Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What to do with nuisance rattlesnakes? There really is no easy solution. Read the article provided in the link and decide for yourself what the best solution is.
Relocation of Nuisance Rattlesnakes

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.

Probably the best thing to do with nuisance rattlesnakes is to leave them alone and let them disperse on their own. Several pit vipers, especially timber rattlesnakes, eastern massasaugas, and even copperheads and cottonmouths show site fidelity to their denning sites, and forage throughout the summer following chemical cues with their tongue. William Brown and others have done radio telemetry with timber rattlesnakes and found that they move almost the exact same trek from emergence out of hibernation through returning to the same den each fall. Eastern massasaugas also return to the same area each year as well. Sometimes moving these animals even short distances can confuse them in getting them off their chemical cue trek. So what do you do? We need to educate the public on how venomous snakes are nonaggressive animals that bite only when stepped on, picked up, or cornered. Venomous snakes eat as many harmful rodents as do nonvenomous snakes. Usually when someone finds a venomous snake in their yard, it will leave soon and was just passing through. A venomous snakebite does not mean you are going to die. About a third of venomous snakebites are dry, in which no venom is injected. Most of the public doesn't know these facts, nor how beneficial snakes are, regardless of whether they're venomous or nonvenomous. And if someone persists in wanting a venomous snake moved, either do it the shortest distance you can and hope it will resume its trek, or collect it and use it for educational purposes in a zoo or nature center. I certainly wouldn't move a venomous snake five miles, one mile, or even a half mile. While we don't want to see people wantonly killing venomous snakes, they do so out of ignorance, and we need to arm them with education on how beneficial they are.

Greg Henry

That way, they're not harming existing populations, they're still being utilized in the ecosystem (provided you consider humans part of it) instead of rotting in a dumpster, and you can save the head, skin, and rattle for demonstrations.

I still let the little ones go for the various snake-eating animals here locally. "Letting them be" is simply not a solution when where they "be" is inside someone's house (it happens!). Dry bites or not, I haven't seen anyone 'round here that's willing to take that chance of venturing into their garage or yard (or their kids doing it) and just hoping there's not a snake to step on.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

In a study of Bogertophis subocularis thermal biology conducted in west Texas, the snakes were released in a locality foreign to the snakes. Several of these snakes apparently ended up being food for predatory birds.

If released far away from the capture site, the rattler may become food for local birds, badgers, or the common kingsnake. That is a "solution" that may be better than euthanization or preserving the animal in a glass jar in a university museum, especially for the more common species of rattlers, of which there is probably a good representative sample of preserved specimens.

"In a study of Bogertophis subocularis thermal biology conducted in west Texas, the snakes were released in a locality foreign to the snakes. Several of these snakes apparently ended up being food for predatory birds."

I'm willing to bet that several snakes (regardless of species) end up being eaten by predatory birds (and badgers, skunks, etc) and have had no contact with humans ever.

So what we have here is that birds eat snakes released in a foreign locality and birds eat snakes that were never released anywhere. I have no doubt in my mind that plenty of "nuisance" snakes that are released do end up surviving. I recall someone mentioning that the larger, heavy bodied snakes (ie, atrox and Heterodon) are particularly at risk for relocation. But then you just remind them that there are Burmese pythons and boa constrictors in Florida (definitely heavy bodied snakes and definitely not a range extension).
My Online Snake Lifelist (photos, trips, etc)

I think the best thing to do is to leave them alone. Rattlesnakes are not a nuisance, people are. I think people ought to be better educated before they buy a house where there are alot of rattlesnakes. Few people are harmed this way, and if they dont like the odds, they can get a house somewhere else. Wildlife does not need control, people do.

This view is rather extreme. What if you bought a house, and lived happily for years, and then some termites moved into your cellar? Termites are wildlife too. Do you think you need to call an exterminator or not?

Nawp, I think there is a difference there. Termites live everywhere and will damage your place wherever you build it.
As the study stated, rattlers, at least most types have home ranges. They wont just move into your neighborhood and start eating your basement. They do however eat alot of rodents, which is ok. What is extreme is the perceived level of danger these animals pose. Living amid them is not a big deal as long as people are educated and give them room. I dont think that is such an extremist attitude. If people are too scared of them and fear the worst, they should simply move. Not remove or kill the snakes.

It seems that you do regard some wildlife as pests, e.g. termites and perhaps rodents, and that it is okay to eliminate these pests by killing them, either with exterminators or with rattlers. Other folks may regard rattlesnakes as nuisances or even pests. Instead of killing rattlers, they merely want to relocate them to give them a new chance in life. But that is not okay according to you. Am I correct?

That would be great if relocation worked. But it usually doesn't. So you're not giving the snake a new chance to live. Only a new way to not survive or become disoriented. People fear snakes because they are uneducated about them and don't know what benefit snakes serve. What we need to do is EDUCATE the public.

Greg Henry

I agree that many people need to be educated about snakes, specifically how to distinguish venomoous ones from harmless ones. Unfortunately many harmless ones have been killed each year because of such fear and ignorance. The venomous species, although they cause only a few deaths a year in the US, need to be removed from areas of human habitation. Education will not do in such situations.

Yeah, thats pretty much it. I see what you are saying and your point I believe is valid. But I dont like bugs or rats, I do like rattlesnakes alot. Ive been studying and catching them for for over 20 years. I guess everyone has to have an animal to champion besides whales and dolphins. I have alot of experience when it comes to rattlesnakes and I do not believe they pose any kind of serious threat. If someone is all stirred up about a few rattlesnakes cruising through their brand new suburb, maybe they should worry about something valid like their neighbors or their dog. Those with alot of experience with them, and knowledge do not regard them as a nuisance.

I understand your affection for rattlesnakes, and of course you are also entitled to your belief that they are not a nuisance. Other people do not share your affection and they also do not share your belief. For these people, long distance translocation is the only way to ensure their own safety since short distance translocation results in a return of these snakes in many cases. The alternatives to long distance translocation include killing them or leaving them in place. To most people these alternatives just aren't acceptable. To some, either of these may be a perfect solution. That is why there are a number of alternative "solutions" to nuisance rattlers. It is up to the individual facing the problem to decide which solution is best for him/her.