And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous."

Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand...

you don't eat them

Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous

I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as:


Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous

While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes.

On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion."

So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage.

But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator.

While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes.

On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion."

So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage.

But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator.

I hate those damn snake migrations. Nothing much you can do but go climbing at the gym!

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CANYON!!!!

Unfortunately, what you “restate clearly” is confusing. [“poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage” is so undecipherable as to be not even wrong.] In technical areas, words may be used differently than in ordinary speech, but your attempt at clarification fails. I would recommend that you do make use of standard dictionaries, since you are an educator.

Poisons do not “typically” cause an allergic reaction, e.g., arsenic or carbon monoxide, and one can inject a poison as in a lethal injection or inhale a poisonous gas. These modes do not involve ingestion into the alimentary system.

In ordinary usage, “venom” has a more restricted meaning than the more generic term “poison”. Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary elaborates on the more restrictive sense of “venom”, stating inter alia, “venom may refer to a poison interjected with fierce malignant hostility <the venom of the rattlesnake>”.

I have a feeling these terms are not being interchanged incorrectly anywhere except perhaps in Missouri.

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus

I live out here in California and every biology/ecology/herpetology class i have ever taken has also said these to terms are not synonymous.
When in context of animals, there is most definitely a deference.

What me to reference a book?

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CANYON!!!!

Ok, now i'm getting pissed. Not at you robdotcalm. But at this web page. I got sucked in. I need to get ready to go camping/climbing this afternoon, and what am I doing?
I'm flipping through text books to quote.

You're right, I am confused. But not about those definitions in the context we are using them.

When referring to animals,

Venomous: A toxin injected by an animal. (rattlesnakes, scorpions, platypus)
Poisonous: A toxin that is Harmful if swallowed (Poison arrow frog, California newt)

I'm done. I'm going climbing.

You should to!

they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem.

don't kill snakes, asshole.

I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear.

And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole.

don't kill snakes, asshole.

I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear.

And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole.

don't kill snakes, asshole.

I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear.

And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole.

Good writing here. I like the asshole symmetry.

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CANYON!!!!

oh no a red neck joke? hmm i gonna say that is not a good nor valid reason. thats gonna cost the lives of say 4 or 5 snakes. care to try again?

Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous

I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as:


Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous

this is kinda fun.

1. there are many more snakes ( non-venomous) that will fill the role of the venomous ones.

2. my life is more important than a snakes

fuck all of you that say a snakes life is more important than a humans.

even though i'm enjoying this now, i have started to grow bored with the eco-fucks.

So how many of you have protested a rattlesnake round-up?


you know why they do those and what happens with the ones that got caught right?

Also, I have been bitten by a Copperhead before, and for some strange reason I do not feel the need to kill any copperheads I come across.

The venom is poisonous, not the snake. the venom has poisoning properties, whereas the snake on the whole only has the capabilities to produce the venom, hence venomous.

irrelevant. everything i say will be just that to each of you. so i'll tell you what, i'm not going to waste anymore of my time with your bullshit and avoiding to give what i would say is a good and valid reason. I will let you all count this a a win for you. good for all of you. pat yourselves on the backs. bravo

ah goodtimes on rc.com. love it

I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature.

Alright, this is my reason.

The natural world around you is very complex. More so than you or me or anyone can understand. You killing a rattlesnake, as well as thousands of other like minded people killing rattlesnakes, has huge consequences other than, "oh, another non-venomous snake will take its place." If you want to protect any part of what has always been there, then you need to protect all of it.

If you come across a snake, and you kill it, do you really think you're saving somebody? I kind of doubt it.

So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement.

i understand that. but theres a reason i do what i do and they hold those round-up. its to control the mass numbers of rattlers. theres been studies and shown that the king snake and bull snake are better for my local. No lose of live stock, pets or injurys. i go look for them when people have problems with them. i work construction and been under a house eye to eye about a foot away from a 6footer. not so much fun.

Incorrect. You misinterpreted for your own conclusions. A snake would lack the capacity to understand that (in most cases) the human is not attempting to kill the snake. There is a difference between feeling threatened and being attacked. As with many other creatures in the animal kingdom, it is often kill or be killed. There is a difference between defending yourself and rounding up animals to be killed.

So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement.

I've read that over the last couple of dozen years or so, rattlesnakes have become less prone to rattling. I guess that people are more likely to find and kill a rattling rattlesnake than one sitting quietly under the brush or in a rock that they never see. So those that are genetically less prone to rattling before they strike are surviving, while those genetically prone to warn us first are being killed off. The irony is that, in our attempt to make things safer, humans have unintentionlly bred a more dangerous, stealthy snake.

So. That's a reason to not kill rattlers.

I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature.

i didn't state that but i did try to imply that the king snake and bull snake are better for the control and harmless to humans, pets, and live stock.

AGREED!

I will kill any stupid animal that I feel threatens me in any way. The snake isn't going to argue with the other snakes about the responsible thing to do, it's just going to bite the shit out of me.

I am allergic to hornets - if hornets build a nest within a thousand yards of my house I will douse that motherfucker in gasoline and kill every last one of those bastards. If a copperhead crosses my path it's shovel-bait.

But even more than that - I will kill animals to serve my own purposes. I will gladly kill a rabbit to eat it, and if I'm not in the mood to eat it, I will kill it for its fur. And maybe I might just kill it because the little asshole keeps eating the strawberries in my garden. I will kill a thousand animals if it ensures my survival in any way, shape, or form.

And you know what? I consider myself an environmentalist. I try to limit my consumption of mass produced goods, I recycle and use compact fluorescent light bulbs. I generally try to not contribute to the wholesale raping of our environment which goes on daily.

But if it comes down to it, I will gleefully take the life of any creature that I feel inhibits my quality of life in any way, shape, or form. I'd rather murder a hundred cute little kitties than spew thousands of tons of CO2 into my environment. Anything that isn't on the verge of extinction is fair game.


Edit: I will also PTFTW the hell out of anyone who disagrees with me

You are a shitty environmentalist.

jeeez loouise- I just wanted to show this amazing shot of a rattlesnake I got recently. Nobody seemed to notice...Waaaaaaaaaaa
Crazy how this thread morphed first into a debate on semantics and then to whatever it is now.

You're so deep in your own hole that you can't see out. First, I wasn't talking about a round-up, second, most of the world disagrees with you about the relative value of human life vs. other life forms. Go to the grocery store, you can see that.

People be people. Food be food. Only very silly people get the two confused.

Color me silly then, and adopt a modest proposal. I have yet to hear anyone give me a rational reason for why human life takes precedent over other creatures aside from "duhh, only teh retards hippys likes animals better!"

I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter.

I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter.

I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy.

geez, dude.

the rational opinion is that if something is going to kill you, and you'd rather not die, you kill it. otherwise, you adhere to the higher moral good of not hurting other creatures.

i dont think that saying "you shouldn't go out of your way to kill something that isn't at the moment harming you" is tantamount to a judgment on the worthiness of respective lives.

and besides, who judges "worth" of someone's life? each person is "worth" a diff amount to diff people. in the abstract, some people are worth more than a rattlesnake to me, some less. luckily i dont have to walk around putting that value judgment into practice.

So do you have an answer for me then? I assure you I'm not trolling here. I'm pretty content and happy with myself thank you. And once again if that's your position on this issue, you can feel free to call me whatever you wish to make yourself feel comfortable in your justification, but please don't hide behind the facade that you have actually answered the question. Danke Schoen!

I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy.

I should have known better than to attempt to rationally arguing anything on this site.

Color me silly then, and adopt a modest proposal. I have yet to hear anyone give me a rational reason for why human life takes precedent over other creatures aside from "duhh, only teh retards hippys likes animals better!"

I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter.

Yep, I can't contest that statement.


Here's the answer: because I get to decide. I decide whether or not to kill the snake (or at least try) or to leave it alone. Because I can. That's nature. It's (somewhat) random. I get to use my biases, my own sometimes good, sometimes faulty decision making, etc. to decide on life and death. It's beautiful, it's horrible, it's life. No other reason. Nothing has any "value" outside of what it's given. If I assign no value to the snake life, well, it gets none.

Depends on the human life.

THere's a lotta fuckers out there I'd rather see dead than a single rattlesnake. You probably feel the same way too, whether you admit/realize it or not.

We'll start with the mother-killers and father-rapers, move on to the mother-rapers and father-killers. Where it goes from there, IDC, but you see my point. Some people should be killed for the good of the human race, the only reason they're still alive is 'cause it's against the law to kill 'em.

This is, for the most part, the answer most commonly given. However we as humans have been going around doing what we want (because as you said, we can) for around 10,000 years or so, and well...it hasn't worked out so well in my opinion.

The problem isn't that we shouldn't be able to make individual value judgments on things, it's how we act upon these judgments. Humans have been granted the amazing power of foresight and judgment, which many creatures lack. If we continue to go around doing as we please we will inevitably pay the ultimate price- extinction.

After all, we are but a speck on the timeline of our planets history, the earth will live on after we are gone- provided we don't kill all living organisms on it in our attempts to prolong our race.

Valarc was correct when he stated the overall problems of our world vastly outweigh the killing of a few snakes in one's path, but this mindset in itself leads to a machiavellian-esque scorched earth policy if we all adopt it. Hell, most of us have already acknowledged and enacted this mindset either consciously or subconsciously in many respects.

a little off topic, but the pic made it to the break.com galleries..

http://www.break.com/...nightmare514196.html

actually, the photo was taken 15 miles east of Riverton in the Gas Hills, nowhere near Lander. I know the people who took the picture (it's a small town) and it was on the Fremont County Schools website for a while..
but, the rattlers are out and migrating to their summer places, which means the dolomite, so, just keep an eye out and leave them alone...they control the rodents and it's bad karma to kill the Nagas...you'll come down with all sorts of rheumatic disorders.
like they say...Wyoming, nothing but wind and rattlesnakes. you gotta love it.

a little late; but, what the hell? here is the deal: you dumb shits!