quote:

---

the venom in the younger snakes is more potent than in larger, more mature snakes. Anyone care to verify or debunk?

---

They're lethal at eight months, and I do mean lethal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

the venom in the younger snakes is more potent than in larger, more mature snakes. Anyone care to verify or debunk?

---

I believe the opposite is true actually; that older snakes have shown to have more virulent venom than younger snakes. They are also capable of delivering a larger quantity.

---

But older snakes have more experience and are less likely to empty their venom sacs into your ass. My understanding is that younger snakes frequently bring the house when they envenomate you.

---

This is possibly true and I'll look for published studies on it. Still it is equivalent to bringing the house from a coke can or delivering a quarter of a gallon jug. Adult snake bites are generally worse.

I was bitten by a rattlesnake when I was 13 and on a boy scout campout, by being an idiot and reaching under large rocks without a flashlight. It got me on two knuckles. I didn't know it was a snake until I came back with a flashlight to see what "stung" me. It did not rattle until some adults came and killed it with a shovel.

I got my knuckles cut and drained, some antivenom, spent one night in the hospital and came back to the campout the next morning. Those kids thought I was Lazarus.

I kept asking the Scoutmaster what happened to the snake skin and he would never tell me. Then he presented the skin to me at my Eagle Court of Honor.

Long story short, I have no fear of snakes, but consider myself lucky that it only got me on my knuckles, and to this day look at the ground everywhere I go.

Pretty good article on the matter. Make sure to read through the comments.

http://www.livingalongsidewildlife.com/2009/10/are-bites-from-baby-venomous-snakes.html?m=1

I still doubt the entire thing. The Victoria Advocate has not mentioned this, the stories and locations keep changing, I'd bet it an urban legend. I live in Victoria and have yet to find anyone that knows them, other than "friend of friends" kind of BS.

Great read!

This quote from the author was along the lines of what I was thinking regarding toxicity, not necessarily the danger of a bite from a small snake versus a large snake. The biggest rattlers aren't called "two steppers" for no reason - it seems like the reason is due to the sheer volume of venom injected in the victim, though, rather than specific toxicity.

quote:

---

The myth is all about controlling the amount of venom and not directly relevant to varying toxicities, but varying toxicities is certainly relevant to the question of whether young snakes are more dangerous than adults. So, there is evidence that venom composition changes over time within snakes and this is thought to happen because small rattlesnakes feed largely on lizards and mammals make up a larger component of the diet later in life. However, there does not seem to be a consensus regarding whether this means the venom become more toxic. Importantly, we must consider that what is toxic to some organisms may not be as toxic to others.

---

quote:

---

I'm saving this pic for the next time I am asked to do Bluebonnet pics.

Nope.

---

yes, snakes can be anywhere, but most bluebonnet fields (emphasis on field) will be fine. This family are in tall weeds around a *****ly pear plant. no way in hell would i be crouching around there. This may just be confirmation bias, but the only time i've ever come across rattlesnakes where under bushes, *****ly pear, or on very rocky/steep soils.

The Old Baylor site at Independence is kept mowed pretty damn short until the bluebonnets start gaining height, the grass is well below the height of the bluebonnets.

We did our bluebonnet pics at the Bush Library this year. the grass wasn't very tall, and I thoroughly looked around and poked the ground with my tripod before we settled on a spot.

Sometimes there is risk involved in enjoying life. you just try to be as safe as you can.

after some consideration, I've decided not to endorse these photos

quote:

---

after some consideration, I've decided not to endorse these photos

---

so have I

quote:

---

I'm calling BS on the whole thing. Unless that rattler was wearing these


Looks like in reality dad was reacting to his daughter peeing on his leg and someone shopped the snake into the pic.

---

THIS X 11tybillion!!!

quote:

---

Well that is heartbreaking. Hope the mom recovers and is ok. And build a statue of that dog for saving the little girl.

---

I'd vote for a statue if he caught the snake before the family posed for the picture. Maybe a nice headstone.

So has this been proven fake yet.

Wondering myself, if I may break Jurassic park character for a moment

In related news: http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/140498960-story

I didn't read all replies but the story was on texasbowhunter. A guy knows the couple
I think it was south texas on family ranch

The woman was not bite

The dog was bit and died. The man was bit getting dog away from snake. Man in icu but last I read a week ago was he was going to make it

Only thing I can see is woman's knee I bet is on snake and it wasn't able to fully reach her arm

I'm still not believing it.

Baby Venomous Snakes Are More Dangerous Than Adults


This myth is roughly two-thirds nonsense and one-third truth. I believe this myth was born out of the human fascination with irony. For some reason we like to think it's the one we don't see coming that always gets us. We like to root for the underdog, and we simply like the notion of the tiny one being the deadly one.

But the fact of the matter is that baby venomous snakes are not more venomous than their parents. In fact, quite the opposite is true in a great many snake species; adults have far more virulent venom than the young snakes. For example, both adult and juvenile timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) have venom that is "strongly hemolytic," which means it causes the breakdown of red blood cells, in prey (Ernst 116). Yet venom studies in older adults demonstrate that the "activity level of some venom enzymes tends to increase with the size and age of the snake" (Ernst 116). So an older timber rattlesnake has venom more virulent than a younger one.

Similarly, an adult snake is capable of delivering a much larger venom dose than a smaller snake. Consider the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus). Juveniles of the species typically deliver less than 70 milligrams of venom, whereas a healthy adult specimen may deliver 492 to 666 milligrams of venom (Ernst 90). The known maximum is 848 milligrams in a single bite (Ernst 90). Roughly 100 milligrams of venom is considered a lethal dose for an adult human.

So if the venom toxicity of a young snake is not as potent as an adult, and the total venom yield of a juvenile is not nearly as great as an adult's, what part of this myth is one-third true? The answer lies in the venomous snake's experience level. Adults are veterans of life. They have successfully avoided or driven back predators and attackers, and they have full control over all muscular functions. Adults recognize the need to conserve their precious venom. It takes time to produce it, and a snake that empties its venom reserves in an attacker has nothing left to subdue prey. They have learned that a venomous snake without venom doesn't eat.

It's a different story for neonate venomous snakes. They generally are not as in control of their muscular functions as are adult snakes, and they are at their most vulnerable point in life. Defensive strikes are fast and thorough. When these snakes bite, they typically bite hard, pumping the attacker full of every last bit of venom. If a young venomous snake's bite were to be more dangerous than an adult's, this would be the only way.

I suppose there are far more myths about snakes than I can dispel in one article. Education is the key. Snakes are interesting and unusual animals, so it only seems natural that people have attributed to them unique or even supernatural properties and powers.

Sadly, too many of these untruths are passed down from one generation of reptile lovers to the next. I can only hope those kids I saw at that Alabama reptile expo so long ago come to figure out that juvenile copperheads are not more virulent than their adult counterparts. Because for every snake myth we bust, we get closer to allowing the truth behind these intriguing animals to prevail.

http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Snake-Myths-and-Facts/

quote:

---

666 milligrams of venom

---

Many replies here claim they know someone who knows the family. Sometimes the wife got hit, sometimes its the dad. Dog gets bit about 50/50.

quote:

---

Many replies here claim they know someone who knows the family. Sometimes the wife got hit, sometimes its the dad. Dog gets bit about 50/50.

---

Two families got bit, thus the confusion. In the one pictured, the mother got bit. In the one not pictured, the man got bit. Both dogs died heroically.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Many replies here claim they know someone who knows the family. Sometimes the wife got hit, sometimes its the dad. Dog gets bit about 50/50.

---

Two families got bit, thus the confusion. In the one pictured, the mother got bit. In the one not pictured, the man got bit. Both dogs died heroically.

---

I'm going to go ahead and vote this the troll of the spring so far. Very well done.

Ah, ya missed the winkie face. Tongue in cheek.

quote:

---

Ah, ya missed the winkie face. Tongue in cheek.

---

Hehe. I was talking about the story itself.

Saw some bluebonnet plants sprouting this weekend and thought of this thread. Was this ever confirmed or debunked?

Both....hope that clears it up.






Have no idea really. Depends on who you want to believe.