HikeArizona.COM

I have a friend who is buddies with some big poison control specialist in the Phoenix area who told me about a conversation they had recently. Poison control has been finding an increase in venom potency (not the amount expelled but concentrated potency) in rattlesnakes. Since snakes are easy to avoid when they announce themselves, the scarier part of what was mentioned was that they have found this year that they are rattling less and poison control is becoming worried that snakes that rattle less will spawn snakes that rattle less and less. I've noticed a couple triplogs lately mentioning snakes not rattling and have come across it once this summer and a couple that would only rattle for a very short period and then stop without any more distance being put between myself and the snake (or even when getting closer).

I would like to enter a conversation with this person from poison control but would like some more info to give him such as the experiences of others this year, what types of rattlesnakes these were, and where in the state they were encountered. Any info would be useful.

Seems like hobblewash to me on both accounts as the time needed for natural selection to multiply these characteristics isn't sufficient in lab observations. At least that's what I overheard Bob and Denny chatting on a hike long ago.

I've read that there are many factors that change the potency level, such as age, time of year, etc. etc.. So is there a marked difference in the potency level or better research methods?
As for rattling, some that I've come upon didn't want to bother, others did. The ones that did seemed to be at a warmer operating temp and better warned of my being near, the others not so much.
Last year the Tucson paper had a front page story on bite increases and lack of rattling. Is it because there are just more people out there and that they all expect the snakes to rattle? So the increase in population plus lack of knowledge of rattlesnake behavior could skew numbers. I'm sure more urbanites moving into the desert realms are going about their life like they did before they moved here. Walking outside to get the paper in the morning, moving the hose in the evening without taking the moment to check things out. They surprise the snake not giving it a chance to rattle.
Multiply this with amount of growth in the state and all of a sudden you have evil non rattling hyper potent snakes out there.
Makes for good copy in the papers.

I'm not trying to raise fears and this didn't come from the papers but from someone in poison control having a casual conversation. I'm just looking to gather some experiences so I can talk to this person-- not cause some stupid debate online. That might be asking a lot I guess.

Some times they buzz and some times they don't, and they don't come with a label, "Will buzz before strikes"

@Nighthiker

very useful... thanks so much.

Tough_Boots wrote:I'm just looking to gather some experiences so I can talk to this person

I haven't noticed a rise in triplogs mentioning rattlesnake bites recently. Nor any for that matter though there's likely a few in there I've missed.

I have noticed and heard some talk about less rattling and more venomous.

Snakes don't seem to rattle as much in the summer or dead of winter in my experiences.

Tough_Boots wrote:-- not cause some stupid debate online. That might be asking a lot I guess

might simply state "not looking for opinions" as forums are typically a place to share opinions and apparently you don't agree with either my opinion or alston's
though they seem to both fit perfectly on topic and under "Any info would be useful"
sorry if I upset you, not my intentions

I had to think long and hard about all the years my dad and I hunted and camped in this state. So I'm going back almost 50 years and thinking about all of the rattler encounters I had. Which left a very strong imprint in my memory.
I remember where, when and other details of the encounter.
I came to the realization just now that hardly any of them rattled.
So I'm not trying to get into an interweb debate Tough Boots, but really who has documented that in the last 50 or 30 years rattlesnakes are rattling less?

joe bartels wrote:might simply state "not looking for opinions" as forums are typically a place to share opinions and apparently you don't agree with either my opinion or alston's
thought they seem to both fit perfectly on topic and under "Any info would be useful"
sorry if I upset you, not my intentions

I don't disagree or agree with your opinions and I'm not upset with you. I was just hoping to get some concrete info from the people that are out there so that I could have a more informed conversation with someone who is a poison specialist and deals with this stuff on a regular basis in a scientific manner. I would imagine that since they are studying and noticing trends, they are in contact with other people in the field. I have not spoken to this person yet and I haven't studied this stuff thoroughly so I don't agree or disagree. I would just like to collect some useful information and the first response I get insinuates that the whole idea is stupid.

Alston Neal wrote:So I'm not trying to get into an interweb debate Tough Boots, but really who has documented that in the last 50 or 30 years rattlesnakes are rattling less?

I don't know. Maybe somebody has or hasn't. Maybe someone has in the past 10 years. Maybe a trend is being noticed to instigate this type of study to begin. You might be surprised.

Actually, there is a HAZ member who does have a fairly extensive knowledge of snakes and herpetology who may or may not be able to give you some actual factual info. But he also has an intense dislike of feral cats...... :whistle:

The last few buzzworms I've seen have been chubby and docile. They haven't coiled or rattled. An obesity epidemic? I don't mind if they don't rattle as long as they don't go all Ninja on me. I did have a dream about mutant zombie buzzworms, but that might have just been some bad tequila before turning in.

joe bartels wrote:Seems like hobblewash to me on both accounts as the time needed for natural selection to multiply these characteristics isn't sufficient in lab observations.

Agreed. I think this is in the vein of trying to find something that isn't there to justify more $$ for research, or job security.

In the 9 years I've been hiking and mountain biking in AZ I have encountered tons of rattlers, and yes, most of them did not rattle. But to anyone who knows much about rattlers that has more to do with the time of the day I encountered them than whether they have evolved to rattle less or not.

Almost all of my encounters while mountain biking were early morning when they are most lethargic, sunning themselves to get their body temp up to 80 degrees before moving off into a more secluded, less vulnerable location to wait out the day or await their prey.

While hiking I'd estimate 30% rattled and then rest didn't, or at least didn't until they began to feel vulnerable and just wanted me or others along to just go away. But again I'd attribute fully half of the non-rattling to the early morning lethargy. The other half I'd say if a rattler was comfortable with its surroundings, did not feel at risk, wasn't antagonized by stupid teens throwing rocks at it [-X or the like, why would they need to rattle?

@Tough_Boots: I'm not one to belittle efforts to gather more information and experience, in fact I'm one with a voracious appetite for more information but frankly I personally wouldn't waste any time on this. If I were to ask them anything I'd ask them how much time they personally have spent time out-in-the-field for real-world experience as opposed to hearing the stories second-, third-, or even fourth-hand from ER/Rescue/Urgent Care personnel. Are they out milking rattlers on a regular basis to support a scientific basis for the claim of more potent venom? If they have not been doing this over the last 20-50 years, as Teva Joe said, it's all hobblewash. Or just job security...

Maybe I should dream up a research project and raise money to see if the rattlers are actually rattling louder and more often, but it's simply the stupid twits are so engrossed texting while hiking that they don't hear the rattle before being bitten. Then of course in the ER they will swear "well it didn't rattle!" so their own lack of knowledge of their surroundings isn't so transparent. (As in air-head)
:SB:
Who's with me on that?? Anyone ready to kick in some funds for research? Surely not the cell companies. Heaven forbid anyone not use their cell phone while driving, hiking, or biking. Yes, I saw this the other day... holding a bag and phone on the handle bars with one hand while texting with the other. Where's the STUPID smiley??

Ok, now I'm into :bdh: so I probably should just

Not quite yet... but I will leave the worrying about things not worth worrying about to those who need to have something to worry about.

One more :SB:
Like being near a mountain top during a storm... all the worry about hundreds of people on Humphrey's who were under imminent danger of being struck... and guess what?? None were! What are the odds of that??
We hiked the last two days on Mount Graham with no fear of lightning, bears or red-necks although conditions were ripe for all three. Ok, so we did have a near encounter with some red-neck campers with their boom-box going but we kept a-drivin' to another campground far enough away for the solitude we sought. Sure we got poured on while hiking, but that just proved the value of wearing Teva's while hiking.

Ok, ok, I know I've probably riled up a few folk, :guilty: but then isn't that necessary sometimes? Like why aren't we now all up-in-arms to start a recall campaign to kick all the leeches out of Congress for not doing their job. And then taking off on vacation... but that's another whole (insert can-of-worms smiley here).

@CannondaleKid
Jeez sitting on the fence must hurt....

Fences never bothered me none... whether sitting, standing, walking around or going through. :whistle:

CannondaleKid wrote:Agreed. I think this is in the vein of trying to find something that isn't there to justify more $$ for research, or job security.

That's a ridiculous assumption considering you don't know who this person is, who they work for, their intentions, or how casually/seriously they are watching trends. Instead of arguing against what is actually going on, you're arguing against a make-believe "other side" that you can have a ready made argument for. It sounds like you're trying to discourage a conversation with a professional-- seems ridiculous and another example of walking around with blinders on. Gather facts and then come to conclusions-- all else is nonsense.

The Stillernator wrote:Actually, there is a HAZ member who does have a fairly extensive knowledge of snakes and herpetology who may or may not be able to give you some actual factual info. But he also has an intense dislike of feral cats...... :whistle:

He should either be back from Panama or close to it. The Chuckbox is waiting rally_toad!

@Jim Lyding

He's back.

Tough_Boots wrote:That's a ridiculous assumption considering you don't know who this person is, who they work for, their intentions, or how casually/seriously they are watching trends.

You're absolutely correct, I don't know the person, and yes it may be a ridiculous assumption to you, but it sure got your attention, didn't it?

I think it's kinda funny how easy people can get riled up, yet sometimes nothing can get them riled? Taking it to the extreme I wish the citizens of this country got riled up enough to start a referendum for a balanced budget amendment instead of thinking, what can I do about it? and give up.

Tough_Boots wrote:It sounds like you're trying to discourage a conversation with a professional-- seems ridiculous and another example of walking around with blinders on.

Yes, I suppose to those that don't know me well it does sound like a discouragement. As I mentioned I would just ask the one question about their methodology and the length of time of the study, and by their answer I would decide for myself whether to put stock in the ridiculous assumption (my personal opinion) that rattlers have evolved to rattle less.

Tough_Boots wrote:seems ridiculous and another example of walking around with blinders on.

Walking around with blinders??
Yes, I suppose not listening at all to the professionals would be just that. But on the other hand blindly listening to the experts is just as absurd. (Listening to the experts to some degree is how this country got in its fiscal mess, but that's another mud-slinging deal)

If it seemed I put myself above the professionals in the case of rattlers, it's probably due to my knowledge of rattlers and snakes in general. I've had so many life experiences with and among snakes (grew up in South Africa where snakes of the poisonous varieties were a daily thing, even inside the house) as well as voraciously gathering information about every variety I encountered, I sure wouldn't consider myself a blithering idiot when it comes to herpetology. I understand enough that I'm not concerned if rattlers don't rattle as much or have more potent venom as it won't change the way or places I hike. I've stepped on some of the most poisonous snakes in the world and yet somehow I've never been bitten... close on many occasions (one that killed my dog) but from each time I gained a first-hand knowledge of how the snake acted and reacted and that knowledge has carried me through. So, in a way, I consider myself a professional in real-world snake encounters.

@Tough_Boots Hey Kyle, please don't take anything I say personally, pretty much when I use a tone that almost gurantees a vilifying response it's just because it's fun to :STP: :guilty:

After all, how can we start a run on the record for the most read/posted/responded thread if all it received was lethargy? :GB:

CannondaleKid wrote:Hey Kyle, please don't take anything I say personally, pretty much when I use a tone that almost gurantees a vilifying response it's just because it's fun to

I'm seriously not at all riled up. I understand that emotion and tones don't come through clearly in this type of medium so if someone wants to see drama or inherently looks for it, then they might see that. I was simply asking for information that I could take to an outside professional source to compare experience/data and I've received the opposite. As far as I'm concerned, this topic did not serve its purpose and I couldn't really care less about what else goes on. No hard feelings just wasted effort and a few moments of rolled eyes.

Tough_Boots wrote:As far as I'm concerned, this topic did not serve its purpose

All right, all right... I should simply have stated the facts of my rattlesnake encounters this year and left it at that. (but it wouldn't be quite as entertaining)

Just the facts... (of my rattler encounters this year)
How many? 5
How many rattled before I noticed them? None
Did they rattle at all? Only a couple when it's possible they began to feel vulnerable, but I didn't further provoke them.
What time of day did I encounter them? All but one it was early in the day and those were sunning themselves.
Was their behavior different than noted in the past? Pretty much the same as I've noted in the last 9 years. The ones that rattled had good reason to, and the ones that didn't rattle probably had little reason to.

Only one time in 9 years of encounters did one intend to strike at me and that was completely by accident. The ground squirrel that was his intended lunch saw me coming on my mountain bike and made a left turn moments before the strike and not being able to stop on loose gravel I rode by on the recoil. I stopped, pulled out my camera and walked back for some photos. It was still pretty steamed but I got some great photos without further incident.