Just enjoyed another episode of Lonestar Law this morning. Interesting segment where a homeowner (Harris County?) was cited for killing a Timber Rattlesnake near his house in a wooded area. Homeowner admitted no IMMEDIATE threat yet clearly stated his concerns about future risks to people / pets, etc.

What is the appropriate / realistic / legal course of action for the land owner here? Call and have the snake removed? I couldn't imagine leaving a venomous snake (any species) alone around my house out of concerns for the safety of my family / critters.

TL/DR: Urban sprawl has created a challenging legal dilemma for homeowners with rattlesnake-o-phobias.

yeah, in before you call the Sherriff's Dept asking them to come remove a timber rattler from your yard.

This seems crazy to me that they would be given a citation.

Leave it be. If you live in Texas, you already have venomous snake around your house.

Yeah, it's funny that people think if they kill a poisonous snake near their house, they have significantly reduced the threat around the house. I promise you, in heavily wooded areas, you have not.

Timber rattlesnakes are protected in most states. Definitely here in TN. Killing one doesn't really make the others go away. Get rid of their reason for being there (food source, shelter, etc) and they won't be there.

dlance said:

---

I presume he/she got caught because he/she posted a pic on Nextdoor or Facebook in which case the idiot deserved a citation.

---

You would be correct, sir. Someone (maybe a neighbor) posted on Facebook. One person got cited for possession. Another for the actual killing.

I get that if one is in your yard or up against the house and there is immediate threat of you stepping on them, that's one thing.

If you watched the show, the spot he pointed out to the game warden that the snake was at was between the guy and his neighbors house. It was outside of his driveway, holding water, and there's not much real chance of someone needing to use that part of their property on a regular basis.. plus as he told the game warden, if it was protected we might have done it differently/not killed it. If there was immediate threat, a person would say I'm sorry but we were worried, etc.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Leave it be. If you live in Texas, you already have venomous snake around your house.

---

I find this train of thought interesting. So, when you come home and find a rattlesnake sprawled across your back porch, you shew it away?

I've let rattlers be on the ranch. Never near my house.

TX_COWDOC said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Leave it be. If you live in Texas, you already have venomous snake around your house.

---

I find this train of thought interesting. So, when you come home and find a rattlesnake sprawled across your back porch, you shew it away?

I've let rattlers be on the ranch. Never near my house.

---

When it's a protected species, yes. Killing one isn't going to eliminate the threat that others are still in the area.

But if you just have to kill it, S-S-S... don't post anything

SSS.

A venomous snake near my house is a dead one

A venomous snake near my house is happy cause I'll relocate it.

zooguy96 said:

---

A venomous snake near my house is happy cause I'll relocate it.

---

Just don't relocate it to Wrighty's house.

Tecolote said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

A venomous snake near my house is happy cause I'll relocate it.

---

Just don't relocate it to Wrighty's house.

---

Cuz then it is dead.

Circle of life.

Do you really think this snake should be on the list?
If anything I think there are more now than there were years ago and they have migrated to areas that used to never see rattlers.

Shrinking habitat is why it should be on the list.

In 100 years, we've gone from the frozen trenches of WW1, to arguing over whether a dude is allowed to kill a rattler near his house.



They got us right where they want us .... whoever 'they' is.

For those of you that didn't see the episode, the snake wasn't in his yard, it was in a flooded area next to his lot, not somewhere people were going to be spending time. No one was in any danger, at all

I would be happy to relocate a venomous snake, but I also understand killing one that is in my yard near people.

Yes. In many cases they are simply, slowly reoccupying historic ranges.

Mannn i really want some timber skin boots. I like the pattern.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

In 100 years, we've gone from the frozen trenches of WW1, to arguing over whether a dude is allowed to kill a rattler near his house.



They got us right where they want us .... whoever 'they' is.

---

We've also gone from almost eliminating the alligator, brown pelican, whooping crane, etc. In 100 years we've also argued over whether or not a dude is allowed to kill a quail or deer by his house. WW1 argument makes no sense. WW1 era men were terrible stewards of natural resources. Conservation is not a partisan or alpha/beta argument. Just because it's a snake doesn't mean it deserves any more or less protection than any other non-game animal.

12f Mane said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

In 100 years, we've gone from the frozen trenches of WW1, to arguing over whether a dude is allowed to kill a rattler near his house.



They got us right where they want us .... whoever 'they' is.

---

We've also gone from almost eliminating the alligator, brown pelican, whooping crane, etc. In 100 years we've also argued over whether or not a dude is allowed to kill a quail or deer by his house. WW1 argument makes no sense. WW1 era men were terrible stewards of natural resources. Conservation is not a partisan or alpha/beta argument. Just because it's a snake doesn't mean it deserves any more or less protection than any other non-game animal.

---

Quail, pelicans and even alligators near my home or even in my yard, pose essentially zero threat to me or my family. A vanemous snake is completely different. And yes, I realize that I like already have Venmo us snakes nearby, but knowing they are there and actually seeing them is a huge difference.

What good does this snake do? Why does it matter if it exists or not in the wild?

They are better at rodent control compared to moat snakes, areas with lower timber rattler populations tend to have higher rates of lyme disease (more of an Eastern issue, and there are other issues that could also be at play).

For the most part, timbers are non aggressive. In the past I have had to take them into possession temporarily from game wardens (as a TPWD biologist, I had a collector permit, they don't). I don't mind snakes, but I am not a fan of keeping hot snakes in my house very long. But timbers were by far the least obnoxious.

Thanks for the info! Why are their numbers low compared to other rattle snakes like the diamondback?

Mostly loss of habitat from logging in the Eastern US. Keep in mind that by 1930ish, most of East Texas had been logged as Dallas blew up (followed shortly by Houston). So most forests people are looking at are third, and sometimes fourth generation trees. As forestry practices became more sustainable (I know, a word many of y'all hate), timbers have slowly started recovering. So in areas that were tougher to log, swamps and steep slopes, they maintained their populations. Throw in the pet trade and intentional removals, and you have a declined population.

Boiled down, they are very sensitive to habitat change.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Leave it be. If you live in Texas, you already have venomous snake around your house.

---

There's a heck of a difference in the venom of a Timber Rattlesnake and a Copperhead. Any and every rattlesnake near my home is a dead rattlesnake.

I've never seen that warden give any type of warning on the show. Really not a fan of his attitude. Most of the wardens they show are awesome.

There was an episode this season where a woman brought a dead timber rattler up to a warden. Said she killed it because she was hungry. Said the warden could keep the skin if she got the meat. He didn't ticket or warn her and said he'd bring her some fish or a deer later that he confiscated. That's the way to deal with the public.

Completely understand that a timber rattler is protected, but it honestly wasn't that far from this guy's house. It was maybe 5-10' off his driveway in the grass. He should have received a warning

Burnsey said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Leave it be. If you live in Texas, you already have venomous snake around your house.

---

There's a heck of a difference in the venom of a Timber Rattlesnake and a Copperhead. Any and every rattlesnake near my home is a dead rattlesnake.

---

We have Prairie Rattlers around here. They don't seem to be particularly aggressive, but I may be wrong.

When I was a kid, we had peacocks around the house. About the closest I ever saw a rattlesnake to the house then was about 300 feet from the house. Now that we no longer have peacocks, rattlesnakes have been seen a yard from the front door of the house. Guineas are supposed to be good at dealing with rattlesnakes, too.

Also, the local preacher found a rattlesnake near the front door of the church one day.

For what it's worth, I generally prefer to let the rattlesnakes live. They kill mice that might be carrying hantavirus. People have gotten hantavirus in the general area and I consider that to be a far larger risk than rattlesnakes. When I see a snake on the highway or on a caliche or a dirt road that is in good shape, I'll usually stop and chase them off the road so they don't get run over. I've never had problems getting a rattlesnake to move off of the road.

I'm not doubting you, because you have much more info on the subject. If are you saying the pet trade of Timber Rattlesnakes lowered the population by any measurable amount, then I miscalculated the insanity of the human race.

I guess like all snakes it depends on how much venom they hit you with...but here's an article about two different men killed in Bastrop County by timber rattlesnakes in recent years! I personally wouldn't think twice about taking one out near my house, especially if you have kids and pets.

https://www.elgincourier.com/news/article_85baf5c2-710e-11e0-a08c-001cc4c03286.html?mode=jqm

From your article:

Quote:

---

A Paige man died after receiving a snakebite on his hand while attempting to kill a rattler Tuesday, April 5.

Two days after being bitten Mark Shaw, 47, died at University Medical Center Brackenridge. He received an antivenin treatment at Smithville Regional Hospital, but was taken to Brackenridge by STARflight shortly thereafter.

Shaw's mother found the snake in the shed when she called Shaw.

He held down the snake with a board and had told his mother to get a pistol from the house. After shooting the snake Shaw walked to the house and collapsed.

---

The guy would still be alive if he wouldn't have tried to pen the snake down and kill it. The large majority of snake bites are provoked bites.

I'm not arguing against anyone doing what they deem necessary to protect their home or family but at least acknowledge the fact that you're placing yourself (and family, if you die) in way more danger attempting to kill a snake than just letting it be.

txyaloo said:

---

I've never seen that warden give any type of warning on the show. Really not a fan of his attitude. Most of the wardens they show are awesome.

There was an episode this season where a woman brought a dead timber rattler up to a warden. Said she killed it because she was hungry. Said the warden could keep the skin if she got the meat. He didn't ticket or warn her and said he'd bring her some fish or a deer later that he confiscated. That's the way to deal with the public.

Completely understand that a timber rattler is protected, but it honestly wasn't that far from this guy's house. It was maybe 5-10' off his driveway in the grass. He should have received a warning

---

Go back and watch the episode again you are referencing again. She said killed it because it was in the water where kids were swimming. She wanted to keep it because she was hungry.

aggiepublius said:

---

txyaloo said:

---

I've never seen that warden give any type of warning on the show. Really not a fan of his attitude. Most of the wardens they show are awesome.

There was an episode this season where a woman brought a dead timber rattler up to a warden. Said she killed it because she was hungry. Said the warden could keep the skin if she got the meat. He didn't ticket or warn her and said he'd bring her some fish or a deer later that he confiscated. That's the way to deal with the public.

Completely understand that a timber rattler is protected, but it honestly wasn't that far from this guy's house. It was maybe 5-10' off his driveway in the grass. He should have received a warning

---

Go back and watch the episode again you are referencing again. She said killed it because it was in the water where kids were swimming. She wanted to keep it because she was hungry.

---

Guess I missed that part... just remembered she wanted to eat it. I'm still not a fan of that warden's style as shown on the show. Maybe he's different in real life encounters and the cameras just don't capture it