Ethics question about copperheads.

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
MuayThaipan
Posts: 118
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 6:20 pm
Location: Hazard,Ky

Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by MuayThaipan »

This time of year the copperhead surge begins. I have to take a lot of them away from people's homes. The question then becomes "what the hell do I do with them now?". I know the studies about the survival rates of relocated snakes are dismal. But what do you do? I've had years where there have been tons of coppers in my snake room because I don't know what to do with them and I don't want them to die. It is even worse when you have to remove a gravid female. If you release her does she survive long enough to give birth? Do the neonates make it if she does give birth? Or are they doomed? What's the best thing to do with these "nuisance" snakes?
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by gbin »

You can always try to persuade the people to let the snake be released on their property only a relatively short distance from their home, explaining that 1) a snake is likely less prone to return to the actual spot (right by the home) where it was disturbed, so they probably won't be seeing that snake again no matter where it's released, and 2) you can remove the snake they found and called you about, but it's a virtual certainty that others they've never seen are still present and always will be - what's really needed is for them to learn to live with the snakes in their environment, or to move elsewhere. I would never cater to someone's illusion that their property can be made snake-free.

When such reason fails, as I'm sure it does the great majority of the time :? , I'd let the people think I was going to release that particular snake far away if that's the only thing that would keep them from falling into hysterics, and then I'd release it into cover just as close to their property as I could while still being out of their sight.

Gerry
User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by azatrox »

I can't speak directly to coppers, but I know that with rattlesnakes so long as the animals are released within a mile of where they were captured then they'll survive fine....Most relocation studies deal with relocatiing animals over distances much larger than a mile, and the survival rates are predictably slim....

As far as your situation, I'd release the rescued animals within a mile from where they were rescued...in cases where no suitable habitat exists or doing so would mean dumping the animal in another person's yard, then that animal likely would not be a good candidate for re-release.

I've found (at least here in Arizona) that the vast majority of rescued snakes can be rescued and released with no issues. They go on to live and do what snakes do afterward, and the homeowner is happy because the snake is gone.

Incidentally, often the snake will not return to the site of capture for some time.

-Kris
User avatar
Mulebrother
Posts: 364
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:31 am
Location: A bunker near Mountainburg AR

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Mulebrother »

Guess it depends on how things are set up..but on about 99% of snake removals I've done, I come take the snake and thank them for not killing it, drive out their driveway waving, then dump the snake out in the nearest appropriate habitat when I'm out of site. So far, I've never been called to remove the same snake...and they are none the wiser. I live in a rural area where this is usually pretty easy, but you guys that do removals 'in town' might not have an option like that.
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by chris_mcmartin »

I have a slightly different opinion, perhaps colored by my urban-snake-removal experiences. I did capture the snakes alive, but relocated them outside city limits (or in more sprawling suburbia), because anywhere within a mile radius was still lots of houses and the snake would probably meet the end of a shovel. For every snake I moved, there were probably a dozen more who met that fate.

I understand that relocated snakes generally don't fare well. However, the fact that the "scared citizenry" called for live capture vs. just killing them outright should be chalked up in the "win" column; at least it's a small victory. A snake wandering around that ends up eaten by a hawk or other predator is still more beneficial in the grand scheme of things than one hacked to death by a shovel, often in the presence of cheering onlookers and posted to Facebook to receive more adulation, and then thrown in a trash can.
User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by azatrox »

Chris,

Valid points sir.

I have a good friend that runs a snake rescue/removal business here in the Phoenix area, and through his experiences (and my own), most people that request removal don't want the snakes killed per se...they just want them gone. That said, quite a few won't hesitate to pick up a shovel and handle "removal" themselves....A few weeks ago, he got a call to remove a gila monster from a guy's yard, only to find a dead gila in the front yard when he arrived because the guy "had to go somewhere and couldn't wait around."

Again, many snakes survive just fine if relocated within a mile from where they were rescued...I've personally seen previously relocated snakes livin' life just fine in local washes and such, months and years after initial rescue. So while I don't doubt that some meet a dubious end even when rescued, I know at least a fair number get along just fine so long as they are relocated within their home ranges.

-Kris
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by gbin »

I understand your perspective, Chris, but my view is somewhat different. Where snakes are still able to exist in relatively urban settings, the way I see it we really need them there even if they sometimes/often meet their end at the end of a homeowner's shovel.

When asked why my wife became a wildlife biologist, she invariably tells a story from when she was a small child and her mother took the trouble to fetch her from her nap and take her outside to show her (from a safe distance) the snake that was in the yard; it's the first wild animal encounter my wife can remember, and it apparently made quite a lasting impression on her. There's a whole spectrum of people out there encountering these creatures in their daily lives, and my wife's mother (a math teacher, not a biologist) happened to be one of those on the more benign end of that spectrum. That snake might have been killed by the next neighbor over later that same afternoon, for all we know, but it certainly served a very useful purpose in the meantime.

Feeding a hawk is a worthy end, indeed, but to my thinking it's more important to have lived well than died well.

Gerry
User avatar
umop apisdn
Posts: 395
Joined: June 13th, 2010, 6:06 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by umop apisdn »

I don't often lay claim to this in public circles, as the study was not published, but I worked on a project for translocated snakes (not copperheads), after which I simply don't understand how or why so many people suggest that snakes cannot be relocated. Nothing I saw suggested a death sentence for the translocated animals (all either adults or subadults). Sure, there were effects on the animals such as increased home range size, but that was the extent to which I would relate any changes in the animals' normal way of doing things. Translocated males bred with native females, and I would suspect translocated females were courted by native males (though it was not observed). Snakes fed. Snakes grew. Snakes showed signs that I would say showed site fidelity. If the project would have been funded longer, I strongly believe we would have seen home ranges reduce in size after the first few years. Not all snakes survived. Complications arose from the telemetry itself. A snake was run over. Ultimately, the funding was pulled. But I never got the doomed snake impression everyone implies with regards to translocated snakes.

A close friend whose mark-recapture project I helped with would occasionally involve translocating a snake known from a particular area. Those relocated snakes were most often recaptured in the area they were relocated to, not back in their place of origin. They did not show signs of decline in health. Though, the sample size was very few and the species varied, and ultimately it was just preliminary testing to see what would happen...individual fates were not monitored. It was all a matter of recovering a snake that had been moved from some other place days/weeks/months/years/however long after relocation since it had last been seen.

None of this is to say that no translocated snake suffers as a result of translocation. I feel certain long-lived snakes have a certain degree of learning a familiar landscape and sticking to it (for the most part). Short-lived snakes don't really benefit from such a thing, though I use the term short-lived rather naively, since I think we might write off species as short-lived that actually have lives spanning a decade or more, in which case there are obvious benefits to knowing the landscape.

The biggest ethical issue with translocating snakes comes specifically to liability and venomous species. There are those of us that know just because you move a copperhead to some wooded neighborhood doesn't mean it's going to bee-line it for the nearest toddler, puppy, or homeowner to begrudgingly bite for being moved, but you sure as hell can't convince non-snake-lovers of that, or deny them their right to blast any wildlife they don't like seeing. It's not just the question of ethics. It's the question of public health and liability. You simply can't go dumping copperheads wherever you feel like it. You might even need special permitting to move wildlife whatsoever (know your local laws). If you move copperheads (or anything "dangerous"), you should do so within the appropriate laws (whether you agree with them or not, otherwise risk the consequences) and it's your responsibility to know which laws affect you. But let's just say you do everything by the book. Someone in the neighborhood is bitten by a copperhead. Word gets around that you've been shuffling snakes around there. You better believe you're gonna come under fire, regardless of whether any accusations made against you have any substance.

I simply refuse to relocate wildlife anymore, not that I ever did it in any real capacity. If neighbors call me in for a snake, I'll come by, look at it, and cover information regarding whatever it is to the property owner. Take it beyond that god-awful "but snakes eat mice, you don't want to be overrun with mice" rhetoric (because a friggin two year old can regurgitate that). Don't bump heads and don't be an "insert profanity here" while someone is asking for your help. But don't simply be someone who shuffles around wildlife at the bidding of neighbors. Show them your ten fingers and ten toes (at least for most of you, I guess) that proves that you can not only have wildlife around, but actively search for it, find it, and be safe. Convince them a copperhead in the yard isn't the end of the world. It carries the potential for being a valuable learning experience. But when people can have something they know little to nothing about carted away by someone who doesn't ask for a penny, all they think they've got is the guy who they can call to make the trouble his own.
jimoo742
Posts: 546
Joined: November 4th, 2010, 3:43 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by jimoo742 »

.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by gbin »

umop apisdn wrote:... the study was not published...
Do you mind if I ask why not? I know we've yet lots to learn about the translocation of all kinds of organisms, and what we've learned so far indicates that there's considerable variation among species in how they handle it. (I've never worked in this field myself, but my wife has a particular interest in both natural dispersal and translocation, and a good bit of it has rubbed off on me.) Your study sounds like it would make a very worthy contribution to the field!

I like your approach to dealing with folks who want wildlife removal, too. All I'd add is that one shouldn't be so nice to these people that one allows them to cling to their illusion that their property can somehow safely be made snake-free. They need to face the fact that their real choice is to learn to live with the snakes or move someplace where the snakes aren't.

Gerry
User avatar
umop apisdn
Posts: 395
Joined: June 13th, 2010, 6:06 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by umop apisdn »

Well, first and foremost, the study was not mine, I just worked on it. So I feel I do not have the authority to discuss it anymore than I already have, which was simply my perspective as the one tracking the animals. One detail I can offer as to why it might not have been published could simply boil down to sample size, which I admit also limits the reaches of any claim I made.

And yes, I agree that allowing people to foster the notion of a sterile property isn't healthy. As much as I am a proponent of wildlife-friendly yards, it's arguably within any person's right to do their best to make it so. Something I always like to reiterate to people is "you're in the copperhead's back yard every bit as much as it is in your back yard." But I'll review the options with someone to remove anything that might attract snakes before simply hauling it off.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by hellihooks »

umop apisdn wrote:
The biggest ethical issue with translocating snakes comes specifically to liability and venomous species. There are those of us that know just because you move a copperhead to some wooded neighborhood doesn't mean it's going to bee-line it for the nearest toddler, puppy, or homeowner to begrudgingly bite for being moved, but you sure as hell can't convince non-snake-lovers of that, or deny them their right to blast any wildlife they don't like seeing. It's not just the question of ethics. It's the question of public health and liability. You simply can't go dumping copperheads wherever you feel like it. You might even need special permitting to move wildlife whatsoever (know your local laws). If you move copperheads (or anything "dangerous"), you should do so within the appropriate laws (whether you agree with them or not, otherwise risk the consequences) and it's your responsibility to know which laws affect you. But let's just say you do everything by the book. Someone in the neighborhood is bitten by a copperhead. Word gets around that you've been shuffling snakes around there. You better believe you're gonna come under fire, regardless of whether any accusations made against you have any substance.
1st of all... really liked your reply, overall. I would however contend that what you identify as the main ethical issue (specific liabilities concerning hots) is a legal outgrowth of the true 'ethical' issue... the dichotomy between one's ideals of 'personal honesty' and the more Utilitarian ideal of producing the most benefit for all involved, including the snake.
The trick is to figure out how much 'honesty' the homeowner can handle... are they just nervous about having a snake on their property, and possibly open to (ideally) learning to live with herps, or a nearby relocation, given the snake is not likely to return? Or... are they so phobic about snakes that they'll have no piece of mind knowing the snake is anywhere within a mile of them? :roll: Therein lies the rub... do you sacrifice 'honesty' to the homeowner, for the sake of the snake... or be completely honest thereby risking a poor outcome for the snake? And... as you say... if you tell the homeowner one thing, and do another... you risk legal liabilities, especially if you were paid to remove the snake.
I'm lucky... I have a plan B in place, that allows me to maintain my personal standards regarding honesty, in that if a homeowner absolutely wants a crote hell'n'gone... I can keep the crote for use in a Rattlesnake Avoidance Training Business.
My advice is to try and set up a 'plan B' (Ed programs, Avoidance Training Businesses,ect) that allows you to be as honest as possible... but other than that... each person must decide for themselves where their 'bright dividing lines' lay, regarding personal honesty vs overall positive utility obtained.
THAT... is the true 'Ethical' issue... ;) jim
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by gbin »

umop apisdn wrote:Well, first and foremost, the study was not mine, I just worked on it. So I feel I do not have the authority to discuss it anymore than I already have, which was simply my perspective as the one tracking the animals. One detail I can offer as to why it might not have been published could simply boil down to sample size, which I admit also limits the reaches of any claim I made.
Understood. I hope the PI gets a chance to continue working on it.
umop apisdn wrote:...it's arguably within any person's right to do their best to make [their property sterile]...
Legally, yes, within at least some limits. But there's no way I would ever help someone try to do so. That's not to say that I wouldn't advise them they'd have fewer unwanted animal encounters if they moved their woodpile away from the house, etc.

I like the line about folks being "in the copperhead's back yard every bit as much as it is in your back yard," too, and will likely use it hereafter. Thanks!

Gerry
Kfen
Posts: 413
Joined: June 17th, 2010, 5:51 am
Location: CT

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Kfen »

Umop apisdn- can you provide any more details like what species you tracked, or what state it was in, or even region i.e northeast, southeast etc?
User avatar
Dan Krull
Posts: 846
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:05 pm
Location: Kansas
Contact:

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Dan Krull »

If you know of a place where copperheads den... where you have easy access to a hibernaculum entrance, you can hold the snakes in captivity for the summer, cool them down in fall, and then release them into the den when surface temps are sufficiently low as to prevent the snake from leaving the den. In the spring, they will emerge and if all goes well, the "reset" button will be hit, and they will hang in there. I've tried this with pretty good success. Better than the shovel anyway. :)

Dan
User avatar
Carl Brune
Posts: 488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:22 am
Location: Athens, OH
Contact:

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Carl Brune »

When considering how far to relocate, I think one question you have to ask is how stable is the level of development in the area? If it's a new development, and more is likely on the way, then most populations of most species are doomed at the locality regardless of what you do. However, if the level of disturbance/development is stable, you need to think in terms of dynamic equilibrium. Sure, some people will intentionally kill some animals, and some will get run over. But if the animals persist over time, then they are managing to get by, inspite of the increased mortality. To remove an animal from such a population is then just as bad as killing it...
User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 2291
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:13 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Chris Smith »

I recommend against relocating wildlife. If you getting problem animal calls, try to solve the problem(s) that bring the snakes near people. Here is a link with basic info:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_w ... rring.html

Moving wildlife is risky business. Generally, the benefit of moving 1-2 (or even a handful) animals isn't worth risking an entire population (1-mile is a pretty large distance for a snake - likely outside of the snakes home range). Moving the snake outside of its home range, whether 1-mile or 10, has been shown to significantly reduce survivorship (though there are many factors that contribute to this).

In addition, the legality of releasing wildlife is another consideration. Most lands owned by governments (city, county, state, feds, etc.) prohibit releasing wildlife of their properties without special permission / permits.

-Chris

P.s. I know if feels good to help, but try to remember, "If you care, leave it there".
User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 2291
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:13 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Chris Smith »

Just a few....


Cheyne S. 2006. Wildlife reintroduction: considerations of habitat quality at the release site. BMC ecology 6: 5.

Cunningham AA. 1996. Disease risks of wildlife translocations. Conservation Biology 10: 349-353.

Deem SL, Karesh WB, Weisman W. 2001. Putting theory into practice: wildlife health in conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 1224-1233.

GERMANO JM, BISHOP PJ. 2009. Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Conservation Biology 23: 7-15.

Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C. 1993. Animal translocations and potential disease transmission. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine: 231-236.

Haebler R. 1992. Disease risk to wildlife following reintroduction.

Hartup BK. 1996. Rehabilitation of native reptiles and amphibians in DuPage County, Illinois. Journal of wildlife diseases 32: 109.

Kirkwood J, Best R. 1998. Treatment and rehabilitation of wildlife casualties: legal and ethical aspects. In Practice 20: 214.

Molony SE, Dowding CV, Baker PJ, Cuthill IC, Harris S. 2006. The effect of translocation and temporary captivity on wildlife rehabilitation success: an experimental study using European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Biological Conservation 130: 530-537.

Moore M, Early G, Touhey K, Barco S, Gulland F, Wells R. 2007. Rehabilitation and release of marine mammals in the United States: risks and benefits. Marine Mammal Science 23: 731-750.

Pullin AS, Knight TM. 2009. Doing more good than harm-building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biological Conservation 142: 931-934.

Serfass TL, Whary MT, Peper RL, Brooks RP, Swimley TJ, Lawrence WR, Rupprecht CE. 1995. Rabies in a river otter (Lutra canadensis) intended for reintroduction. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine: 311-314.

Skerratt LF, Berger L, Speare R, Cashins S, McDonald KR, Phillott AD, Hines HB, Kenyon N. 2007. Spread of chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. EcoHealth 4: 125-134.

Sleeman JM, Clark Jr EE. 2003. Clinical wildlife medicine: a new paradigm for a new century. Journal of avian medicine and surgery 17: 33-37.

Smith WA, Mazet JAK, Hirsh DC. 2002. Salmonella in California wildlife species: prevalence in rehabilitation centers and characterization of isolates. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 33: 228-235.

Woodford M, Rossiter P. 1993. Disease risks associated with wildlife translocation projects. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 12: 115.

Woodford MH. 1993. International disease implications for wildlife translocation. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine: 265-270.

Woodford MH. 2000. Quarantine and health screening protocols for wildlife prior to translocation and release into the wild. Other Publications in Zoonotics and Wildlife Disease: 32.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by gbin »

Chris Smith wrote:Just a few....
John Vanek wrote:Don't forget...
You guys are awesome! :thumb:

Gerry
Kfen
Posts: 413
Joined: June 17th, 2010, 5:51 am
Location: CT

Re: Ethics question about copperheads.

Post by Kfen »

I hope people can take the advice of the papers listed above and use it not only for not relocating "nuisance wildlife", but also not relocate animals for the sake of taking pictures. I have seen and heard of way too many people taking animals for pics, and then releasing them in any old "suitable habitat".
Post Reply