Addressing the survival of LDT rattlers, studies of radio tagged pines in the NC sand hills don't show great survivorship during the year either and this is in their home territory. I'd also like to point out that though the article in general was pretty good and informative there is much that is subjective. Take the following except:



"There are other reasons why LDT is not in the best interests of rattlesnakes. If LDT snakes are released in suitable habitat, they will overload that population. If there are no resident snakes, the habitat is not suitable. The genetic composition of the resident population could be changed."



Suitable habitat does not necessarily indicate that it is at its carrying capacity. One could just as easily assume that the area in question is experiencing greater population losses due to recreational killing of rattlers than LDTs could ever compensate for. Also, lack of resident snakes doesn't necessarily indicate unsuitable habitat. Quite simply they could have been extirpated from the area. There is evidence this is the case of the entire Delmarva Peninsula here on the east coast! Further, worries about changing the "genetic composition of the resident population" sounds more like the view of a locality breeder than a field researcher comfortable with the idea of gene flow between adjacent populations. I don't have the data on hand but seem to recall that male canebrake rattlers can and do range much further than 5 miles.



I guess my point is that though I agree with the concept that there is no easy solution to the problem presented but you need to be critical of what you see in print on these issues, which of course is all part of the process. That being said, IMHO, from the snakes perspective LDT has to be better than the alternative "shovel" solution.

[ Show Entire Thread ]