Feds consider adding poisonous rattlesnake to endangered species list

Feds consider adding poisonous rattlesnake to endangered species list
Human Events -- by Audrey Hudson
05/21/2012

They want the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake placed on the endangered species list.

Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes are common in the U.S. Southeast regions from North Carolina to south Florida, and west to Mississippi and Louisiana.

Apparently environmentalists have convinced federal officials that the snake is under "human persecution".

Perhaps so.

But what safeguards will be in place for "human protection" or "human persecution" of humans by other humans ?
(like "accidental" fines)

And, what about "accidental" killing.

Environmental groups have convinced the federal government to propose listing the poisonous eastern diamondback rattlesnake as an endangered species in order to protect the reptile from “human persecution.”

“Survival of these snakes in large part depends on whether people continue to persecute them or instead choose to allow these amazing creatures to share the land with us,” Bill Matturro, spokesman for Protect All Living Species, said in welcoming the government’s decision, announced earlier this month. “In the Southeast, we are blessed with a rich natural heritage of animals and plants. All of these species—even the rattlesnakes—should be allowed to exist.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service says they are taking comments on listing the snake because environmental groups presented “substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the eastern diamondback rattlesnake may be warranted.”

The federal government frowns on harassing or killing protected species, and has been known to impose some hefty fines. There is an exception to the rules if the person is defending lives or property, but the government has to first believe one’s life or property is in danger.

Related Thread
Millions of Taxpayer Dollars are Used to Secretly Massacre Wildlife, Family Pets, Threatened Species

What will "Enforcement" cost ?

I can tell you that there are a few places very near me that they sure are NOT endagered. They're literally everywhere. I spend alot of time hiking in the woods looking for fossils and creatures, and have uncovered more than a few.

I can't say how abundant they are else where, but here they are one of the more abundant snakes.

I don't think that just because someone doesn't like a particular creature, and some are killed for those ideas, that they are deserving of the endangered species list...I don't like flies, cockroaches, and rats, and don't care if they were extinct, but there's alot of them, and they sure aren't endangered either.

I am an animal lover. If the science supports that this animal should be protected, then so be it. Just because it's not a cute and furry animal, doesn't mean it might not need to be protected. With that said, if I find myself cornered and unable to flee, I would not hesitate to harm or kill it to save myself (and yes, if a bald eagle was trying to peck me to death and I could not escape, I would just as happily kill it). Hopefully the law will consider the context, and not prosecute for it!

As far as harassing and killing rattlesnakes just for the heck of it, well, I think these offenses should be prosecuted! Rattlesnake boots are out of style anyway.

Also, I think it is important to consider the ecosystem as a whole. Allowing them to become extinct would be detrimental, but so would allowing them to become too populous.

Those most interested in making the Diamondback rattlesnake an endangered species should be required to attend at least 5 rattlesnake round ups in Georgia or Texas.

Also the idiots need to be escorted into the woods to walk and play all day for 5 days.

In my opinion, these misguided people will realize just how wrong they are.

I will not kill a snake unless we are on the same path and neither of us can alter our way.
If I feel threatened the snake will be dead meat.

Where I live we have to take care of where we step from spring until the first freeze when the snakes slow down.
This is not only in wooded areas but in our yards and gardens also.

Darn rattlesnakes aren't that uncommon. They just hide well.

One of them was curled up behind my sister's gas can in her shed.
She grabbed the can and got struck at but luckily not hit.
I've seen several in my life. I don't think they are endangered.

If I see one in my shed like that, I'll kill it.
They are usually shy though, and like to avoid people, that's why we don't see them.

The animals were here first!

We SHARE this earth with them!

And sincy THEY are weaker that US, it is our humanitary obligation to protect them!

Thats all. There is no other rule, no other law but the law of nature.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Eastern diamondbacks are not endangered. As for persecuting them, they're poisonous snakes with extremely dangerous venom. I mean, I don't know what else to say.

I suppose my main objection, though, is that I actually live in the Southeast, and I don't want to go to prison or have to pay a fine for killing a highly dangerous animal like that if one gets loose in my house. I'm aware that the snakes have a right to live, but I also have a right to my territory and to protect myself and my family.

These people are lunatics and need to be given a mental evaluation stat.

But, wait, they're probably a bunch of yuppie eco-fascists that don't have to worry about such things because they either don't live here or have never set foot outside a concrete jungle in their lives.

reply to post by MojaveBurning


As someone from the Southeast, I can tell you that they are not even close to endangered. And even if they are, they get into houses, yards, gardens, and garages, and I take offense at being charged with a crime or being given a fine for killing something that is in my territory and is extremely dangerous. Animal control and things of that nature aren't exactly on their list of high-priority items to fund, so I could be having to live with it for days. If you have children, you'll understand my concern here.

I know that people don't generally consider the snakes we have in the States all that dangerous, and you'd mostly be right, but rattlesnakes are pretty dangerous. The thing about it is, the whole "just get to a hospital" thing doesn't work because this is the Southeast where people are rural and you could be talking 30-45 minute drives for people to a hospital.

Not to mention, funding for things like that have gone by the wayside in many cases. Coral snakes are all over coastal North Carolina, are even more dangerous than rattle snakes, but the state hasn't had a supply of anti-venom in 2 or 3 years.

My .38 will remain loaded with snake shot for when the little buggers come slitherin' around here regardless. If it's between my kids suffering a bite or me spending a few nights in jail. I'll take jail any day. This is ridiculous. I stock up on king snakes to keep the rattlers away. There is still no shortage of them around here

I wouldn't event spend much time on this article. The source doesn't even know the difference between POISONOUS and VENOMOUS. Surprise, surprise, the "Poisonous" rattlesnake is not even poisonous. There is a huge difference between poisonous and venomous. If a so-called investigative journalist calls a venomous snake a poisonous snake, sorry, the journalist lost all credibility.

difference between venomous and poisonous

I love animals... but with this one, I wouldn't be extremely upset if it went extinct

I'll just make sure when I kill them to bury them and not tell anybody about it. Problem solved

As a Herpetologist I find the above posts saddening due to the hatred and misunderstanding of the creature. The article is talking about a specific species of Crotalus or pit viper or more commonly known as a Rattlesnake but as I have come to see most people don't know the difference between the different species of Crotalus and therefore they all get tangled together. Before I go on I would like to post a pic of 4 different species in order to prove this point. As stated this is 4 of 151 species found in the southern United States. When recognized you can look them up for indigenous zones and those zones will be fairly small, however, all 151 species can be found from California to Florida due to transport, habitat encroachment, the pet industry, etc. The 4 pictured below are the Eastern Diamondback, the Western Diamondback, The Northern Mojave(also known as the green Mojave), and the Mexican West Coast. Can you identify them?


Now, the activists are attempting to put the Eastern Diamondback on the endangered species list due to its population thinning in its natural habitat, which is primarily Florida. Unfortunately, only 45% of the total population is found in its natural habitat as humans encroach, and the other 55% can be found in populated areas within their habitat region(Florida). Just as any wild animal on the endangered species list, if a human life is threatened the animal can be killed, however, if it can be safely removed by professionals this is preferred but human life does take president. I hate to say it, but those of you that state "If it's in my house I'll kill it" will still be within your right to do so and I personally will hold no ill will. Why? They are deadly obviously.

As for those that brought up Rattlesnake Roundups, I have attended and even eaten Rattlesnake as well as a few other species of snakes and reptiles(for those wondering No, it does not taste like chicken). Here is the problem, Yes, they do help keep down the wild population of these dangerous animals however, rattlesnakes are beginning to evolve into a much more dangerous animal due to this hunting. Before, rattlesnakes were considerate in that they would give you a warning before striking, now they are learning that to rattle or warn you gives away their position putting themselves at risk, so, they are beginning to refrain from giving the warning making them all the more dangerous. So there are pros and cons to roundups that have not been considered in the past.

Do I personally think they should be put on the list? Yes, but only in their natural habitat in Florida not including populated areas. As they can have a clutch of between 25 and 75 young they will be able to grow in numbers if left alone in where they belong and the Habitat is protected from encroachment. Other than that, as the populations are larger across the lower States and Mexico not to mention they have moved North and begun cross breading with Timber Rattlesnakes in states like Colorado, I believe the endangered species classification should not apply.

For those who are interested here are the answers to the picture above.


Edit to say: I forgot to mention that Hellhound604 is 100% correct in that there is a very large difference between Poisonous and Venomous. Poison is ingested and Venom is injected. It is obvious the article writer did little research.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I love animals too, but I believe any animal has much a right to live as humans do. I think the one animal we can have less off, are humans. How many Western Diamondbacks are there in the world? 7 Billion? How many humans gets killed every year by other humans, and how many by animals? Should give you an idea of what the most dangerous animal in the world is.

Having read the article, there are a few things to be stated:

This is not about protecting animals or even for their well being. This is about control over the people and the places where people can live. Nothing more, nothing less. Think about it, by putting a species, that is not endangered on the endangered species list, it would put restrictions on where people could live, what they could do with the land that they own, even to the point of restricting the sale or even the purchase of land. Lands that are designated as protected habitat, would not be allowed to be developed or even used, but remain just as it is, wild. It would force people who would seek to have a home out away from the cities, to look else where.

It is a double edge sword. The first part is that it would mean that communities would be revitalized and increase, but on the other side, it would restrict. This is not a good decision, and ultimately will come back to do more harm than good. While I am not against any animal, as they all have their place in the world, and ecology of an area, there should be some wisdom to the laws that govern, and in this case there is no such wisdom, nor will their be, until the people say wait a minute and demand that an independent study be done. And maybe a highlight what the real problems and issues are, not just those of a few crackpots out there trying to run all of our lives.

reply to post by Agarta


Snakes are a very painful subject to me, based on people's ignorance. When I lived in Africa, I had a snake-handling license, i.e. people who had problems with snakes could phone me, and I would go there, find the snake, catch it, and release it back into the wild. Now, the most venomous snake in Africa is the Black Mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis). It can grow up to 5m long, and can be very aggressive. They are not that numerous, and tend to live in places below 1000m above sea-level. But I have learnt that they are the most common snake where I lived, and they all were over 4m long. Most call-outs I've had was for a 4m long Black Mambas... In the beginning I was quite nervous when I had a call-out for a "Black Mamba", but pretty soon I learnt that most people don't have a clue about snakes. They would see a little (or not so little) dark snake, and they would immediately identify it as a 4m long black mamba. In the 10 years I've handled snakes, handling 100's of phone calls, of which 80% would be about 4m long black mambas, I've never had the privilege of meeting a 4m Black Mamba. The bottom line is, that most people are totally clueless about snakes, and if they see a snake they see a creature of their imagination. In any case, you don't even see most snakes, as they tend to hide from humans. (OK, you get the ambush-predators, like a puff-adder, that doesn't hide), but if you live in an area where snakes are common, educate yourself, teach your kids about snakes, Snakes are not a creature to be feared, just respected. Respect a snake as much as you respect another human being. Learn their habits, learn how to identify them, and learn what attracts them to your place. If you have a huge pile of wood on your property, guess what, there will be snakes in it. Make a lot of noise when you pick wood from the woodpile, to make the snake aware that something is happening, and the snake will silently picks its way out without you even noticing it. If you notice a snake basking in the sun, just steer clear of it.

Respect them, they are just as much a part of nature as you are.

(with that said, let me get of my pedestal, as I know how most people will react to what I am saying)

reply to post by Hellhound604


Very nice and well said. I have done similar throughout the US and Mexico, it is a lot of fun. My latest project was introducing Eastern Horned Lizards from Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, etc. to the Western States in order to help repopulate the species in Nevada, Arizona,and New Mexico. That was a lot of work but worth it. Yes, I realize this project dealt with a non deadly species however dealing with venomous snakes is par for the course in collecting specimens for relocation. As I have done reptile rescue for about 20 years I have dealt with a number of very dangerous species of Herps from snakes to crocs including Gila Monsters to Komodo Dragons. Its been a wild ride to be sure. My most challenging project was capturing, rounding up and relocating all types of species after the Katrina aftermath. Most people don't even realize it was a major problem. Sorry if this seems like a contest in work, it was not meant to be, only a back ground as you gave to me.

I agree EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, thats the key to Herp management. Education on recognition of species in a specific area, education on respect and how to deal with them, and Education on how to handle a situation. No question about it.

The world would be better off if all venemous creatures were extinct.
If I see a rattle snake I will kill it, and never tell.
There are plenty of other snakes that can do the same job and are not a danger to humans and other animals.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


People kill snakes just for being snakes. In South Tampa the penninsula is overun with "tree rats" (not squirrels!) that are everywhere at night up in trees, on top of houses, and so on. It's like a plague the cats can't even curb, yet stupid housewives and other sissies kill harmless black rat snakes that turn up in their yards. If rat snakes can't live with much certainty in areas they're needed, how well do you think large snakes are gonna go on? Now of course if one turns up in Tampa that's not the place for such an animal, but there are plenty of areas in they should be respected and avoided. I was even at a jobsite 10 years ago a tiny coral snake was found and one of the rednecks killed the thing in a low population density area this being a snake that an adult could hardly sink its 'fangs' into you if you tried.

Of course if you intend to eat the snake now that's another story.

My dad used to fix this preacher's car and he'd have BAGS of rattlesnakes in the trunk. It wasn't all that long ago.
There's a snake handling church up the road from here, that's what they were for.

The LORD said to take up those serpents. He didn't say you had to kiss their asps.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I actually agree with you that we shouldn't just willy-nilly kill snakes because I'd rather deal with snakes, even venomous ones, than rats. And that's just one reason. But I know that rattlesnakes aren't endangered the way that rhinos, whales, pandas, and giant sea turtles are. I also know that the government will use pretty much any excuse to raise money, and if it can fine you for killing a dangerous animal in your own backyard, then it will.