Forget those flying ants--worried now about rattlesnakes! (elementary school, living)

[AlisonL]

Okay, lets leave the rattlers alone and then when one should bite my grandson and I rush him to the hospital....this is what I will tell the dr.....

"I was told to leave them be, so charge me with child abuse, because I knowingly allowed a rattlesnake to bit my grandson." Geez.

Its not like any one of us is out hunting down these creatures, we are just trying to be protective of our loved ones. I don't see that as a crime.

Maybe you should go to the Everglades and stop the killing of the Burmese Pythons that are running wild there.

[tecpatl]

*Sigh...* Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mike Horrell]

Originally Posted by tecpatl

*Sigh...* Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A device you have used many times, yourself...

[AlisonL]

Originally Posted by tecpatl

*Sigh...* Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wut Evah!!

[ABQConvict]

Originally Posted by AlisonL

Maybe you should go to the Everglades and stop the killing of the Burmese Pythons that are running wild there.

Burmese Pythons are from South Asia and thus should be entirely eradicated from the Everglades. Shoot, I'll even help.

If you are afraid rattlesnakes are going to kill you and your family, why stop there. There are tons of deadly threats that are way more common than rattlesnakes.

More children are killed by loose dogs in our state than poisonous snakes. Shoot all loose dogs. Drunk drivers are deadly,too. Any time you see someone swerving on the road, just pull up along side them and shoot them.

I say just walk around with a gun ready to dispatch any threat. Of course people walking around with guns are often deadly so expect a lot of incoming fire in case people don't realize that you are just out shooting snakes and dogs and rabid jackrabbits, etc.

I used to work with a herpetologist at UNM. We would go out collecting rattlesnakes. They can be hard to find. When you do find them, they are pretty easy to get into a pillow case with a 4-foot stick with a hook on the end. Out of the dozens of rattlers we collected, neither of us even came close to being bitten.

This doesn't mean I suggest that you collect them yourself, every county in the state has an office that will deal with "problem" snakes on your property. But I am suggesting that hysterical snake shooting is overkill especially in light of the real dangers that we take for granted, like driving on the highway.


ABQConvict

[tecpatl]

You'd need to start shooting idiots driving while yakking on their cell phones too. Tests show their reaction time is as bad as drunk drivers, thus they're piloting their multi-ton high speed projectiles right at ya!

Actually, after reading the conclusions of the report below, it looks like we should be shooting horses in New Mexico instead of snakes. Certainly children should never be allowed near a horse, it seems, in order to protect them.
It's very hard to believe that someone who would kill a snake for safetys sake of the family would willingly place a kid in (factually) far greater danger by allowing them on the back of a horse...... or is it?
As I've said before, we choose our perils, but very often NOT in any rational way. I'm not sure why that truth makes so many people defensive or upset. The mystery and wonder of human nature, I guess.
See below. No imaginary scenarios or exaggerated fears. Just facts.

<H5>Animal-Caused Fatalities in New Mexico, 1993–2004

</H5>Sarah L. LathropDVM, PhD
From the Office of the Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM


102Corresponding author: Sarah L. Lathrop, DVM, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pathology, Office of the Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC11 6030, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001 (slathrop@salud.unm.edu)

Abstract

Objective.—To evaluate animal-caused fatalities in New Mexico using data collected during medicolegal death investigations, including toxicology, survival interval, and circumstances.
Methods.—A retrospective review of the computerized database and hard copies of files from a centralized, statewide medical examiner's office, excluding deaths due to zoonotic diseases and motor vehicle collisions involving animals.
Results.—Between 1993 and 2004, 63 deaths caused by animals were reported in New Mexico. The majority of decedents were male (46/63, 73%) and non-Hispanic white (33/63, 52%). Horses were the most commonly implicated animals, with 43 (68%) deaths due to a person being thrown from, crushed, dragged, or kicked by a horse. Cattle caused 9 deaths (14%), dogs caused 3 (5%), and venomous animals caused 3, whereas a bear was responsible for 1 death. Ten decedents (16%) had alcohol present at the time of death, and 8 would have been over the legal blood alcohol concentration for driving (0.08%). Ten deaths (16%) were work-related and included deaths of jockeys and ranch workers. The majority of deaths (42/63, 67%) occurred in remote locations, potentially delaying access to treatment. Survival intervals ranged from 1 day to 33 years.
Conclusions.—Whereas both human and animal behavior can be difficult to predict, a review of animal-caused fatalities investigated by a medical examiner revealed that in many cases, deaths could have been prevented by either the use of protective gear or alterations in human behavior.

[RamblinRoseRanch]

Oh Lord. Use the internet, CERTAINLY not your own experience to justify danged near everything. PLEASE don't take into account that there are far more horse/human encounters than there are human/reptiles, as we as humans willingly seek them out. How about how many deaths from choking per year? Danged dangerous grapes and cheese cubes!

Science is only as good as the data collected at the time the hypothesis is made. And just because it's published that doesn't mean it's the be all, end all. After all, the Enquirer and Star are published, are they not?

[desert sun]

Originally Posted by tecpatl

You'd need to start shooting idiots driving while yakking on their cell phones too. Tests show their reaction time is as bad as drunk drivers, thus they're piloting their multi-ton high speed projectiles right at ya!

Actually, after reading the conclusions of the report below, it looks like we should be shooting horses in New Mexico instead of snakes. Certainly children should never be allowed near a horse, it seems, in order to protect them.
It's very hard to believe that someone who would kill a snake for safetys sake of the family would willingly place a kid in (factually) far greater danger by allowing them on the back of a horse...... or is it?
As I've said before, we choose our perils, but very often NOT in any rational way. I'm not sure why that truth makes so many people defensive or upset. The mystery and wonder of human nature, I guess.
See below. No imaginary scenarios or exaggerated fears. Just facts.

<H5>Animal-Caused Fatalities in New Mexico, 1993–2004

</H5>Sarah L. LathropDVM, PhD
From the Office of the Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM


102Corresponding author: Sarah L. Lathrop, DVM, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pathology, Office of the Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC11 6030, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001 (slathrop@salud.unm.edu)

Abstract

Objective.—To evaluate animal-caused fatalities in New Mexico using data collected during medicolegal death investigations, including toxicology, survival interval, and circumstances.
Methods.—A retrospective review of the computerized database and hard copies of files from a centralized, statewide medical examiner's office, excluding deaths due to zoonotic diseases and motor vehicle collisions involving animals.
Results.—Between 1993 and 2004, 63 deaths caused by animals were reported in New Mexico. The majority of decedents were male (46/63, 73%) and non-Hispanic white (33/63, 52%). Horses were the most commonly implicated animals, with 43 (68%) deaths due to a person being thrown from, crushed, dragged, or kicked by a horse. Cattle caused 9 deaths (14%), dogs caused 3 (5%), and venomous animals caused 3, whereas a bear was responsible for 1 death. Ten decedents (16%) had alcohol present at the time of death, and 8 would have been over the legal blood alcohol concentration for driving (0.08%). Ten deaths (16%) were work-related and included deaths of jockeys and ranch workers. The majority of deaths (42/63, 67%) occurred in remote locations, potentially delaying access to treatment. Survival intervals ranged from 1 day to 33 years.
Conclusions.—Whereas both human and animal behavior can be difficult to predict, a review of animal-caused fatalities investigated by a medical examiner revealed that in many cases, deaths could have been prevented by either the use of protective gear or alterations in human behavior.

I have the solution to all your worries, lets just avoid humans all together cause humans have been known to kill humans, everyday in every state and country it happens, so we should just lock ourselves in the house and never come out.

Moderator cut: Please use Direct Messaging to contact Moderators

[tecpatl]

Originally Posted by RamblinRoseRanch

Oh Lord. Use the internet, CERTAINLY not your own experience to justify danged near everything. PLEASE don't take into account that there are far more horse/human encounters than there are human/reptiles, as we as humans willingly seek them out. How about how many deaths from choking per year? Danged dangerous grapes and cheese cubes!

Science is only as good as the data collected at the time the hypothesis is made. And just because it's published that doesn't mean it's the be all, end all. After all, the Enquirer and Star are published, are they not?

Like I said, RRR, we choose our perils.
While I'm inclined to agree with your guess about numbers of human/animal interactions being greater with horses, a major difference is this. Humans seek out horses, and the horses are confined or otherwise made available to the humans. Nobody walks within 2 feet of a horse without knowing there is a large, beautiful (and potentially dangerous) animal nearby.
The same certainly can't be said of rattlesnakes. Earlier in this thread a few people commented on their encounters with snakes, usually fatal for the snake, as if these encounters were the only time a rattlesnake had been nearby. Snakes don't WANT to encounter humans and are camouflaged, so they're mostly invisible to us. Most people don't even know they've been near a rattlesnake, but almost anyone who has ever gone for a walk HAS been near one, sometimes very near. They don't just go rattling all the time, only when they feel directly threatened or annoyed, so it's pretty much impossible to quantify encounters when nobody knows they've had one.
Few people jump on a horse without some training, practice, skill, experience, however you choose to define it. One would think this would greatly diminish the danger. Yet the figures still indicate a level of mortality over a ten year period that would cause the public and Gov't. to cry out for the banning or outlawing of a sport, a recreational drug, a particular type vehicle, whatever, if the same mortality was a result.
I'm not anti-horse any more than I'm anti-snake. I admire and appreciate both for what they are, yet I've eaten both and they were delicious. I just use the study to illustrate my point. We choose to face dangers every day, and accept far greater risks than rattlesnakes without so much as a whimper, much less gunfire.
To compare the analysis of ten years of carefully collected data by a professional (Asst. Professor of Pathology) working for the Office of Medical Investigation, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center with the National Enquirer really reflects poorly on your point. Does anyone seriously compare the work of trained scientists to supermarket gossip rags, simply because both appear on paper? Only when that work provides some irrefutable, unpleasant, I'd-rather-not-know facts, it seems.
Hyperbole (and straw-man) arguments work better in person, but they seem silly when read on a computer monitor, and make your otherwise very reasonable argument seem similarly so. Your point was a good one, leave it at that...You've no reason to step on your own toes.

[mike b 1]

Jeez, the damm things can Kill or injure me and my loved ones, I kill them and make the world a safer place. And don't give me a lecture about importance of snakes...Has anyone seen a limb that has been bitten by a rattlesnake ? Pretty gross, dead, dying tissue and skin split wide open from the intense pressure... They also bite and kill many dogs and it's not a 'pretty death'. I wish people would discard this phony spiritualism and "the animals were here before us" attitude and use a little common sense...