|
punkencack
May 15, 2008, 10:37 PM
Post #1 of 89
(36213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 20, 2002
Posts: 5
|
That's right. The snake migration has virtually shut down sinks canyon again. Only a crazy-ass fool would go there during this snake hey-day. Hundreds of them swarming in groups of two to nine, super-aggro, venomous and deadly. Probably won't be safe to climb at Sinks again until late August. Maybe later.
PHOTO ATTACHED
|
|
Attachments:
|
Rattlesnakes.jpg
(41.9 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 15, 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #2 of 89
(36204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
I hate those damn snake migrations. Nothing much you can do but go climbing at the gym!
|
|
|
|
|
mccarthykm
May 15, 2008, 11:06 PM
Post #3 of 89
(36191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2004
Posts: 194
|
Oh come on, you've got to appreciate how amazing these mass migrations are!
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...
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
May 15, 2008, 11:10 PM
Post #4 of 89
(36182 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
mccarthykm wrote: 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...
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 post was edited by ja1484 on May 15, 2008, 11:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mccarthykm
May 16, 2008, 1:13 AM
Post #6 of 89
(36125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2004
Posts: 194
|
ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: 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... 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.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
May 16, 2008, 1:53 AM
Post #7 of 89
(36106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: 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... 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/venomousWhile 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.
So if I inject Rattlesnake venom into my bloodstream, is it poison or venom? What if I add it to a salad dressing? Is acid technically a venom because it acts via tissue damage and breaks down body tissue? Or is it only venom if an acid-shooting Japanese Giant Hornet squirts it on me, but it's poison if I drink it? But what if I drink the hornet? Is it poison and venom, or is it still venom because technically the hornet will be applying it to the inside of my digestive tract?
THESE ARE IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEED TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This post was edited by ja1484 on May 16, 2008, 1:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 16, 2008, 3:28 AM
Post #8 of 89
(36054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: 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... 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/venomousWhile 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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
May 16, 2008, 3:44 AM
Post #9 of 89
(36040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
You now you can drink venom some people think it makes them stronger there are no ill effects as long as you don't have an ulcer. You naturally digest the venom, which is actually a protein like an egg white. Another cool fact if you inject one rat with egg white and another with rattlesnake venom the one injected with egg white will die faster. I have seen this done it really wild.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 17, 2008, 3:36 PM
Post #11 of 89
(35951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
clausti wrote: jon06 wrote: 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!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 17, 2008, 3:50 PM
Post #12 of 89
(35941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
robdotcalm wrote: mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: 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... 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/venomousWhile 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. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
May 17, 2008, 4:21 PM
Post #13 of 89
(35919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
jon06 wrote: robdotcalm wrote: mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: 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... 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/venomousWhile 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. 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?
That's fine if it's a discussion amongst biologists/ecologists/herpetologists.
For the rest of the public, the terms are going to remain synonymous for the most part, like they always have, because common usage dictates meaning in language just as much as vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 17, 2008, 4:47 PM
Post #14 of 89
(35911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
jon06 wrote:
«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...there is most definitely a
deference.»
More confusion. Which word has deference to which word?
In my posting, I did not say the terms were synonyms (“one of two or more words having essentially identical definitions…’ Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary). It was stated that “poison” was the more general term and venom the more restricted.
OK, I agree with one thing you wrote. People in California are as confused as those in Missouri.
Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus
(This post was edited by robdotcalm on May 18, 2008, 11:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bolderer
May 17, 2008, 6:10 PM
Post #15 of 89
(35888 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2006
Posts: 48
|
that pic makes my blood run cold, whether it's venom or poison that scares me shitless.....
|
|
|
|
|
janderson4010
May 17, 2008, 7:28 PM
Post #16 of 89
(35863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 56
|
clausti wrote: jon06 wrote: 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!!!!
I can't believe no one caught on to that, thats some funny shit
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 17, 2008, 8:32 PM
Post #17 of 89
(35839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 18, 2008, 3:42 AM
Post #18 of 89
(35775 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 18, 2008, 11:22 PM
Post #19 of 89
(35704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
jon06 wrote: 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!
jon06:
I give you credit for trying, but it’s still not right as you’ve used the word “toxin” in a way inconsistent with its meaning.
Merriam-Webster Unabridged defines toxin thusly
«any of various poisonous substances that are specific products of the metabolic activities of living organisms, are colloidal substances related to proteins and usually very unstable, are notably toxic when introduced into the tissues but are almost all destroyed by the digestive juices, and are typically capable of inducing antibody formation in suitable animals»
Thus referring to something a person (or animal) swallows as a “toxin” is inappropriate. The confusion here may arise from the fact that the adjective “toxic” has a more general meaning than the noun “toxin”.
I agree with you that I’d be better off climbing than being a word Nazi, but I’m healing from some fractured vertebrae ( stupid accident ) so word play is one of my substitute activities.
Incidentally, I did see a small rattlesnake last week while hiking along the Devils Backbone Trail here in Loveland. It was a cold day, and the poisonous snake was lethargic and not exhibiting any venomous behavior that indicated it would inject a toxin into me.
Cheers, rob.calm
Sunday, 18 May, 2008 17:18 MDT
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
May 18, 2008, 11:44 PM
Post #20 of 89
(35693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
chadcummings wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 19, 2008, 12:38 AM
Post #21 of 89
(35671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: 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.
Eh? So?
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
May 19, 2008, 3:24 AM
Post #22 of 89
(35623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: 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.
Good writing here. I like the asshole symmetry.
|
|
|
|
|
fiferguy
May 19, 2008, 3:56 AM
Post #23 of 89
(35610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2008
Posts: 14
|
camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: 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.
But they taste so good... what do you do for food on your trips, pack it in? **gasp** 
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 19, 2008, 4:15 AM
Post #24 of 89
(35597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
call me an asshole all you like. it wont affect me that some guy on the internet thinks im an asshole. Have you ever been bitten? seen someone with health problems get struck by one and seen the pain and struggle for life? what any little kid that got bite by a baby rattler becuase they didn't know? i'm not scared of snakes i kill them with a pocket knife and a stick to hold their head down.
you know what i am an asshole. thanks for teaching me that
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 19, 2008, 5:37 PM
Post #25 of 89
(35506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
I got bit by a dog when why I was a kid. Do you know how many more people are killed by domestic dogs than rattlesnakes? Dose this mean I should kill every dog I see on the spot?
Give me a fucking break!
You don't see past you're own nose, and use a very faulty reasoning.
You probably got bit in the ankle when you were a kid because you were trying to step on it.
Karma's a bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
