The Most Dangerous Snake in the USA? Rattlesnake Study Provides Clue

Hi, Frank Indiviglio here. I’m a herpetologist, zoologist, and book author, recently retired from a career spent at several zoos, aquariums, and museums, including over 20 years with the Bronx Zoo.
I’ve spent decades working with venomous snakes, setting-up snakebite protocols in zoos, and responding to snakebite emergencies. Today, I’m sometimes criticized for my strong stand against the keeping venomous snakes in private collections. But I have learned that, even under the best of circumstances, treatment can be hampered by gaps in our knowledge. For example, we know that the chemical characteristics of venom vary over the ranges of certain species. This can affect treatment, and, as we’ll see below, may mean the difference between life and death for a victim. In fact, the venom of some Southern Pacific Rattlesnakes is so unique that it is unaffected by the antivenin currently in use! Are they the most dangerous snake in the USA? Read the rest of this article here http://bit.ly/NC7SG8
Please also check out my posts on Twitter http://bitly.com/JP27Nj and Facebook http://on.fb.me/KckP1m

My Bio, with photos of animals I’ve been lucky enough to work with: http://bitly.com/LC8Lbp

Best Regards, Frank

That is a startling difference and hopefully health care providers and hospitals are aware. Amazing article, thank you.
As far as the most dangerous snake in the US, I'd have to say from a personal perspective, that it would be the one that someone just got nailed by.

Originally Posted by Lucille

That is a startling difference and hopefully health care providers and hospitals are aware. Amazing article, thank you.
As far as the most dangerous snake in the US, I'd have to say from a personal perspective, that it would be the one that someone just got nailed by.

Well said...same here! Doctors who specialize are aware, and in your home state as well as AZ bite care tends to be very good. Problems arise in states where there are only infrequent bites, usually from non-native "pets". lack of info is troubling everywhere....this species well-studied, but others far less so. Similar trends seen for Timber rattlers, but less research, perhaps because bites are uncommon.

Thanks for the kind words, and stay alert as the weather heats up out there in Texas!

Best, Frank

Here in northern California I have seen more Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes while on hikes, camping, etc, than I can count.

One thing that troubles me is that many people do not realize just how devastating a rattlesnake bite can be.
I knew a guy about 15+ years ago who was keeping a northern pacific rattlesnake he caught (he only kept lizards prior to that); he thought he could hold it one day and guess what... hospital for almost a month and his hand never fully recovered. He is fortunate enough to have his hand, even though some of his fingers no longer work.

Most people are not qualified or competent enough to work with venomous, and while I feel keeping venomous snakes should be allowed to be kept in private collections, I also agree with a permit/mentor system to keep them in the hands of the experienced and qualified. The above story is a perfect example of that.

The Northern Pacific Rattlesnake may very well have similar venom action where found in similar rock environments, like Castle Crags (north of Lake Shasta). Either way, the bite would be pretty nasty.

Great read, Thanks Frank.

Originally Posted by j_dunlavy

Here in northern California I have seen more Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes while on hikes, camping, etc, than I can count.

One thing that troubles me is that many people do not realize just how devastating a rattlesnake bite can be.
I knew a guy about 15+ years ago who was keeping a northern pacific rattlesnake he caught (he only kept lizards prior to that); he thought he could hold it one day and guess what... hospital for almost a month and his hand never fully recovered. He is fortunate enough to have his hand, even though some of his fingers no longer work.

Most people are not qualified or competent enough to work with venomous, and while I feel keeping venomous snakes should be allowed to be kept in private collections, I also agree with a permit/mentor system to keep them in the hands of the experienced and qualified. The above story is a perfect example of that.

The Northern Pacific Rattlesnake may very well have similar venom action where found in similar rock environments, like Castle Crags (north of Lake Shasta). Either way, the bite would be pretty nasty.

Great read, Thanks Frank.

Hi,

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, its a common misconception - "If I get the antivenin, I'll be fine"; ...permanent nerve damage, amputations, muscle tissue loss and similar are very common. That attitude was a real problem here in NYC, as many owners knew that Jacobi Hospital was a major treatment center with specialists, and that Bx Zoo staff, I included, were on call to ID snakes, transport antivenin via police chopper or car, etc...but easier said than done, even if a bite at a "convenient" time and place!

But the real problem, and I say this after 30+ years operating and setting up snakebite response systems for zoos, and consulting with very wealthy private individuals, is that private owners cannot adequately prepare for a snakebite in a way that will assure appropriate treatment; they can lessen the risk, but that's all.

Re wealthy owners...one such fellow here in NY, north of NYC, had a private chopper on call, and used it after 2 of his 5 bites; he also tried grabbing an electrified cattle fence during a rainstorm (after a bite) so as to "de-nature" the venom - he succeeded in knocking himself out and de-naturing his blood, which, as a doctor described it "wasn't really blood any more"!!

Best, frank

Here in Ca. it is fairly common knowledge (with rattlesnake people at least) that the crotalus helleri is one of, if not the most dangerous crotalid species. In this state at least. The latin name is very fitting for this animal. Is it the most dangerous though throughout the USA? Very hard to determine that answer, but Lucille said it best in regards to the most dangerous venomous snake is the one that bit you. The fact is venom is very, very complex and differs from locale to locale within a sub species, and differs from individual to individual within a locale too.

Jon's story of an idiot who picked up a NorPac and was bit is just pure stupidity. Anyone who does that deserves to get bit. Only grounded individuals with experience and proper protocols and tools should keep them.

Science is uncovering the many benefits from venom. Treatments/cures for cancers, etc. It's just the tip of the ice burg so far. But that also brings up other interesting points... will the demand from science exasperate the venom supplies and therefore make antivenin less readily available?
The folks in venom labs who risk life and limb on a daily basis are the unsung heroes. It's their efforts that allow for antivenin and scientists to help all mankind.

Originally Posted by g.spencer

Is it the most dangerous though throughout the USA? Very hard to determine that answer, but Lucille said it best in regards to the most dangerous venomous snake is the one that bit you. The fact is venom is very, very complex and differs from locale to locale within a sub species, and differs from individual to individual within a locale too.

Species aside, the danger of most venom can be increased by circumstances surrounding the bite: where the bite is located, was the person drinking, was the snake fresh out of hibernation and ripe with venom or had it just expended a large amount of venom prior to the bite, the list goes on.
Under "normal" circumstances a copperhead bite may be considered less dangerous than some rattlesnake bites, but add a couple beers to the victim and you have a very serious situation. Then you have snakes like the coral snake: neurotoxic venom that painlessly "sneaks up" on the victim and requires an antivenom that is now discontinued (last I heard).

Mr. Spencer's statement about the complexity of venom hits on what I was thinking about last night: My thought was; like the locality phenotypes of say rosy boas, where the difference is visual, the chemistry of the venom seems to be what differentiates some localities of venomous snakes (if that makes sense).

Also, Just to be clear, I not saying that a copperhead is is not a dangerous snake; like Lucille said, the dangerous one is the one that bit you.

Originally Posted by j_dunlavy

Species aside, the danger of most venom can be increased by circumstances surrounding the bite: where the bite is located, was the person drinking, was the snake fresh out of hibernation and ripe with venom or had it just expended a large amount of venom prior to the bite, the list goes on.
Under "normal" circumstances a copperhead bite may be considered less dangerous than some rattlesnake bites, but add a couple beers to the victim and you have a very serious situation. Then you have snakes like the coral snake: neurotoxic venom that painlessly "sneaks up" on the victim and requires an antivenom that is now discontinued (last I heard).

Mr. Spencer's statement about the complexity of venom hits on what I was thinking about last night: My thought was; like the locality phenotypes of say rosy boas, where the difference is visual, the chemistry of the venom seems to be what differentiates some localities of venomous snakes (if that makes sense).

Also, Just to be clear, I not saying that a copperhead is is not a dangerous snake; like Lucille said, the dangerous one is the one that bit you.

Thanks for the intersting feedback; the "sneaking" venom reminds me of a case I responded to while at the Bx Zoo. Guy had been "nicked" by a very young cobra (species escapes me now) in his collection. He was also illegally dealing weapons and drugs from his home, so didn't want attention. He and wife stayed up until the wee hours, no outward signs of envenomation (to their eyes, anyway!); he died in his sleep later that AM. Best, Frank

I'm going to touch on this lightly, and then simply leave it be entirely. You (Frank) have made it perfectly clear that you do not condone the possession and keeping of venomous by the private sector. That is fine, and I can appreciate your feelings on this and your convictions of such as well even if I can see the other side of the fence. However, I feel this thread along with others generally speaking are tending to touch on the negative aspects of venomous. Illegal animals, non-qualified people, illegal circumstances such as drugs etc.... the bottom line is its all based and worked around the negativity of it all. Always a bad bite coupled with some illegal activity.

Professional, law abiding and very diligent people actually make up the vast amount of venomous enthusiasts. They just do not make the headlines because the fact is that type of story doesn't sell. 99% of Harley Davidson riders are law abiding citizens, but the general public only hears and "knows" about the 1%. Educators get very little credit. As do scientists. Until much later in life normally at least.

I guess I just tend to think along the more positive lines with venomous, perhaps in general. And thank science they're actually getting the credit they finally deserve as that may be their final salvation. At any rate if everyone wishes to keep talking about the negative aspects that is fine, that is their choice. Like I said, I'm touching on this lightly and leaving it completely. The fact is I cannot spend my energy on this... we're doing huge and great things!

Best,
Greg Spencer

Originally Posted by g.spencer

I'm going to touch on this lightly, and then simply leave it be entirely. You (Frank) have made it perfectly clear that you do not condone the possession and keeping of venomous by the private sector. That is fine, and I can appreciate your feelings on this and your convictions of such as well even if I can see the other side of the fence. However, I feel this thread along with others generally speaking are tending to touch on the negative aspects of venomous. Illegal animals, non-qualified people, illegal circumstances such as drugs etc.... the bottom line is its all based and worked around the negativity of it all. Always a bad bite coupled with some illegal activity.

Professional, law abiding and very diligent people actually make up the vast amount of venomous enthusiasts. They just do not make the headlines because the fact is that type of story doesn't sell. 99% of Harley Davidson riders are law abiding citizens, but the general public only hears and "knows" about the 1%. Educators get very little credit. As do scientists. Until much later in life normally at least.

I guess I just tend to think along the more positive lines with venomous, perhaps in general. And thank science they're actually getting the credit they finally deserve as that may be their final salvation. At any rate if everyone wishes to keep talking about the negative aspects that is fine, that is their choice. Like I said, I'm touching on this lightly and leaving it completely. The fact is I cannot spend my energy on this... we're doing huge and great things!

Best,
Greg Spencer

Hello,

I understand your interest, and of course driving a car, dog ownership, etc carry risks, and many very dangerous substances, such as tobacco, are legal. But long experience has shown that there is no way for a private owner to properly prepare for and treat a bite, and no way to assure that one will not occur.

I sense you've been down this road before, as have I, for decades, and so I'll leave off with this as well.

Best,. Frank