Vicious killer snake!

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
13,464
Location
FL
Display Name

Display name:
Salty
7C791584-80BB-4FD0-9140-A133ECB77518.jpeg

Can someone confirm this is a harmless snake before I set it free? My neighbors keep telling me of water moccasins they keep finding, and I know there are pgmy rattlers in my area, but I think this is a good snake. He is of bad temper. If he weren’t so tiny he’d have bit me for sure. Lol

I’d research myself but the wife is in the hospital and I’ve got a few too many irons in the fire already.

Thanks!
 
Even if it is poisonous, you should let it go. Just let it go a little further from houses. They go where the food is, and keep the bug and rodent pop down.
 
Looks like a southern florida mole snake to me. Get a side view and a shot of the last half of the tail.
 
Def not poisonous... Im calling it a Juvenile Coachwhip......89.632% sure.
 
Here is the thing about snakes. The smaller, juvenile snakes actually have deadlier venom that the adult snakes in many cases. Don't let size fool you when it comes to thinking how deadly they may be.
 
It’s a Reticulated Stinkeye. Hunnert percent certain. Let him go about his day. All he’ll do is give you mean looks.
 
thanks guys, after taking the side shot, I was sure also.
 
Thanks for releasing it. People, please don't kill snakes. They are a beneficial part of the natural food chain, as they eat small rodents.

Almost all snakes are timid, and if you leave them alone they'll go about their business. Rattlesnakes would rather run than fight, but if you mess around with them, there's an excellent chance you'll be bitten.

These actions of these two guys perfectly illustrate what I'm saying.

After decapitating a rattlesnake in the finest Alpha Male manner, this guy found out the severed head of a rattler will bite you. He almost died from the bites.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/severed-rattlesnake-head-bites-man-who-decapitated-it/

This guy decided to mess with a rattler crossing a road, and was dumb enough to be bitten twice, once on each hand. As one might guess, the bites were fatal.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_8bb219b8-8a91-5551-83f2-6a1fac6cbba5.html
 
Let it go! :eek:

My bro got bit by a copperhead on his ankle a few weeks ago. Jumped out of the pool around 9p and walked toward the house and the snake was right by the grill. Accidentally stepped on him and it nailed him. Ambulance took him to the hospital and he spent the night. Once he got to the hospital they discovered that they were out of antivenom and so they kept him closely monitored overnight and part of the following day.

*moral of the story— keep your patio light on AT ALL TIMES!

Yeah true story. Happened about 2 weeks ago.
 
Thanks for releasing it. People, please don't kill snakes. They are a beneficial part of the natural food chain, as they eat small rodents.

Almost all snakes are timid, and if you leave them alone they'll go about their business. Rattlesnakes would rather run than fight, but if you mess around with them, there's an excellent chance you'll be bitten.

These actions of these two guys perfectly illustrate what I'm saying.

After decapitating a rattlesnake in the finest Alpha Male manner, this guy found out the severed head of a rattler will bite you. He almost died from the bites.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/severed-rattlesnake-head-bites-man-who-decapitated-it/

This guy decided to mess with a rattler crossing a road, and was dumb enough to be bitten twice, once on each hand. As one might guess, the bites were fatal.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_8bb219b8-8a91-5551-83f2-6a1fac6cbba5.html

I learned the severed head can bite from reading Old Yeller...or was it Savage Sam. I don't kill snakes. Too many rats and mice around here.
 
Thanks for releasing it. People, please don't kill snakes. They are a beneficial part of the natural food chain, as they eat small rodents.
If it’s a black snake or something non-venomous, I’ll let them live, otherwise their head will get introduced to an axe.
 
“Generally” non venomous snake has round pupils. Venomous snakes generally have a slanted pupil. Anything with two nostrils per side is venomous. The extra nostril is the “pit” in pit viper. Tougher to get them to agree to this, but a venomous snakes scales “split” past the anus on their underneath. Singles till you get there, then side by side to the tail.
 
One of the stupidest things my fellow Texans do is the annual Sweetwater rattlesnake roundup. Every spring these yahoos go out looking for snake dens full of lethargic rattlers, and use portable tank sprayers to pump atomized gasoline into the den.

They catch literally hundreds of the snakes, and after placing them all in a circus ring to be gaped at by the public, the snakes are slaughtered.

While event raises money for charity, is educational, etc., etc., the wanton killing of the snakes has to be impacting their numbers in the wild. Someday there won't be any rattlesnakes to catch and kill.

Since it's a sacred Texas tradition, I doubt it will ever face organized public protest. :mad:
 
“Generally” non venomous snake has round pupils. Venomous snakes generally have a slanted pupil. Anything with two nostrils per side is venomous. The extra nostril is the “pit” in pit viper. Tougher to get them to agree to this, but a venomous snakes scales “split” past the anus on their underneath. Singles till you get there, then side by side to the tail.

Yeah, I'm no snake expert, but I was gonna say, there is a pretty big difference in facial/head appearance between a pit viper and just about anything else. Not that I would be hunching over close enough to see all those details, but the picture makes it pretty easy to tell. Ask this guy:
 
You weren’t sure if it was poisonous or not and you got that close to take a pic?? Was the camera on a stick or something?
 
You weren’t sure if it was poisonous or not and you got that close to take a pic?? Was the camera on a stick or something?
You’ve heard of the zoom feature, right? I doubt if I got closer than its body length when taking the pics. It’s a lot smaller than it looks in the images.
 
The local rod and gun club I belong to has a snake hunt every year. Just last weekend in fact. However it is strictly catch and release; snakes must be released back where you caught them. Very educational. People that run it bring in a bunch of non-venomous snakes for kids to hold, etc. Biggest rattler this year was 55 inches, around 5 pounds.
 
Thanks for releasing it. People, please don't kill snakes. They are a beneficial part of the natural food chain, as they eat small rodents.
I agree with this 100%. We get a lot of black racers and garters. When the kids were little we'd capture one occasionally, keep it for a few days to observe, and then let it go.

Actually, now that I think about it, I only agree 99.5%. The Burmese python is making a wreck of the ecosystem in the Everglades (invasive species with no natural local predators) and needs to be eliminated there.
 
It looks like a juvenile black racer. Not sure what the real name for them is. They are mean however. Non Poisonous.
 
Not sure I completely agree about not killing them. We found a coral snake in our yard. The neighbor lady nearly stepped on another in her yard. I really don't want those things proliferating in my back yard ecological balance be damned. I always agree to let the non-venomous ones live; I dislike the vermin they eat more. In fact I'm actually considering adopting a snake or lizard as a pet if they will hunt the horrible giant cockroaches that manage to get in the house.

I agree it's not a good idea to go out into the countryside hunting them, unless of course you eat them. Definitely agree the pythons need to be eradicated, they are an invasive species in this country.
 
Yeah. I have nothing against snakes, but there are too many kids and dogs around here to let the dangerous ones live unless you can relocate them far, far away.
 
Yup, I doubt the eradication of venomous snakes is going to upset the ecological balance. Elimination of all snakes would, though. I'm not sure that venomous snakes have prey any different than what a non-venomous snake does, but perhaps a bit larger prey.
 
Yup, I doubt the eradication of venomous snakes is going to upset the ecological balance. Elimination of all snakes would, though. I'm not sure that venomous snakes have prey any different than what a non-venomous snake does, but perhaps a bit larger prey.
Not sure about that. In some areas venomous snakes, and even rattlesnakes specifically, perform an important function of controlling rodent-borne diseases; see for example this link, concerning California rattlesnakes.

That said, I wouldn't blame anyone for killing rattlesnakes and other venomous snakes on their property on sight. I am quite happy to be living now in an area that has no venomous snakes at all - one less thing to worry about when hiking. Not that I was terribly nervous about the Massassaugas that I'm sure were all around me on the trails in Michigan, even though I never saw one in the wild. But I knew they were among the shiest of rattlesnakes. As much as I love hiking in the Great Smokies, I was always a lot more cautious and on the lookout for rattlers and copperheads, and carried a snakebite kit with me at all times.

The only rattlers in Vermont are confined to a couple of small, isolated populations in western Rutland County. They are timber rattlers, and reportedly quite shy as well. But I'm not terribly interested in hiking in that area anyway.
 
Not sure about that. In some areas venomous snakes, and even rattlesnakes specifically, perform an important function of controlling rodent-borne diseases; see for example this link, concerning California rattlesnakes.

I'm just not sure how venomous snakes perform that function any differently than a non-venomous snake. The link didn't specify that Rattlesnakes target disease-ridden rodents, so I'm just not convinced that rodent control would be noticeably affected if venomous snakes didn't exist. In any case, I'm not doing any round-ups off any snakes and only kill snakes on my property if they are venomous or pose a threat to humans/pets. I just moved a juvenile black snake (probably rat snake) who was trespassing in my front yard (tall grass from me being in Dubai for 2 weeks) so he wouldn't get turned into mincemeat by the mower. I just moved him to the property across the street which has a natural spring pond.
 
I'm just not sure how venomous snakes perform that function any differently than a non-venomous snake. The link didn't specify that Rattlesnakes target disease-ridden rodents, so I'm just not convinced that rodent control would be noticeably affected if venomous snakes didn't exist. In any case, I'm not doing any round-ups off any snakes and only kill snakes on my property if they are venomous or pose a threat to humans/pets. I just moved a juvenile black snake (probably rat snake) who was trespassing in my front yard (tall grass from me being in Dubai for 2 weeks) so he wouldn't get turned into mincemeat by the mower. I just moved him to the property across the street which has a natural spring pond.
Good on you for moving the black snake! But I don't quite get the "venomous" vs "non-venomous" dichotomy you seem to be setting up. As I understand it, it is more that each species occupies a niche, and if you eradicate a species, something else will up-populate to occupy that niche, and it's not always possible to predict what species (maybe plural) that will be. Or the population the species was controlling might multiply out of control. It also depends on the size of the population of each species. If you eliminated all the timber rattlers in Vermont the effect would probably be negligible, since there are only something like a few dozen of them. In a state like California where rattlesnakes are a lot more common, it might make rodent control a much bigger problem.

And of course they don't specifically target disease-carrying rodents, but why should that make a difference, if the rodents they eat include ones that spread dangerous infections?
 
Good on you for moving the black snake! But I don't quite get the "venomous" vs "non-venomous" dichotomy you seem to be setting up. As I understand it, it is more that each species occupies a niche, and if you eradicate a species, something else will up-populate to occupy that niche, and it's not always possible to predict what species (maybe plural) that will be. Or the population the species was controlling might multiply out of control. It also depends on the size of the population of each species. If you eliminated all the timber rattlers in Vermont the effect would probably be negligible, since there are only something like a few dozen of them. In a state like California where rattlesnakes are a lot more common, it might make rodent control a much bigger problem.

And of course they don't specifically target disease-carrying rodents, but why should that make a difference, if the rodents they eat include ones that spread dangerous infections?

The dichotomy I'm presenting is that if you killed off all of the venomous snakes and left the non-venomous to "up-populate" in order to control the rodent/insect populations, you'd end up with roughly the same number of snakes, but not have to worry about getting bitten by a potentially deadly snake. So, that's why I don't worry too much about rattlesnake round-ups or venomous snake culling efforts. The ecosystem would correct itself by increasing the population of non-venomous snakes . . . unless there's a specific prey which non-venomous snakes won't pursue.
 
The dichotomy I'm presenting is that if you killed off all of the venomous snakes and left the non-venomous to "up-populate" in order to control the rodent/insect populations, you'd end up with roughly the same number of snakes, but not have to worry about getting bitten by a potentially deadly snake. So, that's why I don't worry too much about rattlesnake round-ups or venomous snake culling efforts. The ecosystem would correct itself by increasing the population of non-venomous snakes . . . unless there's a specific prey which non-venomous snakes won't pursue.
You might or might not. It would all depend, hard to predict. I don't worry about rattlesnake roundups or culling efforts either, because in most areas where they happen there are tons of rattlers and you're barely making a dent in the population anyway. Sort of like deer harvesting to control a population out of control. But ending the bounties in places like New England was IMO the right move, because the populations are now endangered, at least in VT and NH. YMMV.
 
It's hard if not impossible to track and predict every connection each species has in the web of life. And it's constantly changing, not only from man's encroachment onto "natural" environments (as if man isn't natural) but also non-man made climate change, and other natural phenomenon. The rise and fall of species has been going on since life began. Having said that, there are definite short term problems caused by upsetting the balance. Countless examples of invasive species creating havoc.

But in my little micro verse I look at it this way: I'm encouraging the snake to evolve a healthy fear of humans. When we kill venomous snakes or any animal that comes too close to us, that animal doesn't reproduce anymore, leaving his more timid relatives to carry on, hence developing the tendency for the species as a whole to not come near human abodes. We see the reverse of this all too clearly with coyotes and bears. Ever since we stopped shooting them on sight, they have become assertive about entering cities (coyotes) or digging in your trash cans (bears). And then there's the alligators in Florida. It's not really a good thing to let dangerous wild animals lose the fear of humans, and if you don't kill them, they will.

But having said all that, we do have an issue of human overpopulation. I don't think we really know whether this is going to result in a great reduction of biodiversity among animals. It's evident to me that animals continue to evolve and adapt and even thrive with human presence. What does happen is species become extinct, but that's nothing new. New ones will arise. And I think the trend toward less human reproduction as a society becomes more modern will eventually put the brakes on our population growth, and nature will be just fine.
 
And I think the trend toward less human reproduction as a society becomes more modern will eventually put the brakes on our population growth, and nature will be just fine.
Either that, or a Malthusian catastrophe will reduce our ranks drastically. But either way, I agree that nature will be just fine, in the long run.

(Even if we consider the truly LONG run - beyond about 500 million years or so from now, the Sun will get hot enough to start to make Earth an increasingly hostile abode for life. It's been estimated that life on Earth has another billion years or so to go. My guess is, microbes and possibly small arthropods will survive in some form for a lot longer than that, but the era of big plants and beasts will come to an end. And that, too, will be the work of nature. Hopefully there are many other worlds in the Galaxy where life is evolving and will continue to evolve into the even farther future.)
 
Either that, or a Malthusian catastrophe will reduce our ranks drastically. But either way, I agree that nature will be just fine, in the long run.

(Even if we consider the truly LONG run - beyond about 500 million years or so from now, the Sun will get hot enough to start to make Earth an increasingly hostile abode for life. It's been estimated that life on Earth has another billion years or so to go. My guess is, microbes and possibly small arthropods will survive in some form for a lot longer than that, but the era of big plants and beasts will come to an end. And that, too, will be the work of nature. Hopefully there are many other worlds in the Galaxy where life is evolving and will continue to evolve into the even farther future.)

Yes. This video made my head explode.

 
Yes. This video made my head explode.

Good video. I learned something from it too. I always thought mammoths had gone extinct at the end of the Pleistocene or soon after, never knew there were any still alive at the time the pyramids were being built in Egypt. But apparently there was an isolated population on Wrangel Island up until about then (at least according to Wikipedia's article on the wooly mammoth, citing a fossil specimen from 4300 BP).

They didn't give a timeline for the death of the last star or heat death of the universe, but red dwarf stars, the lightest stars that perform hydrogen to helium fusion, have lifetimes in the trillions or tens of trillions of years, so that should give you an idea of how far off it is. Heat death I think is estimated at 10^1000 years.
 
I'm encouraging the snake to evolve a healthy fear of humans. When we kill venomous snakes or any animal that comes too close to us, that animal doesn't reproduce anymore, leaving his more timid relatives to carry on, hence developing the tendency for the species as a whole to not come near human abodes. We see the reverse of this all too clearly with coyotes and bears.
Dogs evolved from wolves who lost their fear of humans, and then became domesticated by humans over succeeding generations. Some Russian scientists captured a group of wild foxes, selected those who seemed most "friendly" for successive breedings, and watched as the new generations of foxes changed into animals that increasingly resembled dogs in temperament -- and even in physical appearance in some ways.
 
Back
Top