This is NOT to spark the debate of whether it is right or wrong to collect one or two snakes, but rather the argument of rodent control in collecting a FEW here and there.

My opinion is that one, two, or even three snakes don't make a dent in the rodent population. The way mice breed, if a snake eats 1 or 2 a week, it doesn't constitute controlling the mouse population to me.

Far more mice are consumed by owls, foxes, bobcats, and other warm blooded animals. These animals eat at least every day, sometimes several times a day.

What are your thoughts?

(Again, this is just about the "rodent control" reasoning, not the big picture ).

Rodent population is primarily dependent on the quantity and quality of available food. Here in the Eastern U.S. several rodent species peak in population when the oak trees have acorns (every 2- 4 years). Removing a few snakes would have no effect on the rodent population. However, there are exceptions and the one that comes to mind is the northern black racer and meadow vole. In a study done by Madison (1978), it show that black racers had a strong preference for lactating meadow voles, so in this case the snakes probably do have a limited impact on meadow vole population.

I dont feel as though a snake or two being removed from the wild would make a difference if you consider all the other creatures that eat them and then the rate at which rodents breed. But this is all saying only one person takes out 1 or 2 or 3... now if we spread the tree out to every one taking 1-3 welll... you get what im saying

Its like the garbage thing... one person throwing a cigarette butt in the parking lot wont be notice... everyone throws one.... tada expensive asphault ashtray.

__________________
Randy

I plan to live forever... And so far its working

0.2.0 Ball Python (Jaxxie and Kyree)
1.0.0 Savanah Monitor (Sullivan)

Remember, one or two rodents (in good conditions) can in fact give rise to a LOT of other mice, especially when you count all the children's children. I know, it's a small thing, but it can make a difference.

In years of excessive rodent births, it also means an excessive availability of food for predators so more of the predators survive. One tends to balance out the other. I agree that a couple of snakes removed here and there is not going to make a change in the balance. there are just too many other different predators around to take up the slack. And some of them, birds of prey for instance, will consume far more rodents than a snake ever would.

__________________
Merlin,
What's Life Without A Little Magic!

Hello,

The only problem with removing a few snakes is that it can't be determined to state how many people from the area are actually doing so. While 3-5 snakes being removed from the area won't have a severe impact on the rodent population, it would have an impact if others are doing the same thing.

In addition to the above statement, you also need to take into consideration where the snakes are being taken from. If you are collecting them from a nearby field, its possible that 3 snakes could have an impact. This would be determined though on how many snakes reside in that field though and feed on the prey found there.

Then of course there is reproduction. Each snake that is removed is a potential breeder in the wild. (Captivity too. lol) If you happen to remove 3 females, that is 3 females that will not be repopulating the area with offspring.THAT could have an impact on the area in which they are removed.

Snake removal from the wild only accounts for that specific means in which the snake has been eradicated from the area. Predators eat snakes, humans kill snakes, some die of old age, etc. Combine all of these things with the snakes being removed for collections and its very possible that an impact could be seen on the environment.

Thats my 2 cents.

__________________

Howdy Ya'll
heres another way to look at it...ya'll talk about all the snakes being removed but there are some people (me) that also catch the rodents as well to feed to there withc snakes...guess that makes me a predator also huh...lol and I can tell ya that my snakes eat more here than they would in the wild so I make up for some of the other snakes that others have caugh...lol
I no it's all about the rodent control so I'm helping...lol

There then you have another problem. I know that over the years we have had many wild caught snakes here. However, they had all been treated and been parasite free. By introducing wild caught feeders all you are doing is re-introducing parasites.

__________________
Fran
January 9, 1940 - June 1, 2006 (R.I.P)

I haven't had any problems with parasites but if they did then I'd treat them just as I would any of my pets/farm animals to get rid of them... there very well cared for.

Back to the topic: I am reminded of the snowshoe rabbit and canadian lynx scenario. It was a population density study focusing on the predator prey relationship and it spanned several years. The predator prey relationship is based on cycles that balance each other out. As more prey are available more predators survive, reducing the prey population, then reducing the predator population, the prey population then recovers, as does the predator and so on and so on.

So the question being addressed is does the predators control the prey (or prey contol the predators)? Well in this case, and as John mentioned, the cycles of rodents (in general not a specific like the hare) has explosions and declines based on other ecological factors. I don't believe the removal of a few snake would have an impact on the rodent population due to other predators, and ones with quicker generation times, would probably make up the difference. I for one am still against non-heavily monitored collecting. Especially with chytrid floating around in our amphibians.