Huge Rattlesnake Shot In Manor, Texas (With Pictures), page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 02:46 PM by seentoomuch

It's true that there are not many fatalities, but the bite alone is very serious and can cause longterm damage. Lately for some reason the venom of pit vipers has become stronger so the bites are even more serious. Have a look,

www.helenair.com...

And lol, most round up people I know do not use gasoline! My uncle (who recently passed away) was a wildlife rescuer who attended all the round ups and he never once used gasoline nor did his friends. (He would consider anyone using gas a wimp) He would also go out on ranches and collect them at the ranchers' request. He only went after the males and the larger ones at that. He would kill them when he got home and make belts and hat bands which he sold to raise funds to feed the injured wildlife he was caring for. His wildlife compound was considered the local zoo and classes from nearby schools would tour it and learn about native wildlife.

When his "zoo" was overflowing he would drop off injured animals by our house for care. Once they had healed they were released in a good area for them. Baby Bobcats, 0possums, raccoons, wolf cubs, hawks, ducks, geese, flying squirrels, turtles, etc.....

So while I do understand how important a role wildlife (including snakes) plays in our eco system I also understand that sometimes (depending on the weather conditions) the snakes are out of proportion and pose a danger to people and livestock, and even just a bite is a VERY serious matter. Thinning the population is a good idea imo.

I think you should concentrate on your own backyard, not ours 'cause it sounds like your area is loaded with them and thinning just at your backdoor won't be enough. Each female has up to 20 baby rattlers a year. Have another look at that picture........

STM

[edit on 8/2/2009 by seentoomuch]

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 04:37 PM by gallopinghordes

Enough of the insults, discuss the topic not each other. Manners are required here on ATS.

Thank you

gallopinghordes
ATS Mod

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 05:41 PM by NWO_Crap

that snake is not a big deal!

Here in Brazil some of the biggest snakes ever has been found at the rain forests and even at countrysides!

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 05:48 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by NWO_Crap

But in Brazil, that is totally normal.

In that part of Texas, finding a snake that large, of that species, is a pretty spectacular thing.

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 07:26 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

in talking with my mom a few minutes ago (we were at her house and i showed her the snake in the OP) she was telling me about a 13 ft. rattler found on a friends property. The friend has several dogs, and they were all going nuts barking at it.

The rattle had 20 joints on it and was about 8" long.

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 07:41 PM by Alexander the Great

reply to post by patientobserver

Hahah, that's good eatin'!

That is a monster rattler!
That thing can feed that whole family.

Snakes are getting bigger and bigger it seems.

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 07:45 PM by kraken

While I would say that those photos are of large rattlesnakes, I find it highly suspicious that they would claim it was a certain length, yet did not take the time to measure it.

Also, as is the case with a lot of 'trophy' photos of killed animals, the photographer uses a trick called 'forced perspective'. Basically, what is done is the animal is held close to the camera. The focus is set so that everything in the frame is in focus, thus giving the illusion that animal and the person holding it are close together.

The snake is obviously large, but 7' 6"... I don't think so. Same thing goes for the supposed 9' rattlesnake photo. Trick photography, nothing more.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by kraken]

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 07:52 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by kraken
While I would say that those photos are of large rattlesnakes, I find it highly suspicious that they would claim it was a certain length, yet did not take the time to measure it.

Also, as is the case with a lot of 'trophy' photos of killed animals, the photographer uses a trick called 'forced perspective'. Basically, what is done is the animal is held close to the camera. The focus is set so that everything in the frame is in focus, thus giving the illusion that animal and the person holding it are close together.

The snake is obviously large, but 7' 6"... I don't think so. Same thing goes for the supposed 9' rattlesnake photo. Trick photography, nothing more.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by kraken]

You ever been to Texas?

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 08:01 PM by DaisyAnne

That is one beautiful big snake!

I am just relieved that the children playing near it were safe. The poor mother must have been terrified.

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 08:08 PM by kraken

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

You ever been to Texas?

Other than a one-night stay in Dallas, no not really.

That really has nothing to do with the claims of those photos though. It's obvious they are using forced perspective in those photos. Look at the rod he is using to hold the snake. He is holding that rod straight out in front of him, towards the camera. That's gotta' put the snake what, 3-4' closer to the camera? Therefore giving the illusion that the snake is much larger than it actually is.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by kraken]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by kraken]

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 08:16 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by kraken

I don't think so. They gave the height of the officer, you could do a proportion check if you wanted.

This picture doesn't strike me as a hoax or an illusion that was conducted on purpose. If so, they did not mean to. But I do not believe that the rabbit picture is a hoax, and you could also use proportions with that image to find a range for the snake's size.

Although a pole was used, you can see by the snake's shadow that it was not held very far out from the officer.

Because this is a very small town where the image came from, and the names of individuals involved were not obscured, I believe this to be an accurate image. Especially since there are members here who have said they have seen snakes in that range, and it is plausible for a Western Diamondback to reach this length since there are certifiable records of snakes of that species reaching 7.71 feet. That means that the snake of that length was found near human habitation. I am sure that longer snakes of this species exist up into the 8' range.

But that is my guess. I do not know the answer.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 08:38 PM by kraken

I am still sticking with my impression. Forced Perspective is a very common technique and has been used since the beginning of photography. Trophy hunters have used it countless times to exaggerate the size of their kills.

Here is some more info on the technique:

experimentalphoto.com...

I am not saying the snake is not large, I am just saying that the snake is not as big as they claim. Also, why didn't they measure it? If I found a possible record-breaking rattler, I am pretty sure I would take the 2 minutes required to pull out a tape measure.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by kraken]

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 09:03 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by kraken

Maybe they just didn't think of it? It is a good question. It's just because of the history and zoological possibility that I don't think it's a stretch. So what, maybe it's only 7 feet? That's still a foot over average for that species. The maximum length on one source for the largest specimen is 7 feet. So even if it's 6 inches high, it's still a huge snake.

I would have measured it.

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 09:40 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by kraken

I agree with your assertions about forced perspective. But i have seen 8 foot snakes with my own eyes.

Brings up a funny story: when i was in high school, Raid bug spray was offering a 50k reward for a roach that was longer than 1.5 inches. I was amazed...here we have water roaches that are easily 2 inches long.

I found about the contest a week before the final date, and was not able to catch one in time. Our school gym had lots, since the sewage openings in the showers were so low (under the bleachers).

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 10:00 PM by skyeyes

reply to post by ravenshadow13

As long as there is some type of food supply I would think that a snake could continue to grow until it ran out of food, was killed, or just died of old age (like how do you figure the age of a snake?) Kinda like that crocodile in, where, Africa or something like that, was, and from what I still understand is still, the largest crocodile alive preying on people in and around the river. Supposedly got so huge because of all the war casualties in the waring regions in Africa, it feeds on the dead bodies and grow's to an gargantuan size.

reply posted on 10-8-2009 @ 11:40 PM by lw2525

Snakes are so cool. I had several pet snakes when I was a kid. We had a lot of constrictors
in our neck of the woods. Bull snakes, rat snakes and fox snakes.

I had a pet bull snake for almost 4 years. She was huge, and so beautiful. She was also very gentle...
never showed the slightest aggression with anyone.

reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 11:06 AM by DaMod

reply to post by ravenshadow13

Well I wouldn't knock it till you try it. Rattlesnake meat is actually pretty darn tasty. If you really want to try a tasty meat then you should try an American Alligator. They are delicious!! They are best breaded and BBQ but I've had it a few different ways all of which where good. Alligator jambalaya is probably my 2nd favorite.