Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
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.
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?
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
Last edited by Poncho_NM; 07-25-2009 at 07:58 AM..
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.
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...
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
Geez, what a bunch of BS. I used to value your opinion, but not any more.
I am not hysterical. You need to realize I moved here from a state with NO venomous snakes, so this is all new to me.
Its times like this I wish to heck I'd never left Maine.
Geez, what a bunch of BS. I used to value your opinion, but not any more.
Gee. I'm sorry you feel that way based on a difference in opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlisonL
I am not hysterical. You need to realize I moved here from a state with NO venomous snakes, so this is all new to me.
I didn't really think you were being hysterical, maybe a little bit over-reactive... I grew up around venomous snakes in New York. In elementary school they used to show us what copperheads and eastern diamondbacks looked like so we could avoid them in the schoolyard. Poisonous snakes are actually found in much higher concentrations and closer to human populations in the NYC suburbs than they are out here in New Mexico.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlisonL
Its times like this I wish to heck I'd never left Maine.
Come on. Now don't say that. Just because I like to shoot my mouth off on the internet is no reason to feel unwelcome in New Mexico.
This will probably sound kind of boring, but...there's got to be a middle ground here. As the parent of a toddler, I can totally understand the reaction of another parent, esp. a mom, to protect their child. I wouldn't hesitate to kill a venomous snake if I thought my daughter was in danger.
On the other hand, indiscriminate killing of rattlesnakes is truly a waste, and there's a good argument against it on moral/religious grounds. The person who says "the only good rattlesnake is a dead rattlesnake" is susceptible to applying the same logic when dealing with other living things. The fact that someone wants to kill all rattlesnakes all the time says more about that particular individual, than it does about rattlesnakes.
Gee. I'm sorry you feel that way based on a difference in opinion.
I didn't really think you were being hysterical, maybe a little bit over-reactive... I grew up around venomous snakes in New York. In elementary school they used to show us what copperheads and eastern diamondbacks looked like so we could avoid them in the schoolyard. Poisonous snakes are actually found in much higher concentrations and closer to human populations in the NYC suburbs than they are out here in New Mexico.
Come on. Now don't say that. Just because I like to shoot my mouth off on the internet is no reason to feel unwelcome in New Mexico.
ABQConvict
You know the strange thing is nowhere on here have I read of anyone arbitrarily shooting rattlesnakes, those that have posted perceived a threat to themselves, their family or pets and took care of the problem. Just because there are some who prefer that the snakes be relocated doesn't make them right and by the same token the person who shoots the snake to eliminate a perceived threat isn't wrong.
I also think it is irresponsible for the people who advocate relocating the snakes to advise that others do that also, it is dangerous if you do not know how to properly handle a snake and that is a bite waiting to happen. Even the professionals on TV tell people not to attempt doing that if they do not know how.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certainly children should never be allowed near a horse, it seems, in order to protect them.
