Humans have made repeated efforts to exterminate rattlesnakes, despite their values, since colonial times in the United States (Klauber 1997). Prior to 1997, most reptiles were not granted legal protection or even regulated in thirty-seven of fifty states (Levell 1997). Bounties were paid on rattlesnakes in several states and rattlesnake roundups still occurred in 2000 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas (Fitzgerald and Painter 2000).
Policies governing the conservation and management of snakes contribute indirectly to the development and maintenance of human beliefs and attitudes toward snakes. Bounties offered and paid by county governments for rattlesnakes may be the most influential policy affecting stakeholder beliefs and attitudes toward snakes, particularly rattlesnakes. Several Wisconsin counties paid bounties on timber rattlesnakes and eastern massasauga rattlesnakes until 1975, at which time the eastern massasauga was placed on the state’s endangered species list (Vogt 1981). Minnesota paid bounties to rattlesnake hunters until 1989 (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994) – the timber rattlesnake was state-listed as threatened in 1996, and though some concerted searches have been made, no eastern massasaugas have been reported in more than ten years (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994, Naber et al. 2004). Paying bounties for dead rattlesnakes communicates the message to stakeholders that rattlesnakes are of economic worth when dead, but not when alive.
In addition to bounties, many states have allowed rattlesnake roundups to persist despite their potential impacts to non-target species (Campbell et al. 1989) and impacts to local snake populations by way of direct exploitation and disturbance of rattlesnake habitats (Warwick 1990, Arena et al. 1995, Fitzgerald and Painter 2000). In the U.S., it has been estimated that a minimum of 300,000 rattlesnakes are harvested annually for round-ups and commercial processors (Warwick et al. 1991). The epitome of such roundups can be found in Sweetwater, Texas, where Jaycee publications state that the roundup was initiated as a way to reduce, if not extirpate, the rattlesnake population (Weir 1992). This echoes the message that is sent through bounty payments in the previous paragraph, i.e. that snakes are valuable when dead and valueless when alive.
A small number of hunters harvest a great percentage of rattlesnakes. Fitzgerald and Painter (2000) reported that the two most productive teams at roundups in Alamagordo, New Mexico and Big Spring, Texas harvested 37-85% and 25-64% of the take in a given year, respectively. The precipitous decline of timber rattlesnakes in the Northeast was attributed to a single rattlesnake poacher (Brown 1993).
Once collected, rattlesnakes are often mistreated, and at some roundups, animals are skinned and butchered in public (Weir 1992, Arena et al. 1995, Fitzgerald and Painter 2000). Such treatment of rattlesnakes illustrates to attendants that rattlesnakes are not worthy of humane treatment and that it is perfectly appropriate to skin and butcher such animals in public. While it’s true that some states and sponsoring organizations have discontinued roundups or changed the rules so that snakes are no longer killed outright at such events, other states and sponsoring organizations have not. These events perpetuate non-humane treatment toward snakes because they sensationalize risk-taking for personal thrills (Thomas and Adams 1993), public adulation and prize money (Weir 1992) and permit the deaths of numerous snakes (both target and non-target species) due to injuries sustained while being captured and stress incurred during captivity (Campbell et al. 1989, Weidensaul 1991).
Organizers have claimed that rattlesnake roundups are held, in part, for educational purposes (Weir 1992); however, when tested, attendees leaving a roundup had similar knowledge levels about rattlesnakes whether or not they attended the educational program (Fitzgerald and Painter 2000). Such results hardly support the previously claimed benefit of education.
References
Arena, P. C., C. Warwick, and D. Duvall. 1995. "Rattlesnake roundups", pp. 313-324, in Wildlife and recreationists: co-existence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzmiller. Washington: Island Press.
Brown, W. S. 1993. Biology, status, and management of the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus): a guide for conservation. SSAR Herpetological Circular No. 22, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.
Campbell, J. A., D. R. Formanowicz Jr., and E.D. Brodie, Jr. 1989. Potential impact of rattlesnake roundups on natural populations. The Texas Journal of Science 41:301-317.
Fitzgerald, L. A. and C. W. Painter. 2000. Rattlesnake commercialization: long-term trends, issues, and implications for conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):235-253.
Klauber, L. M. 1982. Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Levell, J. P. 1997. A field guide to reptiles and the law, rev. 2nd edition. Lanesboro: Serpent's Tale.
Naber, J. R., M. J. Majeski, and A. R. DeMars. 2004. Baseline surveys for the massasauga rattlesnake in Minnesota, 2002 and 2003. Unpublished report. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Oldfield, B. and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and reptiles native to Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Thomas, J. K. and C. E. Adams. 1993. The social organization of rattlesnake roundups in rural communities. Sociological Spectrum 13:433-449.
Vogt, R. C. 1981. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum.
Warwick, C. 1990. Disturbance of natural habitats arising from rattlesnake round-ups. Environmental Conservation 17(2):172-174.
Warwick, C., C. Steedman, and T. Holford. 1991. Rattlesnake collection drives - their implications for species and environmental conservation. Oryx 25 (1):39-44.
Weidensaul, S. 1991. Snakes of the World. Secaucus: Chartwell Books, Inc.
Weir, J. 1992. The Sweetwater rattlesnake round-up: a case study in environmental ethics. Conservation Biology 6:116-127.