VenomousReptiles.org Survey

Survey Question	Current Survey Question Should hobbyists ever free handle venomous reptiles with their hands? Recent Surveys Most venomous/toxic Naja species in the world? I have read that the Philippine cobra is the most venomous (mice, 0.2 mg/kg SC with the lowest reported value being 0.14 mg/kg SC) (Brown, 1973). I have recently, come across something in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology (Vol. 30, (issue 12), pages: 1158-1162, 1992) which stated that the LD50 for Naja oxiana was the most toxic/venomous (mice, 0.18 mg/kg SC and lowest reported value was 0.10 mg/kg). Along with that, the mortality rate for untreated Naja oxiana bites are the highest among all Naja species (70-80%). N.oxiana also produced the lowest known lethal dose (LCLo) of 0.005 mg/kg, the lowest among all cobra species ever recorded, derived from an individual case of poisoning by intracerebroventricular injection. Following N. oxiana and N. philippinensis are N. melanoleuca at 0.225 mg/kg SC and then N. samarensis at 0.23 mg/kg. The water cobras (N. annulata and N. christyi also have very toxic venoms, but no SC values are listed. Only intraperitoneal (IP) values of 0.143 mg/kg for N. annulata and 0.12 mg/kg for N. christyi. IP values tend to be generally lower (more toxic than subcutaneous values, so it would be unfair to compare their IP results to the subcutaneous (SC) results of other Naja species. Then I have heard that (without solid evidence) that Naja nivea is the most venomous, although their murine SC LD50 range anywhere from 0.4 mg/kg (Toxicon, Vol. 5, issue 1, page 47, 1967) to 0.72 mg/kg (Australian venoms and toxins Databse). So which is the most venomous? To me it seems obvious that it is the Caspian or Oxus cobra (Naja oxiana), followed by the Philippine cobra (Naja philippinensis). What do you think or know? I've noticed that the Australian venom and toxin Database seems to have higher LD50 values for all snakes across the board. For example, for the black mamba IP value of 0.01 mg/kg is listed (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004101018890219X) and Ernst and Zug et al 1996, list a SC value of 0.05 mg/kg for the black mamba. While the Australian venom and toxin Database listed much less toxic LD50's. So there seems to be a lot of variation. 2014-01-23 What's Your Favorite Venomous Snake? 2013-11-13 Deadliest Bite? 2013-09-16 IF the science of self-immunization for a snake envenomation was proven/perfected what is the least benefit(percentage) you would accept before practicing it on yourself? 2013-06-06 how did you learn to keep venomous reptiles? 2013-03-02 View All Survey Questions Have a good idea for a VenomousReptiles.org Survey question? Enter your idea!
Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below. If 50,000 people a year were dying from rattlesnake bites in the U.S, would you agree to rattlesnake roundups to thin their numbers? [please use the comments section to elaborate your position]   Posted: Dec 06, 2002   (620 votes, 49 comments) by Chris_Harper
Survey Results
Yes 29% (180) No 71% (440)
Survey Comments
i have to agree with the texan definitely Posted by snk17 on July 11, 2005 i assume not to be around snakes at all snakes need to be thinned out in general. they harm the livestock industry Posted by snk17 on July 11, 2005 Heck yes as a Texan we deal with a lot of these bites all year long every year. Being a rancher myself and having cattle and horses get bit we do this. We also use everything in the snake too. We eat the snake meat and use the snake skin to make various things, from belts to wallets. The bones are put in to our composte heaps. It has a lot of doing keeping our Livestock and ourselves safe out in the country. Posted by TXGal on December 30, 2004 Rounups Do we roundup drivers of cars who kill more people in one day than rattlers do in a couple years? Posted by Chevy on April 29, 2003 No, Notta, NEVER!!! Let me first say this, I have been bitten MANY times by non venomous snakes, very big ones and very small ones and I have had my share of venomous snake bites as well. I almost lost my life to a Canebrake Rattler over the summer of 2002. Not one time did I get mad at the snake, not one time was it the snakes fault,not one time did I want to kill the snake, but EVERYTIME I got bit,it WAS my fault and the snake had every right to protect itself, even though I meant it no harm. If you know you live in a place that is highly populated with snakes, then it is YOUR responsability to know how to NOT get bit. I would NEVER and I mean NEVER support "Rattlesnake round-up's" We are the ones taking their natural environments from them, what gives us the right to do that?? They have every right to be here just as we do, the same God that created us, created them. Here's a thought, instead of killing these wonderful creatures, why not better educate people about them, when they really need to learn about them?!?!... in school. If it were ever as serious as 50,000 deaths per year, then make "Snakes" a subject by itself in school, starting at an early age and taught by people can properly educate the kids about ALL snakes and their importance to us. After all what is the main reason we have school?? To educate us so we can learn how to SURVIVE in life, well I think that not been killed by a snake falls under survival, don't you?? I by no means EVER hope for someone to get snake bit, but for those of you out there, who do participate in Rattlesnake round-up's, and you idiotic people who get drunk or fried and play with or provoake a rattler or even people that go out knowingly unprepared or unprotected and get bit, well, you got what yu deserved and I hope that if it doesn't kill you you will know better the next time... GO ATROX!!! Bobby Posted by BwViper on March 6, 2003 No way! Rattlesnake roundups are just a cruelty to these animals! I did some digging on the web and it's terrible what they do in some places! One place called it a "family event." It's exactly like this one web site said, "The rattlesnake roundups in the U.S. were begun as an excuse to party and make money. Most of them slaughter thousands of snakes each year.A few do not slaughter but still abuse the animals. Very little education is provided. Most of them teach only that animals are put here for the amusement of mankind and that slaughter for amusement and profit is acceptable...many of the snakes are taken from their dens in winter slumber." Posted by SnakesAreTheCoolest on January 29, 2003 (PEOPLE ROUND-UPS) RATTLESNAKES REVENGE!! OK WITH ME! Posted by toxicbite on December 28, 2002 Roundups I say it would be payback on the snake's part for years of abuse at the hands of the human race. Well-deserved. Posted by snakeking on December 24, 2002 Call me stupid but I don't get it... What's the magic number of snake related deaths that makes it okay to "round 'em up?" I see this as a very pragmatic argument. If snake harvesting (picture deer hunting for a moment, please) is a sustainable resource, then I have NO PROBLEM with collecting snakes or any other animals from the wild. However, there needs to be a much better set of studies to determine how many is too many snakes to harvest. The issue has nothing to do with how many snake bites there are (for me at least), yet it has everything to do with recruitment and habitat destruction / loss in many cases. I do not believe that indescriminate rounding up of any species is an acceptible method for snake-bite prevention. In fact, I believe the data strongly supports LEAVING SNAKES ALONE, as most bites are considered to be non-legitimate bites, that is to say they are caused by people molesting snakes... Basically, I think the question is flawed, no offense, and perhaps you should rethink the point you are trying to focus on and try again. Tom Townsend Posted by TomT on December 23, 2002 another plan At 50,000 deaths per year, it would seem as though the R/S has returned with a vengence. A vengence that is deserved. How many deaths do the R/S suffer at our hands? Has anyone ever thought to ask? To better serve ourselfs as well as our little buddies, why not give them a sanctuary where they they can live life to the fullest while not infringing on us nor we them? Would this be a viable option? Back to the oringinal question, though, no I would not support a round-up. Think of it as a natural population control.It took us all these years to produce 60Billion people and it is predicted that by 2050 there will be 90Billion of us.Who will feed them? Where will we put them? And where will we all work? Natures checks and balances-- haven't we already written enough bad checks? There is no balance. If nature sees to it that this will be the course, so be it. I'd rather die of a bite than at the hands of some physcopath with an addiction. Posted by ZX11 on December 23, 2002 What's the real question being asked? After reading some of the above posts; it seems that the question has turned to more of,"Is a snake's life more valuable than that of a human's?" If that is what is being asked, then I would say NO! That's not to say that I think an animal's life should be ended as a result of someone's ignorance.But if it became a problem of epidemic proportions due to overpopulation something should be done. How it would be carried out should be considered by the people affected by this scenario as well as wildlife&game and D.N.R. agencies who have the knowledge needed on this type of issue and who are better versed in the subject matter to forsee the future outcome. Such as weighing out the pros & cons, the impact it will have on the eco-system,etc. Posted by RepFan on December 23, 2002 Sometimes Bad Things Happen I would have to reluctantly say, "YES." Although I hold round-ups in low regard. I still think there are better ways to go about thinning down the population. Posted by RepFan on December 16, 2002 Round-up This isn't too clear so let me say this... If it were due to over population because of protection, I say let them be collected! I do agree with a certain amount of conservation but lets be real about it. But of course the tree-huggers of California would let it go beyond that point because they value animals more than human life. If it is because of ignorance of the people getting bit, let them get bit, And hope they are the tree-huggers! In California you don't need a license to kill or collect Rattlesnakes. But if you have them in captivity you are in DEEP! I agree with sierra, the laws should make sense but never will till we rid the world of snail darters!!!!!! Posted by jdrumz on December 14, 2002 Key word...... The key word in the posted question is “EVER”, and I must extremely reluctantly say that yes I would support thinning of the population, but not with round ups. There are indeed better more humane, responsible ways of controlling the population. Here in Pa a rattlesnake hunting license can be purchased (actually its part of the regular hunting license) and used to take one timber rattler a year even though they are protected, endangered. And they still hold round ups (how can there be any logic in that, at all?) But 50,000 fatalities a year would be an extreme sinero (that would mean millions being bitten and surviving the bites), it would be considered epidemic if millions were being bitten. And of course it would require more than just thinning the population…education would also be very important. We all love our herps especially the hot ones but at some point other considerations come into play. I am strongly against the ignorant killing that most people tolerate when it comes to venomous. But at a certain level something would have to be in extreme cases…” EVER ? “ sadly yes…. One little side note…that license we have here in Pa is to kill a Crotalus h. not to collect and keep one…if you have one in your possession it better be dead, or else your disturbing an endangered/protected species….totally unreal, huh? Posted by sierra on December 12, 2002 Roundups Well I think this survey has struck a few nerves this time around. I find myself in a tough position to say anything since the situation isn't acctually staring e in the face. I chose yes because I think that 50,000 people dying every yr. from snake bite alone is way to many. Yes I love reptiles and pretty much all living things (except skeeters) but to me keeping that many animalsaround to cause so much damage is rediculous. This question raises other parallel questions with it, so like I said earlier I can't really answer this question to the best of my ability. I just hope that a situation like this NEVER arises, because it would be big trouble for all of us. But anyway that is just a humble mans oppinion of who is more important... us or them. Although I love the little rascals, I still pick us. I would hope, however that the process would be regulated by law, overseen by Fish and Game, and accomplished in as humane a way as possible. Well anyway I have rambled long enough, I will end with...... .....Happy Holidays Everyone. Tis the Season Bgabonica1 Posted by Bgabonica1 on December 12, 2002 General pronouns Uh, Chris, if you personally are not killing a bunch of snakes then obviously you personally are not catering to an irrational desire for revenge. I'm using a general pronoun rather than a specific one since this is an open public commentary and not addressed to a single person. My post below on puppy roundups wasn't specifically addressing anything you said either, although you seem to have assumed that it did. Posted by MSTT on December 11, 2002 MsTT How could I be catering to an irrational desire for revenge??? I am the one who merely posed the question. I haven't stated my position at all. I suppose you could say that I am merely taking the pulse of the community. CH Posted by Chris_Harper on December 11, 2002 roundup as sick sport while on this subject of roundups, I would like you to do a yahoo search under "rattlesnake roundup" you will se a couple of links to companys who host rattlesnake roundups as a means of corporate teamwork building. This, is a sickening passtime. Not content with their corporate paintball and other ludicrous money wasting activities, now they want completely untrained amateurs to cap and handle atrox' Not for human protection. Not as mob mentality revenge. But as a misuse of time and corporate funds. I usually do not with envenomation on anyone, but I think a few crotalus atrox bites will put an end to this passtime. Posted by sawscale on December 11, 2002 Brown tree snakes I don't have a problem with euthanizing Boiga irregularis on Guam, because their invasion is upsetting an entire ecosystem and not merely human convenience. I do have a problem with the notion that killing rattlesnakes could ever be justified, because the fact is that rattlesnake roundups increase the incidence of bites rather than preventing them. The only really effective way to prevent human death and injury by snakebite is to educate humans. Getting revenge by killing a bunch of snakes may seem emotionally appealing to some people, but it just isn't effective. You're catering to an irrational desire for revenge and not actually taking positive steps to prevent snake bites. Posted by MSTT on December 11, 2002 Puppy roundups? MsTT, You didn't really answer my question. And you shold know that I am well aware of the position that you have stated, as I have written it myself many times. I am not an advocate of living in a danger free society. And I also need to point out that millions of dogs are euthanized every year -- for the benefit of mankind primarily. So that's not really a good analogy. Also, I don't subscribe to the philosophy that the life of a child is equal to that of a snake. Obviously though, I am an advocate for venomous reptile conservation, and conservation in general for that matter. As a conservationist, I would not have a problem with the eradication of the Brown tree snakes on the island of Guam, as they do not belong there. But am I correct in assuming that you do have a problem with killing the Brown tree snakes on Guam? [I personally don't think that a relocation plan is realistic.] Imagine a similar event occurring in the state of Florida, and all of the eastern diamondbacks being under threat extinction - BECAUSE of another snake species. So once again I ask, would killing snakes "en mass" EVER be a viable alternative for you? [emphasis on the word "ever"] CH Posted by Chris_Harper on December 9, 2002 Puppy roundups If one considers any human deaths adequate justification for slaughtering a significant number of animals, to avoid being hypocritical you should certainly start with the animals that actually cause the most severe injuries and fatalities - dogs and horses. The number of injuries and deaths caused by reptiles is a very small fraction of those caused by dogs alone. Rounding up and skinning a bunch of puppies should be justified if the same logic is applied. However there is absolutely no logic involved. Aggressively killing snakes does not prevent snakebite but instead is a very significant cause of snakebite incidents. Up to 85% of snakebites could be prevented if people did not choose to attack or approach snakes, and of the remainder it is estimated that more than 75% of genuinely accidental bites were delivered mid-calf or below and could have been prevented by wearing appropriate boots in snake habitat. And as long as we're following the logic chain that "anything that hurts humans must be destroyed," we'd really better abolish motor vehicles, drain the ocean, outlaw swimming pools, force people to stop eating fattening foods and bring back Prohibition. Better yet, people who insist on living in a totally safe environment where nothing can possibly hurt them are invited to check themselves permanently into a padded room and leave the ecosystem alone. Posted by MSTT on December 9, 2002 comments on comments I wasn't really looking for how realistic the scenario is, or how it would come to be. Moreso, I was looking at how individuals who have an affinity for venomous snakes would deal with an "apparent overpopulation situation"--[plague levels of snakes -- like in Guam] In other words, would killing snakes "en mass" ever be a viable alternative for this group. Posted by Chris_Harper on December 9, 2002 Rattlers As Wasil Khan (WK) points out it would probably take 50 million bites to cause 50,000 deaths. I can’t ever see the American government letting the situation get so bad without mobilizing military & law enforcement to kill every rattlesnake they found.And back that up with a massive public education program. If rattlesnakes started to invade peoples gardens how much of a problem would it really be, since so many Americans jump into their cars and drive everywhere as it is? Rattlesnakes are so called because they have a rattle on their tail, which they normally use to ward off aggressors, so no problem unless you are deaf. The biggest problem I could see would be the lack of antivenom. Now consider West Africa (were I’ve spent quite some time). Many people do not even have decent shoes let alone their own personal transport. Their homes are often not snake-proof. The hospitals are poorly equipped and probably do not have any antivenom, even if they do it may cost the equivalent of a years salary (and could be fake). There are no free hand outs and even if a bite does not kill a person, it could lead to a disability that would seriously impact on that persons ability to care for their family. I am quite against the idea of destroying a speices just because it can fight back. I’d love to see wolves and bears reintroduced to the English countryside. Rattlesnakes ?, I’d be far more concerned about the number of idiots wandering around with guns! Paul D.Rowley Posted by Hotherps on December 9, 2002 Why Bother? Assuming ~260 million total population, that would result in less than 0.02% reduction in human population.....not enough to worry about. It might help solve some overcrowding and unemployment though..... Matt Harris Posted by MattHarris on December 9, 2002 50,000 First of all, snake bite is the the result of human behavior, not snake behavior. However, if 50,000 people died of snake bite each year, there would be no need for commercial roundups because the snakes would be destroyed by everyone else. Posted by scottquint on December 8, 2002 50,000 Bites With the increase of the R/S population to cause that may bites or fatalities one could conclude that there was a huge explosion of prey and a decrease of natural predation. Once again, MAN would most likely be at fault for disrupting natures "checks & balances" in controlling populations. I also agree with MSTT's point that most of the bites would be because of stupidity not accidental encounters. Posted by Phobos on December 8, 2002 solution depends on the cause Come on now. We all know rattlesnake roundups would do nothing to "thin" rattlesnake populations. Don't you listen to anything the Jaycees say? ;^) Seriously, though, if fifty thousand people were dying each year from rattlesnake bite, something would have to be done about it. The course of action would depend on the problem leading to such an astronomical number of snakebite fatalities. If there was a tremendous rattlesnake population explosion causing them to show up in peoples homes, workplaces, etc., then some population "thinning" would certainly be warranted. But think about the numbers of snakebites it would take to produce fifty thousand fatalities per year! We currently average around eight thousand venomous snakebites per year (not all from rattlers) and approximately eight deaths per year. That's a 0.1% mortality rate from venomous snakebite in the USA. If we extrapolate this to the 50,000 deaths figure, it would mean fifty million venomous snakebites per year! Of course, you could raise the mortality rate by withholding or refusing medical treatment. If most of the nation converted to the "Snake Handling / Strychnine Swigging" Cult, you would see a drastic increase in snakebite mortality. However, the solution here sure wouldn't be rattlesnake roundups! See what I mean when I say the course of action depends on the cause? BTW, I voted "no" to the question at the top. Posted by WK on December 8, 2002 Who are we to kill any animal for our stupidity? Posted by Jurliki on December 8, 2002 Religious justification The belief that "we can do whatever we want with the earth because God says we own it" is arguably the most devastatingly non sustainable philosophy ever to cause death, disease, warfare and mass environmental destruction on this planet. I wouldn't be so proud of that if I were you. I was raised in a much older tradition that says we belong to the Earth, not the other way around. It might make you feel better to think that God says we have the right to trash the planet, throw fragile ecosystems out of balance and cause mass extinctions for our convenience, but the end result of this foolishness should be obvious even to Christians. Posted by MSTT on December 8, 2002 Roundups? Rattlesnake roundups increase interaction / proximity / chances for additional fatalities. I agree with Buzztail1's assertion that some population thinning, along the lines of seasonal whitetail deer hunts, may be needed, but the out and out generalized round-up scenerio would be too distasteful for my liking. I also agree with jcostell's point about the population explosion sufficient to cause so many death's would quickly thin the rattlesnake population sufficiently to greatly reduce the number of bites the following year. That said, I believe that all the rattlesnakes in existance could not be traded for a single innocent child's life. Posted by gr8ful-one on December 7, 2002 The Earth was ours first! at least if you believe in GOD, which I strongly do. Posted by chewwy on December 7, 2002 everyone of the snakes that bit people were using natural means of defense. if you were a rattlesnake and you ran into an idiot poking you with a stick youd probally want to bite them to. these people getting bitten are most likely not educated and not treating the snakes with the respect they deserve. until people become educated and learn to give these awsome snakes respect there will continue to be many bites across the states. Posted by lancehead on December 7, 2002 Human attacks snake If 50,000 people were bitten, you can bet that 42,500 of them were provoking the snake deliberately. The typical profile of the snakebite victim in North America is an intoxicated young male, and the vast majority of bites are "illegitimate", eg, are the result of humans deliberately attacking or approaching the snake. Of the bites that are genuinely accidental, a very large percentage of these are delivered mid-calf or lower and could be prevented by wearing sturdy boots. Not to mention looking where one is stepping, or sitting, or reaching one's hands. Snakebites are never the snake's fault, and killing them is not the answer. Taking reasonable steps towards their prevention is. Starting with, "don't do stupid things with venomous snakes especially if you're drunk." Duuuh. Posted by MSTT on December 7, 2002 Education and humans refraining from infringing upon an animals natural habitat would greatly reduce incidents. Respect, education, and conservation would be better than rounding them up and kill them. That said, if it is a case of severe overpopulation and not a case of panicked folks encroaching upon the animals natural territory, then population management by qualified organizations would be valid at that point. Posted by Theldara on December 7, 2002 the earth was theres first and if they want to take over the world in B-movies style let them! Posted by bitisatrox on December 7, 2002 Yep. If 50,000 rattlesnake deaths sprang up in 2003, there would have to have been such an astronomical explosion of rattlesnakes that the carrying capacity of the environment would have been breached many times over. The populations would crash within the year anyway, so roundups in this situation as a short-term solution wouldn't really cause any more damage than the slow starvation of thousands of rattlesnakes. Either way they're dead. Something to think about. Posted by jcostell on December 7, 2002 Roundups = poor management tactic.... Rattlesnake Roundups are commercially based ventures consistent with expression of reduced intelligence quotients. There are no data to support the Roundups having a positive effect upon human envenomation. If there were indeed 50K North Americans dying from crotaline bites annually, the private sector would have ample motivation to design and manufacture protective clothing. I can see it now.... snakebite-proof Air Nikes in a special high top version! ~Holmes Posted by Holmes on December 7, 2002 Just a note, Venom commented on Australia's low death rate vs high numbers of dangerous snakes... I am an Australian...1 to 3 deaths occur per annum vs around 5,000 reported bites. They are fair odds, but the reason for this is our medical system of handling bites...usually very good. I am a snake removalist (nuisance jobs from houses etc) and its surprizing when you get to a house after they have called you to be given a dead snake (I charge them double if that occurs)but the snakes themselves aren't that common...a days herping in good habitat may yield 5 snakes..if your lucky! Posted by BLACKSNAKE on December 7, 2002 Probably not... I said "no" based on the assumption that there would most likely be some other way to correct the problem, by teaching people how to avoid the snakes, keeping people out of the places where they were a problem, or by relocating them. If the question is "would I kill 100,000 rattlesnakes to save the lives of 50,000 people" and for some reason there was no other option, I would probably say yes...as long as it wasn't the LAST 100,000 rattlesnakes...then it would be a tough call... Posted by LarryDFishel on December 7, 2002 roundups 50,000 a year from rattlesnake bite?? Most of the people who are bitten now(deaths and survivors) do something they shouldn't, right? I'm sure that fact would carry through with the increase of fatalities. I'm sure some of those bites happen at, and as a result of, the roundups themselves. I'd say no, I wouldn't agree with the roudups for population control. Posted by Shack on December 7, 2002 People ought to stay away from the rattle snakes and they wouldn't be bitten. Snakes dont hunt people, people hunt snakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Posted by levi3 on December 6, 2002 Yep. If 50,000 rattlesnake deaths sprang up in 2003, there would have to have been such an astronomical explosion of rattlesnakes that the carrying capacity of the environment would have been breached many times over. The populations would crash within the year anyway, so roundups in this situation as a short-term solution wouldn't really cause any more damage than the slow starvation of thousands of rattlesnakes. Either way they're dead. Something to think about. Posted by jcostell on December 6, 2002 rattlesnake round ups I may be mistaken but I believe the end result of the round ups is to kill the animals. When I balance that with the proposed 50,000 annual(US)deaths the first thing that comes to my mind is this: (I am gonna use 50,000 for the number of snakes involved just for arguements sake) If there is HABITAT (food, denning area, climate) for 50,000 rattlesnakes in "dangerous proximity" with humans and we remove those animals...more will take their place. This is futility from the perspective of saving lives. Unless you wipe them out entirely or remove the favorable habitat, they will repopulate and more ppl will be bitten and die. So I fail to see how this fixes anything. Infact, I would go so far as to say it would increase snake/human interaction when its time to "round them up" and will get MORE ppl bitten. I also ponder what effect adding 50,000 rattlesnakes worth of skin and meat to the open market each year would have...you do realise that if there is a sudden demand for them the next step is COMMERICAL FARMING. I won't mention education and legally licenced seasons because that appears to have been covered very well by several replys already :) -Michael- Posted by theMAC on December 6, 2002 round ups We keep losing sight of the real problem with roundups-- EDUCATION! Actually, lack of it! People are left with the perception that rattlesnakes are a self-renewing resource that is a constant threat to the lives of humans and animals. In the New World the fear is predicated on the beliefs of Christianity. Cobras bite thousands every year in India yet they are held in reverence and actually protected from being killed. Interestingly, its a religious thing there too. And, we consider India to be a primative country! Posted by unclemanny on December 6, 2002 Not a chance I agree with Buzztail1 that how many snakes there are is not addressed. However, I also agree with Venom that why should something natural be regulated more so than a problem we created ourselves? Keeping the grass cut short and removing hiding places from around the outside of the house makes a lot better sense to me than roundups. Sincerely, Bill Huseth Posted by KingCobraFan on December 6, 2002 Absolutely NOT. 50,000 people...hummmm, sounds like the rattlesnakes are having a "People Roundup". So be it. Otherwise, I would just ditto everything Karl said and add, the snakes were here first....wls Posted by wls967 on December 6, 2002 Hmmm... 50,000 people dying per year does not address how many rattlesnakes there are. I would MAYBE support a licensed hunting period (like the one for white-tailed deer) if studies showed that populations were at extremely large levels. Across the board support roundups? NEVER! Not smart enough to be wary of snakes in the wild? Stay home! Karl Posted by Buzztail1 on December 6, 2002 roundups I totally agree with Venom, cars, alcohol, tabacco and other drugs cause a lot more deaths each year wordwide. When was the last time your governement tried to ban driving cars? Peter Posted by Snakeskin on December 6, 2002 education would still be the key more than that die from cigarettes and car crashes, yet we don't do anything to thin the numbers of those, why should a NATURAL phenomenon be treated more harshly that a problem we created ourselves? Education on coexistance would still be the most prudent course of action. Look at Australia, more venomous snakes than anywhere else on earth and they don't have to resort to roundups. Posted by venom on December 6, 2002 To post a comment, you must be logged in. If you are not a member, become one now!