bassman1308 Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 What's the deal with snakes at the park ? I was told by an attendant last year you're not supposed to harm/kill them. Is this true ? I see snakes every time I go to RR, sometimes more than one. I was walking / wading near the bank directly in front of the shelter in the C&R area yesterday and almost stepped on the largest cotton mouth I've ever seen. 3 feet away. His midsection was bigger than my forearm and his head was at least 1 1/2 inches across. A young girl had been walking her dog jin that area just a couple minutes before I got to where the snake was coiled. She had to have been very close to stepping on it. I know the snakes have a right to be there but, IMO. POISONOUS snakes should be killed in area's like RR. It's hard to relax and enjoy the park when you're constantly looking down at the ground in front of you.
SpoonDog Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 They're venemous, not poisonous, and to put it in perspective there's 500,000+ visitors to Roaring River every year. It could happen, but I haven't heard of many folks being bitten, much less killed. To be honest you're far more likely to be bitten by the dog, or bitten by the girl, than being bitten by a cottonmouth. Johnsfolly, ALLSTAR1, MOPanfisher and 5 others 8
Gavin Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 Guess you should stay home then. Ham and Daryk Campbell Sr 2
Al Agnew Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 Two different philosophies, I guess. Some think that the outdoors should be made as safe as possible, others think we should adjust to the dangers as they are. The MDC regulatory system is, if it doesn't say you CAN kill it, you can't. Venomous snakes are part of the wild, they belong there, we're the visitors. Since having them there has little bad effects on the overall resource, why kill them? On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that Roaring River is not exactly the wildest place in the outdoors. And a lot of people visit there that don't have a clue about the dangers they might encounter. Still, it's not like people are getting bitten by venomous snakes regularly at RR (or anywhere else, for that matter). Ham and Deadstream 2
fishinwrench Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 I have no problem killing copperheads and cottonmouths, but what I do have a problem with is other people doing it who think every dark banded snake is a copperhead or a cottonmouth. Gavin, Brian Jones, Deadstream and 2 others 5
bassman1308 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Posted April 17, 2016 I suppose I understand why MDC does not want ANY snakes killed but RR is a high traffic area for people and there are plenty of non venemous snakes around to take care of the rats/ mice & dead trout.. My main concern are the many young children who visit RR. While it's true death by snake bite is rare in Missouri, snake bites are not . I should have used better judgement and killed that cottonmouth. bassfisher 1
Deadstream Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 Quick Google search says 3 possibly 4 bite deaths in MO going back to the 30's. Last one in James River the young man was too tuff to go for treatment. I have spent thousands of hours on Mo and Ark rivers and streams and have never had a problem. I have also seen people kill every snake near the water in Canada, Michigan, Minnesota etc. because they were Cottonmouths...(There are zero) Like wrench says, lots of friendly water snakes get the ax because of faulty ID.
SpoonDog Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 It's a solution looking for a problem. The reality is children aren't the ones commonly bit- it's young adults, 18-30, Darwin Award candidates messing with snakes. You're far more likely to be bit by a venemous snake trying to kill it than had you just left it alone. Any snake which managed to survive may be more aggressive towards perceived threats in the future, effectively created the problem which never existed in the first place but which you decided to solve. Half a million visitors a year without incident means you're overstating the threat. Sure there's a chance a snake could injure a kid, but If past experience is any indicator, there's nothing to be gained from killing them. And you're never going to kill all of them- which means you're never going to solve a problem which never really needed solving in the first place. It's pointless. People are allergic to bees and wasps, all sorts of wild animals carry rabies, and branches and tree trunks kill or injure far more people every year than snakes. But we're not knocking down hornets nests or waxing bats or cutting down every tree along the stream. We accept those unlikely events for exactly what they are and we live with them. tho1mas, Daryk Campbell Sr, Brian Jones and 4 others 7
Flysmallie Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 A kid could fall in the water and drown. We better drain that sucker. Daryk Campbell Sr 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now