|
11-19 of 19 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by brandonsthaman on March 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow. I can't imagine watching that...
Does the venom actually go to make A/V or do they just say it's for "research"?
|
| |
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by Ptk on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Brandon - the snakes pictured in the glass tanks did belong to the presentor, or at least that is what he told the crowd.
I know myself and atleast one other did offer to bring our collections this year (for free) with the understanding that culling from the wild population would not be encouraged or promoted at the event. I was told commitments on their end had already been made. This might have been a nice way of saying "no thanks".
I get a different read everytime I talk to someone (and havn't spoken to the same one twice). Perhaps if enough of us made the same offer during the planning stages for next year they might reconsider?
Here is an interesting link. It shows all the Rattlesnake Roundups in this country, dates, locations, sponsors and regulatory agencies.
www.rattlesnakerecipe.us/roundup.htm
PTK
|
| |
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by brandonsthaman on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Patrick,
Thanks for that clarification. So, my understanding is that the promoter pays someone to collect the rattlesnakes for display.
If so, it seems like someone like Chuck Hurd, who does displays for other events, might be interested in displaying his animals. Also, there are several of you Georgia boys on here who (I assume) might be interested in displaying their own animals; several of the Mods of this site come to mind (Cro, Buzztail, and Charper).
It seems to me that if the people are so determined to have a roundup and don't really care if the animals are collected or captive, that this might be a fair enough alternative.
|
| |
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by jay72 on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The reason why they dont want people to bring there own snakes is because one of the "presenters" is a hide dealer from Tennessee. He comes to all the Georgia roundups and possibly the Alabama roundup and buys the snakes from the hunters the day before the event. After the roundup all the snakes that were purchased go back to Tennessee and are slaughtered.
|
| |
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by brandonsthaman on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sloane,
I imagine that my first comment regarding a limit on rattlesnake collecting would take care of that problem. (Easier said than done I know...)
Then putting private collections on display would be a much easier process... And a decent compromise IMO.
|
| |
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just out of curiosity I looked at the IUCN Redlist to see what they had to say about EDBs - they say
"Improved state regulations pertaining to this species are needed. This snake should at least be given the status of a game animal, and the taking of specimens should be regulated by bag limits. Licenses should be required of people taking rattlesnakes. Out-of-state licenses should be much more expensive than in-state licenses. The sale of Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes should be regulated in the same manner as any game animal; interstate commerce should be prohibited."
Interesting, huh? For the whole Redlst picture go to http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/64308
|
| |
|
RE: Rattlesnake Roundup 09
|
Reply
|
|
by brandonsthaman on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Josh,
That is very interesting. That almost makes it look as if I based my opinion on that report (which I did not). I would like to add something like "great minds think alike" which is not really the case because anyone with any sense should be able to see that.
I got a reply back from my DNR friend and he pointed me to this position paper by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists: http://www.asih.org/files/positionpaper.pdf which has some pretty good information in it.
I am also going to paste part of his email here, it is slightly wordy, but informative...
"Yes, rattlesnake round-ups do affect ecosystems. Probably more on the population of rattlesnakes than they do the entire ecosystem, but when you remove apex predators, you also impose an imbalance on the harmonious relationships between the predator prey populations.
For example, deer populations in SC are cyclical. They are cyclical now due to hunting, which is needed to promote the predator prey balance because Eastern Cougar and Eastern Red Wolf are locally extirpated and locally extinct in most of their historic range. This removal of apex predators basically gives deer "free range" for over-browsing and over-populating. Of course, with over-population, there is a much greater risk of rampant disease spread which can wipe out huge quantities at a time. Hunting deer in SC is what is called compensatory mortality. This is what hunting in general is. Based on our population levels our biologists determine bag limits, size limts, etc. depending on the different regions of the state. For example, in the lowcountry there is an unlimited number of bucks and does that can be harvested. This is not the case in the upstate because there are fewer deer. There are so many more deer in the lowcountry, that if hunting did not occur on the scale that it can down there, the animals would over-populate, which would in turn cause them to run out of food (over browse), and could cause them to have a disease outbreak.
In any wildlife population, there is a fairly simple equation to establish the population: (i + b) - (e + m) = population. That is the combination of immigration and births minus the combination of emigration and mortality. There is only one apex predator in SC now for deer, and it is only responsible for taking small deer and unhealthy / wounded deer and that is the coyote.
The point I'm getting at, is that there aren't many predators for a rattlesnake. Yes, raptors, and snake eating snakes, as well as some large fish that take young snakes when crossing waterways, are all rattlesnake predators, but the instances in which rattlesnakes are taken by these means are few and far between. The main thing that keeps rattlesnake populations in check are prey populations. And again, this is cyclical. When the prey population begins to decrease, the rattlesnake population will soon begin to decrease as well. A couple of years later, the prey population will increase and the rattlesnake population will follow suit right behind it. A good way to study predator / prey cycles and relationships would be to google "Isle Royale Moose / Wolf populations". Isle Royale is rather large island in Lake Superior. Moose and Wolf coexist on this island and flourish. The wolf have never "wiped" out the moose and their population numbers cycle just like I have aforementioned.
So, no, I'm not an advocate of rattlesnake roundups because taking rattlesnakes is in most part additive mortality and not compensatory mortality. It's just like bear hunting. I'm against it. It's removing an apex predator in that food chain. Nothing else eats a bear, and when you tinker with ecosystems at the top of the food chain, it trickles down adversely from there.
Some good research topics that you could enter into google to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about would be: 1) additive mortality, 2) compensatory mortality, 3) predator / prey cycles, 4) k (carrying capacity of a habitat), 5) Isle Royale moose/wolf population cycle.
I have found an online article from the American Society of Icthyologists and Herpetologist and their stance on rattlesnake round-ups. It's a pretty good article with a great deal of information : http://www.asih.org/files/positionpaper.pdf ."
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
