobes and apposable thumbs. With that going for them and they are still unable to live harmoniously with and accommodate nature, the humans need to go.
> ...


I read this and Its sad but true.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Mar 12, 2011)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/12/rattlesnake.roundup/index.html?hpt=T2

What the <edit> is wrong with people!  These humans need to be culled!


----------



## burmish101 (Mar 16, 2011)

The world is going to be crazy overpopulated in less than 400 years of humans and we are the #1 cause of destruction to the environment lol. The world will never be perfect and will always have various issues, but as long as they dont kill protected or endangered species or be very wastefull I would say its fine. Maybe they should get cracked down on for wasting venom like that which can save lives. Contaminated uselessness ftl.


----------



## Jacobchinarian (Mar 16, 2011)

Kaimetsu said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/12/rattlesnake.roundup/index.html?hpt=T2
> 
> What the <edit> is wrong with people!  These humans need to be culled!


Did you see that person making the blood hand print on the wall?


----------



## ChrisNCT (Mar 16, 2011)

I grew up in South Texas and remember going to these 1 or 2 times a year. They were neat events. 

I love Rattlers and don't see a problem with them collecting them up as they are abundant down there. 

To each their own though.


----------

