Collecting and Conservation

The following article was written by guest contributor John Sealy, a graduate student and Timber rattlesnake researcher at Appalachian State University and does not necessarily reflect the views of the SHHS, particularly in regards to the use of live animals for public education.

Conservation and collection of snakes from wild populations: Mutually exclusive concepts.

I have been asked to discuss my position concerning the collecting of wild snakes. My comments will pertain primarily to the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus), and the coastal variant sometimes called the canebrake rattlesnake (C. h. atricaudatus). However, except where I discuss specifics of life history I intend for my remarks to include all wild snakes, especially the eastern pitvipers. These comments are not directed at commercial collectors uninterested in conservation. I am writing to those that occasionally collect and/or sell snakes because they enjoy the activity and consider themselves conservationists for venomous species.

The taking of snakes from wild populations can not be justified in the context of conservation. Therefore, as a rattlesnake conservationist I believe that all collecting, capture, and killing of wild snakes should be outlawed. I include in this excessive or unnecessary scientific and voucher specimen collecting. Why do I hold this position?

There are no circumstances where the taking of a snake benefits a population. Timber/canebrake rattlesnakes are late to mature, can not reproduce each year, and experience high mortality of their litters. There is very little if any harvestable surplus of adult snakes in a rattlesnake population. Most of our remaining populations are already depressed from habitat loss, road mortality, and incidental killing. Any collecting of adults in these populations has an additional negative impact on the reproductive potential of the population. The effect is most severe if a female is taken, but it is true of taking males as well. When a snake is taken from its population it might as well be dead. Snakes in cages make no further reproductive contribution to their population or community. If snakes not yet sexually mature are taken, there are other ecological consequences as well. These snakes will not have the opportunity to eventually reproduce and contribute to the population. The other ecological factor to consider is that rattlesnakes are food for other members of the community. One of my study animals, a 39 inch male timber rattlesnake, was eaten by a great horned owl. Are owls unimportant? We all have our species preferences, but we must avoid ignoring the community in which our preferred species resides. That point, however, is the least of it. The taking of snakes from a population either directly or indirectly reduces the chances of continued viability for that population. In no case can it be argued that collecting even a single animal can enhance a population's chances of continued survival, therefore, those that collect are choosing to have a negative effect on populations.

For collectors that are genuinely interested in the conservation of wild populations it seems difficult for them to take a hard look at why they collect. In my experience I find several rationalizations are frequently given to justify collecting.

1) "Education for the public.": I used this one for years to justify keeping a wild caught snake. Hauling out a venomous snake in front of the general public does little but confirm in their minds what they already believe about venomous snakes and none of it is good. Several factors contribute to this outcome. The "educator" must use great care and special equipment as testament to the inherent danger. The audience must stay at a safe distance in case the snake is dropped. The snake is not in a natural situation and therefore does not behave naturally, etc., etc., etc. In my experience few people at these "shows" develop a newfound appreciation and respect for venomous snakes. Few questions from the audience reflect an interest in life history, ecology, or conservation. Most of their questions concern how to avoid venomous snakes and what to do if bitten. The outcome of these public displays of venomous snakes does not justify the taking of snakes from wild populations. At the least, these "shows" could be conducted with captive-bred, captive-born animals. Why does it require wild-caught animals?

2) "Compared to roundups, taking one snake has a relatively small effect.": I would agree that roundups do great damage to rattlesnake populations and do more damage than any one individual collector. The difference is a matter of degree. If I steal 10 dollars and you steal 1 dollar, which of us are thieves? Individual collecting is just a roundup on a very small scale. The problem is that there are lots of individuals collecting. If there are 30 individuals that occasionally collect a snake, it is but a thirty person roundup that does not occur all at the same time. The behavior is the same and the impact to populations is the same.

3) "If I don't take it someone else will.": This rationalization is most often used by those that frequent "tin" or other productive sites hunted by many collectors. Those with this reason are probably correct, but is this reason enough to adopt the damaging behaviors of another? Could there be other ways to respond to the collecting of others instead of adopting their population-damaging behaviors?

4) "Its not illegal." Few state wildlife agencies have laws that adequately protect reptiles and amphibians, especially venomous species. All collectors know this and take great advantage of it. Do you know any collectors that would stop collecting if the laws changed? If you are a collector are you working to have laws changed so they will protect venomous snakes? If not, why not?

There is so much that can be done. To be involved we don't have to plunder wild populations. There are plenty of captive-born and captive-bred snakes available. There is much that can be done on behalf of venomous snake populations. It's so easy to let others worry about habitat protection or conservation legislation. Could you lobby legislators to enact laws that protect non game wildlife from exploitation by collectors and commercial hunters? The day will never come when your state legislators decide on their own to protect venomous snakes. Could you help them decide? Could you keep field data to assist those that conduct research on behalf of venomous species? Could you learn to conduct studies on the ecology/status of local venomous species? Could you remove tin etc. from heavily visited collector sites? Could a group of snake lovers lease land like deer hunters are known to do and protect a population of venomous snakes and insure a place to find and photograph snakes? Could you develop slide presentations of the life history of local venomous snakes to educate the public as opposed to "snake shows"? If you now have captives, could you breed captive snakes and give/sell them to others to prevent the collection of wild snakes? Please insist that they do not ever release them however.

It disturbs me that many people consider themselves conservationists and then take wild snakes. Webster's defines conservation as "a careful preservation and protection of something. A planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect." A conservationist is one who advocates the above. Are you a conservationist of venomous snakes or are you a collector seeking to legitimize your actions by talking conservation and pointing a finger others? Are you one of those that supports conservation legislation until it affects your activities? Conservation is a behavior, not just a philosophy. Anyone can talk conservation. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no in-between.

Member Comments: Add A Comment