What months are you going to see Crotalus Horridus the most?

[chad ks]

I just have one question after this wild ride....can anyone point me to some nice timber dens? Photos only, I promise.

Gee, I don't know, Kris. I'd like to help you out, but the first C. atrox den I ever saw was shown to me and a handful of other people in the Sonoran Desert in southern AZ - many years ago I was part of a small group of people who went out with Cecil Schwalbe to collect data on the snakes there - and I heard that the den was hit not long afterward, hypothetically due to the loose lips or possibly even direct hand of one of our group. So, can you AZ folk really be trusted?...

(Disclaimer: Although it was awful that said den was cleaned out and it was made even worse by the fact that it may have happened due to the actions of someone in our group, no one who knew of the incident would ever have argued that the species or even just(!) its AZ population was truly harmed thereby. Reasonable caution = good. Excessive caution = ok. Excessive caution that prompts one to attack others who choose to behave otherwise = not ok. Before anyone succumbs to the temptation to repeat their arguments yet again, take another look at what the original poster to this thread actually asked for - it wasn't directions to the nearest den, nor anything close to that.)

Gerry

Gerry, I for one didn't attack you, you brought Grover Norquist into your post…lol…who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the subject matter. You derailed and then went off about how people shouldn't be secretive, which is wrong. You asked for your treatment, and now you've agreed with me and others. Glad to see that your mind can be changed.

[gbin]

For anyone who might possibly be confused by what stalker chad ks has posted, here's what I actually said previously. Some folks who don't like to read through multi-page threads might benefit from this being reposted, anyway:

Brian, I grew up in southeastern MN not far from C. horridus' range there, my wife is from upstate NY, and I've also lived (among various other places) in northcentral FL and now TX (though I'm also just outside of the species' range here, I think), more or less the four corners of the species' extant range. I've spent considerable time at these places and could even direct you to dens I know of due to my own personal efforts at the northern locations. Moreover, I talk with people, read and think to fill in gaps in my personal experience, just as you do. I'm certainly no expert on the species, no, but I understand well enough what's going on with them. And by the way, I've also lived in and many times since visited AZ, and can readily say that more than any place else it holds my heart (and by no means just because of the herps there).

It's not so much a question of whether an animal is safe, but rather what if any risk comes to it via sharing information (not to mention the most basic information imaginable) about it in an internet forum. I understand that such information sharing is a bad thing from the selfish perspective of not wanting "your" spots sullied by having other people know about and visit them, but I see essentially no reason to believe that it is a bad thing otherwise. There certainly are species/populations/sites under various threats, but internet information sharing is not by any realistic means among those threats. Everything I know from experience and other learning tells me that my perspective on this matter is far more grounded in reality than is your own.

I've been around a fairly long time now, too (I first lived and herped in AZ in the mid-1980s), long enough to have gained at least somewhat of an understanding of the history of the perspective you and various others now hold. Secrecy has always been prized by some, but in demonstrably tangible terms it has always been simply a way for people to try to guard what they consider to be "their" spots. As the number of herpers out there grew, paranoia about their sullying folks' "personal" spots apparently grew accordingly. It wasn't enough anymore to keep one's secrets to oneself - new people keep showing up at these spots, after all, so someone else must be telling them about them! (despite another painfully obvious explanation) - so it became more and more important to not only maintain personal secrecy but to also try to swear everyone else to doing likewise. Now we're to the point where some seem to be pushing a sort of unspoken Grover Norquist-style pledge that ultimately has to be adopted by everyone that all herp hunting information will be jealously guarded. Of course, not everyone is so self-oriented in their herpetological pursuits, so how to persuade them to sign on? Too, lots of us view the personal boardlines that exploded in popularity in CA (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) as nothing more than unsightly, illegal dumps (which they are, when placed without the landowner's/manager's permission), so how to persuade people that they too need to be guarded? Obviously, the purpose has to be redefined as protecting the animals rather than protecting "personal" spots. Every situation has to be framed as "you're either with us, or you're against the animals."

I'm not saying that this was necessarily a conscious thing (though I readily believe that it was in more than a few people). People like to believe that their behavior is guided by higher purposes than things like selfishness, and are naturally expert on rationalizing their own views and actions in order to put them in the most favorable light possible. And other people bought into the "keep it secret to save the animals!" campaign after it was well underway. I understand that there are now plenty of true believers out there, no matter how they started. But I can't help but also understand that it's harmful rather than helpful, and I won't buy into it. Frankly, although I find its selfish basis perfectly understandable, I find the divisiveness that it produces when people get militant about it - as has become increasingly common here at FHF - downright dismaying.

Go ahead and again laugh off what I've said, maybe make another joke about how verbose I am (I certainly deserve that, anyway! ). But I tend to think you're a plenty smart fellow, too, more than smart enough to realize there's considerable truth to what I've said if you'll only stop and actually think things through again. If you prefer to continue seeing things otherwise for whatever reasons then of course that's your prerogative, we can agree to disagree, but I'm asking you again, please stop with the divisive "you're either with us, or you're against the animals" crap. I'm not an enemy to herps, nor is John, nor are the many others that share my view. Stop attacking us as if we were.

In a subsequent post somewhere in the middle of this thread I further posited that the "need for secrecy" might now be looming larger in the minds of some here because of an apparent increase in competitiveness among them; perhaps some of those who tend to view themselves as being at the top of the heap want herp hunting knowledge jealously guarded in the hope of preventing others from gaining ground on them. My views have remained as stated and unchanged throughout this discussion, of course, because what would be required to change them is more than just passion (which I generally admire, though hate to see utterly wasted on foolish things such as selfishness and competitiveness or even just somewhat misspent on biologically insignificant numbers of animals), let alone than dishonest personal attacks and other attempts at cyber-bullying. For the umpteenth time, it's ok with me if some people want to jealously guard their herp hunting knowledge, even to a ridiculous degree (as has become very common here). It's not ok with me, though, if they attack others for not behaving likewise (as has also become very common here). People of genuinely good will should be looking for ways to unite our community, not divide it. My position is really not very difficult to understand if one looks past all of the various attempts by some others to misstate it.

And again and on a related note, folks would be wise to view with a great deal of suspicion whatever one person proclaims about another person in an internet forum; there are unfortunately plenty of people around these days who apparently prioritize "winning" (whatever they think that is) over honesty, after all, and some of them will also readily be quite vicious about it. If you haven't yet been the target of such a miscreant yourself, it seems reasonably likely to me that you eventually will if you're the kind of person who tends to stand up for him/herself or others.

Gerry

[chad ks]

Reasonable caution = good. Excessive caution = ok. Excessive caution that prompts one to attack others who choose to behave otherwise = not ok.
Gerry

It's not so much a question of whether an animal is safe, but rather what if any risk comes to it via sharing information (not to mention the most basic information imaginable) about it in an internet forum. I understand that such information sharing is a bad thing from the selfish perspective of not wanting "your" spots sullied by having other people know about and visit them, but I see essentially no reason to believe that it is a bad thing otherwise. Everything I know from experience and other learning tells me that my perspective on this matter is far more grounded in reality than is your own.

…seems rather contradictory to me, Gerry, to say that its selfish to want to protect your spots, but that (as an extension of this selfishness) it's "good" to show reasonable caution. Furthermore, how about we avoid a semantic discussion of the word "attack" and just agree that neither of these posts are attacks:

I'd be careful with how much info you reveal in this thread...

followed by this:

I second Mike's advice, but nobody pays much attention to that kind of caution...Brendan and I didn't even put that kind of info in our Rattlesnake book...

Yikes, I hope the OP can recover from that attack! So anyway Gerry, you expressed a long winded analysis of your own myopic and naive view of how people ought to be forthright with information regardless of their own experiences suggesting the contrary, then you straw-manned the entire opposition by claiming that "attacks" were made so that you may soften your approach (=crawfish, back peddle what have you) after having been dealt far too much common sense counter argument. I would count both Mike's and Brian's degree of caution as good, and reasonable and certainly not an attack. Would I have mentioned the original cautionary comment? No probably not, but both objections were stated reasonably and passively.

Then, as if writing literature on some deep piece of conspiratorial subterfuge, you said this:

As the number of herpers out there grew, paranoia about their sullying folks' "personal" spots apparently grew accordingly. It wasn't enough anymore to keep one's secrets to oneself - new people keep showing up at these spots, after all, so someone else must be telling them about them! (despite another painfully obvious explanation) - so it became more and more important to not only maintain personal secrecy but to also try to swear everyone else to doing likewise. Now we're to the point where some seem to be pushing a sort of unspoken Grover Norquist-style pledge that ultimately has to be adopted by everyone that all herp hunting information will be jealously guarded. Of course, not everyone is so self-oriented in their herpetological pursuits, so how to persuade them to sign on? Too, lots of us view the personal boardlines that exploded in popularity in CA (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) as nothing more than unsightly, illegal dumps (which they are, when placed without the landowner's/manager's permission), so how to persuade people that they too need to be guarded? Obviously, the purpose has to be redefined as protecting the animals rather than protecting "personal" spots. Every situation has to be framed as "you're either with us, or you're against the animals."

No reason to include that^ other than to show how silly your claims are, and how much thought you put into this silly list of claims. Also, Grover Norquist had nothing to do with anything, and also…for my part, I like the places I've spent time and money to find to be unsullied because of my aesthetic preference ad enjoyment of the purity of the place that I love to visit, it has less to do with the animals and more to do with the fact that in these cases I've earned the right to keep my lips sealed, as well as to suggest to others that they do the same if they wish to enjoy the fruits of the world as I do.


Stalker-out.

[gbin]

As I said above:

... folks would be wise to view with a great deal of suspicion whatever one person proclaims about another person in an internet forum; there are unfortunately plenty of people around these days who apparently prioritize "winning" (whatever they think that is) over honesty, after all, and some of them will also readily be quite vicious about it. If you haven't yet been the target of such a miscreant yourself, it seems reasonably likely to me that you eventually will if you're the kind of person who tends to stand up for him/herself or others.

Anyone who hasn't already been following along in this thread and wants to know how it really went down should look at its first page for themselves rather than relying on snippets that were carefully selected to mislead the unwary.

Gerry

[Aaron]

Hey I just got into this thread! I really don't want to read the whole thing, could somebody just tell me who's winning?

[ugh]

Hey I just got into this thread! I really don't want to read the whole thing, could somebody just tell me who's winning?

Maybe some egos.
Probably not the snakes.

[Phil Peak]

I would hope to think that this discussion is less about egos and more about the conservation needs of TRs. As for myself, I thought it was comforting to see some of the folks that seem to know them well chime in and stress discretion.

I don't necessarily believe that those opposed to this view point are bad people. I just happen to think they are wrong.

Phil

[The Jake-Man]

I have a question for any horridus experts. Are timber rattlesnakes any more likely than other snakes to be stressed to the point of physiological damage than any other snake? Because I have taken a lot of flack for my handling of them in relation to round-ups. Now, I understand that the round-ups I take part in are not perfect, but that's not what I'm asking/discussing here. I just want to know: If you pick up a timber rattlesnake or tube it, is it any different from handling a garter snake? (Aside from the obvious hemotoxicity)

I had asked this question in another thread, but never got a solid answer.

[James1617]

Jake, I think that is a good question. Although you probably don't handle Timbers the way I do because sometimes I don't use a tube and I just use my hands. But is that any different than holding an angry Nerodia by the head so it won't bite you? ( Of course most people would say don't pick it up in the first place) I don't think that snakes would really be that terrified of being held. I am no expert though. I think holding a snake may make it think you are going to kill it BuT if you don't kill it is there real harm done?

[Phil Peak]

I don't know if I qualify to be a TR expert, but I do know a bit about them. My observations have led me to believe that they don't fare well with disturbance as compared to many other snake species.

James,

I wouldn't recommend holding them with your hands. Going through life with a stump at the end of your arm may set you back a tad.

Phil

[Soopaman]

I have a question for any horridus experts. Are timber rattlesnakes any more likely than other snakes to be stressed to the point of physiological damage than any other snake? Because I have taken a lot of flack for my handling of them in relation to round-ups. Now, I understand that the round-ups I take part in are not perfect, but that's not what I'm asking/discussing here. I just want to know: If you pick up a timber rattlesnake or tube it, is it any different from handling a garter snake? (Aside from the obvious hemotoxicity)

I had asked this question in another thread, but never got a solid answer.

There's a general no-touch attitude with a lot of people. It is often felt that any (possible) stress is too much and to avoid it (you should see some of the arguments that start when a hognose faints...).

Without actual laboratory tested data, I don't think there's any conclusive evidence for either argument. Do what you're comfortable with, but realize any attempt to be gentle or treat a snake as you would a human is lost on an animal that behaves only instinctively (versus many mammals). It will either perceive danger or won't, and each individual will react to that perception in its own way, and, in turn, will be affected by stress differently. Without actual literature data to back up a certain stance, your best bet is to use good judgement and treat them in a way you feel is acceptable.

[The Jake-Man]

I know about the general "no touch attitude" but that attitude doesn't exist in the rural areas I catch timbers. A lot of people look at me funny and ask why i dont just Kill them, instead of going to he trouble of relocating a female and her 8 or so neonates from our woodpile. That environment makes it hard for me to identify with this no touch crowd, when pretty much all my life I've been told I can just kill them. Obviously I'm not out there killing rattlesnakes, quite the opposite in fact. But when I'm criticized for handling them I just keep thinking "Why aren't you going after the people that kill these snakes illegally?" I know people who kill them illegally. And trust me, their ignorance and egos pale in comparison to any person on here. In my opinion, these people are a bigger threat to timbers than the poachers. These are the people that think they have to kill any snake they see, just because its a snake. And th PFBC usually doesn't give a hoot about some hillbilly who kills a single rattlesnake in his yard with a shovel to protect his kids or his dog.

[James1617]

I know the risks that come with holding them. I have really progressed though, Next herp season I have decided to hold less. This past summer I was holding every hot snake I saw. Mostly Copperheads and Timbers. I would say if I hold them less I have less of a chance of getting bitten. I think if you try to hold them all the time you will eventually forget to do something or make a mistake and get tagged.

[Kelly Mc]

Crotalus politicus

[Kelly Mc]

I know the risks that come with holding them. I have really progressed though, Next herp season I have decided to hold less. This past summer I was holding every hot snake I saw. Mostly Copperheads and Timbers. I would say if I hold them less I have less of a chance of getting bitten. I think if you try to hold them all the time you will eventually forget to do something or make a mistake and get tagged.

Id say your risks would decrease to almost nil as long as while your doing it you have your A-Team pajama bottoms on.

[James1617]

Yeah I don't think that would help any.

[chad ks]

I have a question for any horridus experts. Are timber rattlesnakes any more likely than other snakes to be stressed to the point of physiological damage than any other snake? Because I have taken a lot of flack for my handling of them in relation to round-ups. Now, I understand that the round-ups I take part in are not perfect, but that's not what I'm asking/discussing here. I just want to know: If you pick up a timber rattlesnake or tube it, is it any different from handling a garter snake? (Aside from the obvious hemotoxicity)

I had asked this question in another thread, but never got a solid answer.

There's a general no-touch attitude with a lot of people. It is often felt that any (possible) stress is too much and to avoid it (you should see some of the arguments that start when a hognose faints...).

Without actual laboratory tested data, I don't think there's any conclusive evidence for either argument. Do what you're comfortable with, but realize any attempt to be gentle or treat a snake as you would a human is lost on an animal that behaves only instinctively (versus many mammals). It will either perceive danger or won't, and each individual will react to that perception in its own way, and, in turn, will be affected by stress differently. Without actual literature data to back up a certain stance, your best bet is to use good judgement and treat them in a way you feel is acceptable.

…it would be unwise to assume that disturbance will NOT affect horridus…when so many people who have seen many of them say otherwise. A responsible risk or cost/benefit assessment will result in taking a hands off approach as much as possible until you know otherwise. No laboratory tested data needed, and besides, how would one go about testing this in a laboratory? Do you need data and literature to tell you how to drive a car? Or how to treat a lady?

[Ridge Walker]

I have a question for any horridus experts. Are timber rattlesnakes any more likely than other snakes to be stressed to the point of physiological damage than any other snake? Because I have taken a lot of flack for my handling of them in relation to round-ups. Now, I understand that the round-ups I take part in are not perfect, but that's not what I'm asking/discussing here. I just want to know: If you pick up a timber rattlesnake or tube it, is it any different from handling a garter snake? (Aside from the obvious hemotoxicity)

I had asked this question in another thread, but never got a solid answer.

I don't know that I'm an expert, but one of the reasons people refrain from messing with gravid females is that disturbance can cause them to abandon their gestation sites. Another reason not to handle them is that there really is no need to. Getting in situ photos of them is pretty easy compared to other snake species. And in my opinion, a nice natural shot beats a posed shot every time.

RW

[gbin]

Scientists have of course studied the stress effects of handling and other direct human disturbances in a wide variety of animals. It's a very active, productive and many of us would say important field, and I've collaborated on a few such studies, myself. The results of these studies often surprise some people, both by finding that some animals appear to take into stride potential stressors that folks thought were worth worrying about and that some other animals exhibit unfortunately more pronounced effects than folks expected them to from seemingly mild potential stressors. It apparently depends a fair bit on the specific species and situation under consideration, and then there is some individual variation operating on top of that.

But if the data isn't yet there for timber rattlers then it isn't there. The best one can do in such a circumstance is try to get guidance from people with actual expertise with the species (such as Phil, in this case), and go with that bearing in mind that such people might be mistaken despite their expertise.

With a dangerously venomous species, that "don't handle them unless there's really a need to do so" advice seems pretty sensible, too.

Gerry

[Jimi]

Re: hot handling - read this again.

Another reason not to handle them is that there really is no need to.

Unless there REALLY IS A NEED, that right there is all you need to know. You're not glossing over the fact that these things can kill you, are you?

And if there really is a need, there are safer and less-safe ways to do it. The pros only use the safer ways. Heard the old saying about old pilots and bold pilots? That we don't see both kinds? The old & the bold thing absolutely 100% no-doubt-about-it holds true with venomous snakes & us folks who appreciate them.

Personal anecdote - over the course of the decades I had a medium-large (30-60) collection of venomous snakes, if I had to manually, literally touch just one of them, just once, in a year, it was not a great year. Because I had failed to manage to not allow a real need to develop. Follow me? Think about it. We don't want to see you on the news with your hand rotting off.

Cheers,
Jimi

[Kelly Mc]

Legends and stories of ethos. The consequences of Wrong. To use one hand for unsound purposes - one may lose it.

But the caliber of posts above like Jimi, are not lost though they may not be heeded by James 1617. With him I think herps are Incidental. Its not the snakes, the Timbers or the Copperheads. If they wernt within his grabby reach it would just be something else. Counting seconds of auto asphixiation with his moms nylons and sharing it on some choking site with other same types. Its not the snakes. It has nothing to do with the snakes. He could care less about them.

F* his hand.

[The Jake-Man]

Do you need data and literature to tell you how to drive a car? Or how to treat a lady?

The reason I am asking for data and literature is because my personal experience in the field seems contradictory to the concept that handling timbers causes them harm. You're telling me to judge for myself what to do, and I have. Others have expressed their opinions, but everyone's opinions are different. That's why I'm asking for research or facts. I go to basically the same core group of about a half dozen dens each year, in the course of 2 or 3 round-ups. All of them have remained healthy. However, I have only been doing this for 4 years. My field experience absolutely pales in comparison to some of the members of this forum. But while I might be new to this, my mentor, my grandfather is not. He has visited the same dens for the last half century. And the snakes are at the dens, year after year, whether or not he disturbs them. This is just my experience, and like I said, I don't have all that much.

but one of the reasons people refrain from messing with gravid females is that disturbance can cause them to abandon their gestation sites.

I don't ever mess with females or small snakes. The only snakes I ever handle are large males, except for one nuisance female and her litter.

Unless there REALLY IS A NEED, that right there is all you need to know. You're not glossing over the fact that these things can kill you, are you?

over the course of the decades I had a medium-large (30-60) collection of venomous snakes

And what is the NEED for a collection of 60 venomous snakes?

If you are doing biological or pharmacological research, or breeding them for profit, I have no problem with that.
But I don't know everybody's past experiences and qualifications. That's the problem with a forum. I only get to see what people post, and make my rebuttal based on that, not the big picture.

Kelly MC- What on earth does auto-asphyxiation have to do with timber rattlesnakes?? You lost me there...

[Jimi]

Ha ha, hey Kelly.

I guess I'm doing like Gerry does (ah, crap!) and talking to anyone who cares to read, not just to the guy asking the question. Kind of like with the secrecy thing here, there's a strong current of finger-wagging I think, around close interaction with venomous. I like to try & encourage those who might be interested, but may be silenced by the overt shunning, to not stay in the shadows. Where they might get hurt. Better to come out, say hi, and learn any way but the real hard way. Who knows, maybe 1617 is sincere. Maybe not. Doesn't matter, really, if someone gets some help. When I was 15 I was pinning big helleri & specks like a complete dumbass. Didn't have the internet and all...luck preceded wisdom. Truly. Luck doesn't hold forever, sometimes not even long enough. There's a guy just made a data request to NAFHA, an academic with some name recognition nowadays...luck abandoned him when he was about 15. Well...I guess he did survive that big helleri bite...barely. Anyway, after making it through that high-school indiscretion he kept his passion alive long enough to stomach all the shit they serve chasing a PhD, and now he's living the dream. I cannot doubt there are some here that will go on to do great things, if they can survive "fledging".

Counting seconds of auto asphixiation with his moms nylons

Thanks for the visual, I really needed that. Nasty. I actually had a very close friend - my best man - with a co-worker, Skip, who was after a few days' missing found at home hanging dead from this...uh...practice. Skip seemed like an alright guy, we all used to have a few beers, go bowling and shoot pool. Skip isn't skipping any more. He's worm food. However - thanks for the segue opportunity:

And what is the NEED for a collection of 60 venomous snakes?

Hey Jake,
There ain't none. Doesn't need to be a need. Like nobody here or anywhere else needs to be alive. We just are alive, until we are not alive. No need to it whatsoever.

Anyway, that wasn't what I was talking about - I said the need to handle them. There can be a need to put your hands on them, if you have decided to temporarily or permanently deprive them of their freedom, or have assumed the responsibility to provide all their physical needs - but usually if you think on it some, there's another way to do whatever you need to do (give injections, remove stuck eye-caps, force-feed, whatever), than to put your hands on them. At least, on their heads. Thus, there is usually no real need to handle them.

Only fools handle venomous snakes more than they need to - it is literally a death-defying activity. Mortals can't really defy death, we can only put it off. Or - we can invite it to have its way with us, by putting our hands on rattlesnakes, or by strangling ourselves while flogging the dolphin, or whatever. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Cheers,
Jimi

[Phil Peak]

I'd personally like to see more invested by the powers that be in TR research. This is a species that is currently in the clutches of a twofold attack. Aside from the usual habitat destruction that all wildlife is subjected to, there is a deep rooted prejudice against snakes in general and the TR specifically by a large segment of the populous which happens to share their habitat. I would like to see educational efforts intensified so that locals may one day view the TR as something to be cherished rather than something fit only for destruction.

We have done educational programs for many years from one end of our state to the other and it is sadly apparant that fear and ignorance is the order of the day when it comes to TRs. With much effort we manage to reach a few, but hatred of these snakes is so deeply ingrained within the local cultures that it is an up hill struggle. This is especially true with the older citizens that are firmly set in their ways. Fortunately many of the younger generation at least appear to be more receptive to tolerance of these magnificent animals.

Phil

[ugh]

I'd personally like to see more invested by the powers that be in TR research.
Phil

For christ’s sake enough with so much 'research' for now how about first some applying what we already know about them? Research has it's place but how about more emphasis on things with an immediate and direct effect on the snakes themselves? You know, nongame wildlife management? Or habitat management? Forestry practices? State by state if not federal protection? These are also things that the common herper can actually have some say in to some degree.

Our understanding of this species is about 100 years ahead of what we actually apply in their habitat in most states; that’s ridiculous.... Besides the wild inconsistency from state to state(even county to county if you want to include wetlands that they also use of course).

And YES to educating the masses, even on the most basic level! The amount of ignorance and misinformation out there is overwhelming about rattlers and other venomous species. Even in positions related to getting laws made that offer protection to the snakes- I see it all over the place.The only publicity they get is bad publicity(another reason NOT to handle them)…. Meanwhile we ‘preach to the choir’ on here .

Even getting listed on a state level or otherwise RAISES PUBLIC AWARENESS and that spreads ‘among the herd’, so it’s really another form of educating in that sense.

[Bryan Hamilton]

Ugh is one the right track. I would add that research needs to be component of any management actions though to assess the effectiveness of that action in meeting the needs of the species.

Regarding handling, there was an interesting talk by Harry Green on skull trauma in preserved venomous snakes. A large percentage of the snakes had broken bones in their skulls probably due to pinning before preservation. These were professional herpetologists that probably didn't think they harming the animals with their handling techniques.

[Phil Peak]

Ugh,

Research leads to sound and effective nongame wildlife conservation strategies. I do share your frustration that more is not done with what we already know however.

Phil

[Jimi]

Research leads to sound and effective nongame wildlife conservation strategies.

It absolutely can do so. It absolutely does not necessarily do so. It has long been the case that management and research, or species management&research and habitat management&research, are woefully disarticulated from each other.

In arguing my funding- and staffing-allocation cases "inside the machine", I often lay out an argument like this:

A useful conceptual model of wildlife-diversity management is, we've basically got 3 kinds of critters:
1) the kinds we just don't hardly understand at all - where do they live, what habitats serve them best, what do they eat, how many babies do they have and how often, etc
2) the kinds we understand well enough that we could save them right now, if only we could muster the will to get organized and get busy and just do it
3) the kinds we still need to know some things to achieve "final victory", but that we know enough to get started now - we can learn what we need to, as we do what we need to

Category 1, to me, is a pure-research kind of critter.
2 is pure management - if you ask me for a nickel to study one of these, I might pull a gun on you. There just isn't enough time or money to fund & staff your pet project.
3 is management and outcomes-monitoring, or management and very applied research.

Does this conceptual model make sense to you all? If so, tell me people, what kind of critter is the timber rattlesnake? Is it a 1, 2, or 3? Surely it depends on exactly where we're talking about...but do we agree it's no longer a "1" anywhere, is it? Most places, I'm thinking it's a "2". Some places I'd concede it's a "3". But spending money on research or monitoring? Then it better be extremely management-relevant. Otherwise, it better be your own money - don't go asking, and don't complain about not getting any.

I do not consider conservation to be something that exists to provide employment or education - it is not a social program or an entitlement. We educate and employ people to solve conservation problems.

The acquisition of information is a crucial step in problem-solving. But it needs to be put to use. In perfect candor - I do not see enough of that in our institution of nongame wildlife management. Instead, I see way too much emphasis on "gathering more data". I've come to see it as displacement behavior. Just the view from here. But I've got a great vantage point. Some others see the same thing, whether they are inside or outside.

Those of you who feel like I do, tell it to your agencies. Make them do something. Offer to help with the outcomes-monitoring, or the applied research, so the agencies can spend a bigger fraction of the limited funds on actual management.

Cheers,
Jimi

[Phil Peak]

Unfortunately, most management practices seem to fall short of protecting key habitats and seem to focus on "no take" or bag limits as a primary conservation solution. My observations lead me to believe that most people are not even aware of this token protection and in fact usually ignore it completely even if they are aware. Humans continue to slaugter TRs indescriminately and at will. They are shot with guns, driven over on roads and generally exterminated by any means possible. Oddly enough, even though TRs may be "protected" from collection, wanton slaughter is not regulated in some states. Its as if no one wants to make a law that legislates the right of a citizen to "protect" themselves. dogs, livestock and family, from the perils of a wild and dangerous animal. We all know this is so much baloney, but this is the reality.

Phil

[Noel Thomas]

I found a total of 4 in southern TN in the months of July - August.

[Jimi]

Unfortunately, most management practices seem to fall short of protecting key habitats and seem to focus on "no take" or bag limits as a primary conservation solution.

More displacement behavior. Same value to conservation outcomes as "more study": little, or none.

25-30 years ago "protecting" rattlesnakes may have been avant-garde and a decent first step (important for evolving managers' attitudes, if nothing else). However, decades of more study - and little else - since then have gotten us what? More massassaugas? More northern timbers? I think people are just inherently vulnerable to "seduction by technique" - I think we hope for magic bullets to come from research. We try to find technical solutions for problems that are not technical. If people hate and kill snakes, passing a law making it illegal to kill snakes isn't going to stop them. Only stopping their hate will stop the killing. There isn't a pill or an app to stop their hate. That takes person-to-person work. Probably on their kids or grandkids.

I think the real requirements to increase survival and recruitment "vital rates" for imperiled horridus populations are 1) to get everyday people to be willing to coexist with rattlesnakes, and 2) super-targeted land acquisition, habitat stewardship, and education & "snake rescue" (from back yards, garages, etc). Basically: abate sources of mortality and increase the supply of limiting factors (prey base, safe basking sites for gravid females, hibernacula, migration pathways, whatever). In the long term (which is another way of saying "better start now") we probably need to figure out how to reintroduce them to suitable, secure places where they've been extirpated. Maybe a state like New York would be the best for that - there are some animals left to work with, but definitely some spots they could be reintroduced. But...I'm just making this crap up - "I think" - and there are local experts on here that surely know better.

So don't accept the displacement behaviors of trivial management actions and frivolous study. Demand better. Learn (by doing) how to be more effective as a stakeholder and a partner and a lobbyist and an educator.

Cheers,
Jimi

[Phil Peak]

Yes, there 's no escaping the fact that there needs to be a shift of mind set within those that come in contact with these snakes. Education at the grassroots level is the only viable option IMO.

Phil

[ugh]

Phil these folks you’re talking about- I guess this is in Kentucky- are ignorant, and they are criminals. Both of those traits can be fixed with education of course, unless you’re just talking about total assholes. I know you interact with local folks face to face. The young people can still learn in more variable setting like a classroom or camp or nature center, etc. But I don’t know of a better way to convert the older, grown folks than just talking to them-especially when you can have a live specimen handy to show them-seeing is believing. Obviously if they knew more about the species they wouldn’t be killing them. I see it all the time, a direct correlation between how much someone knows about the TR, and whether or not they kill ‘em when they see ‘em.

I find an animal for demonstration( if the situation allows it, maybe seeing someone about to run one over, or finding one in their yard,etc.) more effective than me talking till I’m blue in the face, no matter how friendly. Luckily I’ve been in enough different parts of this species range to finally see there are educated woodsmen that appreciate or at least respect this species enough that they don’t kill them on sight. What else can you attribute that to besides a familiarity with the species through education? This in places where there are laws in place protecting the TR, but the citizens have to be classy enough to repsect the law. Some places the majority just doesn’t seem to be so, and I avoid them because they just disgust me too much. I have absolutely no use for those types of people but someone should still try to reach them if they can stand to be in their presence for more than 10 minutes lol.


Jimi, well said, all of it ! I don’t believe I'm the only other person here that gets what you’re typing, I hope not.

More research’ is NOT at all what this species needs-far from it-right now…..If procurement of more habitat isn’t an option, improvement of current habitat is, and it’s a relatively easy solution. It’s a slight tweaking of forestry practices.

There seems to be just way too much assuming that the state agencies where this species occurs are and will properly handle things in the best interest of the snakes. That’s kidding yourselves. And this is by some of what seem to be very knowledgeable folks with considerable experience with the species, C. horridus; this really surprises me. This mass worship of all this ‘research’ here is ubsurd. Folks willing to sit on the sidelines and read about it on this site rather than getting up off their asses and communicating/interacting with THEIR government(remember it’s ‘for the people’?) agencies that may or may not have a clue about how to address these issues affecting species such as the TR. And if someone points out submitting records to this or that database I’ll go the F off! LOL.

It requires more interaction. Verbal, written, and things done in the field as well. Here’s one example of mine, a written and face-to- face interaction that led to a rare herp-related habitat ‘victory’ this year:
http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... 69#p165569

[gbin]

I agree with much that's being said here, of course, and my efforts to persuade Phil to look into applying some of what's already known about timbers in his part of the country via population modeling rather than waiting until more data comes in attests to that. But there are a couple of things that are popping up again in this thread that as a scientist I feel compelled to address:

The difference between pure and applied science isn't how much is known about a subject but rather whether the subject is being studied with some subsequent application in mind. Pure research can be and is conducted in very well-known areas, and applied research can be and is conducted in very poorly known areas.

Pure science is only "frivolous" by definition to those who apparently can't see value in knowledge beyond some or another utilitarian purpose of particular interest to them. (Heck, I've even seen some people declare all science to be "frivolous," "a waste," "utter BS," etc. except that which is specifically meant to aid their particular utilitarian purpose, and theirs alone. Obviously a petroleum engineer, industrial chemist, architect, etc. is going to have a different perspective on usefulness than a wildlife conservationist; is anyone here really going to try to argue that one of these perspectives is right and the others are wrong?) Fortunately, knowledge in and of itself has always been valued by modern humanity - whether someone here can see that value or not - and may it always be so!

It is not the failing of either scientists or their research when managers/conservationists don't apply study results. The primary purpose of the scientist is to conduct quality science, to acquire knowledge in a rigorously defined manner. Wildlife management/conservation might or might not be a secondary purpose, but generally the scientist him/herself is not in a position to directly apply the knowledge s/he obtains even if s/he fervently wishes to do so; that's the job of - yup, you guessed it! - those managers/conservationists.

Following on the above points, it's not only unfair but also pointless to slam scientists or research simply because a study doesn't produce an application one wants to be produced (regardless of the study's actual intent), or hasn't been properly applied where it could be. Talk about displacement behavior!

Gerry

[Phil Peak]

You are correct on both accounts and yes, we also have our fair share of assholes. Make no mistake though, this is not a condition unique to KY. Its all over the internet each year both on this site and others where TRs are needlessly butchered. Hunting and Outdoor message boards seem to be particularly fertile grounds.

I'm also very familiar with the differences between reaching the young as opposed to the adults which are more apt to be set in their ways and reluctant to broaden their sensitivities when it comes to TRs. We have actually reached a small number of folks which are now former TR killers and have come to develop either an appreciation for them or at least a tollerance. Most we can't reach. Some positive change has occured but it is a continuous process of two steps forward, one step back.

The term research covers a lot of territory and I'm not referring to a repetition of what we already know. I'm actually referring to the type of applied research that might lead to better management practices. One example of this is telemetry studies which provides a wealth of information that can lead to more effective conservation strategies. I think we can all agree that research without applied results equates to little.

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion I believe education to be of paramount importance. We have given dozens of formal presentations in our state and regionally, as well as countless impromptu snake conservation talks on the fly while in the field. I agree with the hands on approach you discuss in your post above and as for ourselves, we have a very active and open relationship with our states Fish and Game department which has yielded favorable results.

Phil

[Jimi]

Fantastic, this all sounds great Phil. Unfortunately, when you're working with a lot of people - getting anywhere "is so slow it hurts"! I think that's probably what you're struggling with - the frustration one gets when dealing with people.

Still - it really does sound like you're on the right track. When I was in Florida I did a lot of the same stuff and had the same kinds of experiences you describe - lots of snake talks to groups, almost all with live animals (mostly venomous), and lots of conversations and (fewer) site visits when people had called the office with "snake problems". I relocated quite a few venomous snakes for people, taking advantage of the situation to do a little impromptu education (even though I have zero education training). It felt glacial in its pace, but really, it also felt inexorable. Like, there's NO WAY we're going backwards to "Cracker Nation". (Hillbilly where you're at I guess.) Even if it takes 3 generations. You might only change a few adult killers, but you can stop a lot of young kids from becoming killers. And sometimes the adults who changed become like smokers or drinkers who quit - real Bible-thumpers on the subject. I guess I'm saying - celebrate your victories and don't obsess over your defeats.

As for research - me too, I support anything leading to improved management. You mention telemetry - observational telemetry is alright - sometimes useful, sometimes not, always fascinating - but experimental telemetry can be really powerful stuff. As a TR example - wouldn't it be nice, within a given ecoregion, to know the best age-class distribution of forest stands, and the best patch sizes for those stands, to achieve the goal of maximum TR survival and recruitment? That kind of research can be done, pretty easily on experimental public forests and even easier on private (especially industrial) land. It would be great fun. It could be very useful - forestry is a major land-use across horridus' range. That's all I want - useful.

Cheers,
Jimi

[Phil Peak]

Jimi,

I'm with you on that. Progress is slow and often frustrating. Continuing to see these snakes senselessly killed each year however is sufficient motivation to plow ahead. Fourteen years ago ago myself and several like minded individuals formed the Kentucky Herp Society. This organization has grown steadily over the years and we have delivered our message of conservation to hundreds and perhaps thousands of individuals to date. We run the full gamut from schools, scouts, church groups, universities, other herp societies and just regular old John Q. Public. Some of our members that were kids in the early years have went on to become professionals in the fields of herpetology and conservation. Its comforting to think that we have made a difference, but as you know, there is much more work to be done.

I'm intrigued with all the posibilities that telemetry presents. Along with what you brought up I'm particularly interested in what locations are selected as rookeries and hibernacula.

Phil

[gbin]

... I think we can all agree that research without applied results equates to little.

No, we certainly can't. Although I understand where such a perspective comes from, I can't help but see it as tragically myopic. Fortunately, a great many people in America still share my view.

Gerry

[Jimi]

Along with what you brought up I'm particularly interested in what locations are selected as rookeries and hibernacula.

Me too, Phil, me too. Especially, or I guess in a follow-on thought, how can we make or enhance them? Plenty of rookeries & hibernacula have been physically destroyed, and plenty of others have been depopulated by "organized warfare" (and perhaps occasionally, just by long term casual harassment) against the inhabitants. And perhaps rookeries are shading out - there's probably a discernible (and real...) pattern to that, related to site productivity and also exposure to windstorms and other micro-disturbance agents.

In some places the availability of secure, reliable rookeries & hibernacula is probably a factor limiting the growth of the local TR population. My guess is, it'd be a lot easier to create new, nearby ones to "bud" new populations into (on their own crawl), than to re-establish (out of a sack) populations into distant or isolated depopulated ones. And we may also need to know how to manage the shading around rookeries. That's all just a guess though. But whatever - we probably need to be figuring out all this. So anyway, telemetry is probably a required tool for all of these applied-research strategies.

Looping back to my earlier ideas about applied silviculture - I wonder if there are stand-management techniques that would entice dispersing or traversing snakes toward created and/or enhanced hibernacula and/or rookeries? To increase the odds the snakes spend time in the neighborhood around them (perhaps feeding, digesting, and "cooking babies"), thus they & perhaps their progeny would be more likely to encounter & evaluate those created or enhanced hibernacula & rookeries? I think it's all worth a serious look, if we want to secure the future of TRs.

BTW - anybody wants to use any of these ideas - they're yours, take them! I don't eat or starve by the ebb & flow of my pubs, I don't have to be hypersensitive about protecting "my ideas" until I can harvest a profit from them; I don't need credit. Take them if you can use them.

Before I go - an amusing but relevant anecdote. One of my grad school committee members, Gary White of MARK fame, beat into my head (and everyone else's) - ""Collar and foller" is bullshit - we - you guys - need to do more experiments with telemetry if we're really going to learn anything." Gary's kind of a hardass but I truly love him. What he means of course is that we have much stronger logical inference, much stronger external validity, and will learn much more, much faster - with an experimental rather than with an observational approach. (So if you want to figure out all these management techniques, you might have an easier time in PA than in NH!)

Cheers,
Jimi

[Phil Peak]

Gerry,

I didn't mean this necessarily as a broad based generalization but rather in the context of how research is applied to the conservation of the TR.

Phil

[Phil Peak]

Good thoughts Jimi. Along those same lines, we had two major weather events in recent years that dramatically changed the local landscape. A wind storm followed by an ice storm about five months later. The result was many downed trees and large openings through the forests canopies. This phenomena created lots of opportunities for thermoregulation that previously did not exist.

Phil

[gbin]

Gerry,

I didn't mean this necessarily as a broad based generalization but rather in the context of how research is applied to the conservation of the TR.

Phil

I appreciate you clarifying that, Phil, and in that specific context I'm happy to agree with you. There are plenty of people around (here and elsewhere) who seem to see pure research as "frivolous" or worse, though, so I'm sure you can understand my sensitivity on the subject (despite the fact that most of my own work has been rather applied in nature).

Jimi, that criticism of telemetry studies lacking scientific design is spot on. As has your academic committee member, I've encountered far too many instances of people (and not always students, at that) who think that it's just fine to put a collar on something and then start collecting data, never giving what they're doing any more thought than that. Such an unstructured approach is in some cases better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not nearly what it could be. The only times my wife and I have done that is in the context of very limited pilot studies to work out various essential details before beginning the real work. On that note, a step-wise project design that allows for a limited amount of less-focused work (such as "collar and foller") up front can be very productive.

(And BTW back at you, of all the many scientists I've known in my work and life, I've never known any to profit from publications in the manner you seem to be suggesting except when they've gone to the substantial extra effort to write a book - usually while on a sabbatical taken for that purpose. I know that you're aware of the kind of crap that's spread these days on Fox News et al. and that even appears on these message boards from time to time, about scientists reporting the study results that they do not because those are actually the results of sound scientific work but instead because the scientists are hoping for some kind of unethical payoff, and you should also be aware that comments such as yours can feed directly into people believing that nonsense. We've discussed this kind of thing before. I'd appreciate it if you kept whatever chip you have on your shoulder concerning scientists/scientific work to yourself and didn't pepper these message boards with general expressions of it.)

Gerry

[Jimi]

@gb:

impact factor, tenure

capisce?



out,
Jimi

[gbin]

Jimi,

It's possible to promote wildlife management and conservation without putting down (be it by sidelong swipe or more overt slam) scientists and scientific research.

Understand?

Gerry

[Jimi]

Phil wrote:

I'm intrigued with all the posibilities that telemetry presents. Along with what you brought up I'm particularly interested in what locations are selected as rookeries and hibernacula.

In our subsequent conversation I realized we may have gone into depths & details that could discourage or turn away people who aren't likely to enjoy a chance to do snake telemetry. Which is probably most folks here.

I wouldn't want to do that. Phil's gorgeous "binder full of timbers" (his series of photos of many different individual snakes) brings to mind the contributions anyone here could make, if they put some thought and effort into it. It would take some coordination with a study designer or an ongoing investigation (whether at an agency or an academic institution), but a "mark-recapture" effort using photos to ID unmolested individual snakes could really bolster & complement the information created from a telemetry experiment. Or you could participate in a stand-alone mark-recapture project - no radio work needed.

A guy with a camera & some operating skills, some note-taking skills and some field craft (does this sound like anyone on FHF?!?) can gather info on a lot more animals, over a lot longer time span, than a guy with a radio receiver and a handful or implanted study subjects. (The radio guy obviously enjoys major advantages with his approach too; however, cheap, easy, and convenient are not among them).

On a lighter note, I hope Phil's photos can begin to dispel the common notion that Kentucky has the ugliest timbers! Several of those are pretty sweet. (And yeah, one or two are kinda fugly, ha ha. Every batch has 'em.)

Cheers,
Jimi




Oh yeah. Gerry. Dude, can't you see it's not "science and scientists" that bug me? It's the academician system that has grown up around them, that has insulated them from the broader society they inhabit. The society that becomes increasingly alienated against them. The society that - for now - supports & invests in them lavishly, and that they should repay in service. Many do, but many do not - some reject the very notion - and from what I observe the latter trend might be accelerating (individuals find it hard to buck the system), and it certainly isn't getting better. I think we do our younger or less formally-educated readers a service in airing some hard realities. Really, this is the same argument one could make against the plutocrats who do not want to pony up to do their part in resolving our deep, structural, economic quagmire:
"Don't be a club of arrogant antisocial pricks, the fact is, we're all in this together; like it, deny it, hate it, doesn't really matter, it just IS. So pull your weight and then some, or we can all go down together."
(You know, if I was on a capitalists' forum I'd be saying the same thing, and probably be getting called anti-capitalist for it, a traitor even. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And attacking the messenger doesn't change or silence the message, it just pisses off the sender.)

As far as basic vs applied science - we're not talking about quantum physics here, we're - at least, I am - talking about conservation. An applied discipline. The very mission of NAFHA. Nothing basic about it.

Finally, as for your worries about FHF readers perverting what I say here or anywhere into an iota of support, validation, endorsement, etc for "Foxy Newsie" et al - either 1) you're grossly underestimating many people's comprehension abilities, and/or 2) you're concerning yourself with a few people who are too far gone to reach anyway, and/or 3) you're suffering paranoid delusions. I don't really care which it is. Just get it dealt with, if possible. Until then, see ya, I gotta go dig some pipe trench. Hope it's a nice day where you are - it sure is here!

[chad ks]

Scientists deserve no special consideration or status...because they're susceptible to corruption like any other person. I know a few people who will spin volumes about their experiences as scientists and the corrupt, good ole boy system they had to crawl up just to advance. And let's not even get into sensationalism for the sake of grant procurement. Science as an enterprise, though, deserves lots of love.

[gbin]

You can call what you're doing whatever you like, Jimi, and you can espouse whatever reason for it that you like, too. The fact remains that you're doing no good to wildlife management or conservation by perpetually peppering these message boards with denigrating remarks about science/academics/whatever-you-want-to-call-your-target-at-the-moment. You go on and on (and on) about how you're a productive guy, trying to encourage everyone to be similarly productive on behalf of conservation, but what you're doing in this respect is clearly counterproductive.

Just one small, recent case in point:

BTW - anybody wants to use any of these ideas - they're yours, take them! I don't eat or starve by the ebb & flow of my pubs, I don't have to be hypersensitive about protecting "my ideas" until I can harvest a profit from them; I don't need credit. Take them if you can use them.

If there was any point in saying any of the above (beyond self-aggrandizement, I mean), it was conveyed in the very first sentence:

BTW - anybody wants to use any of these ideas - they're yours, take them!...

Instead of accomplishing anything whatsoever productive, all the remainder did was encourage whomever here is inclined (as you yourself apparently are) to see scientists/academics/what-have-you as Fox News tries to persuade people to see them, and prompt me to pull this discussion off-course to deal with your latest gratuitous slam.

Whatever you're "bugged" about, I strongly suggest that you try venting to your significant other, therapist or neighborhood bartender about it and stop dumping crap here on people and a profession you should be trying to work with rather than alienate.

Gerry

[ugh]

Jimi , what I’m seeing here is, you’re being challenged about, or asked to justify why you would prefer to see science applied in ways more immediately and directly beneficial to the animals themselves. Yes, the animals that some of these folks here make or have made their living off of….Unbelieveable. At what point is that nothing more than exploitation?

Just wanted to point that out before your head implodes lol. You may want to consider at some point you’re perhaps wasting your time with some here.

And Gerry- can we at least agree the snakes probably don’t care who’s to blame, who’s right, who’s wrong, etc while we sit here and debate it…?

[gbin]

Jimi , what I’m seeing here is, you’re being challenged about, or asked to justify why you would prefer to see science applied in ways more immediately and directly beneficial to the animals themselves...

Hardly. If Jimi prefers applied research over - even thinks its vastly more important than - pure research then that's his prerogative. There are plenty of people around who promote applied over pure research (in the service of wildlife management/conservation or whatever) without slamming research that doesn't match their desires, or slamming scientists when applied research isn't being used (by wildlife managers/conservationists or whatever) per their desires.

Indeed, most of us manage to learn at some point in childhood that it's not necessary to put other people/things down in order to try to elevate the people/things we prefer. Certainly those of us who genuinely care about being productive should at the very least learn that lesson in adulthood when the people/things we're inclined to put down (for whatever reason) could in fact be allies in our efforts.

Gerry

[Phil Peak]

There does seem to be a high degree of interest in TR conservation among herpers in general. Does anyone know if there is a national organization that focuses on this species?

Phil