Rattlesnake In Texas

Rattlesnakes have long been an iconic part of Texas history. A quote that really hit home

for me was, “Texas belongs to all of us, and it’s our job to protect it” (The Dallas Morning News,

2016). Creating policies against “gassing” of rattlesnakes could create a more humane

prospective of the rattlesnake roundups, however it could have a negative impact on the

communities’ economy (Shlachter, 2014). The economy in Sweetwater, TX depends on the

roundup income every year (Shlachter, 2014). The conflicts, opponents, and proponents for

proposed policy changes regarding the “gassing” of rattlesnakes for these roundups are

controversial, but agencies responsible for our wildlife resources need to keep in mind the

preservation of the rattlesnake

species and our environment (Fitzgerald & Painter, 2000).

Externalities

Externality is the impact occurring from actions that someone or something did not

voluntarily consent too (Weimer & Vining, 2011).

The impact could be either positive or

negative. The “gassing” process possesses a negative impact on the contamination of

groundwater (Center of Biological Diversity, 2016). The banning of “gassing” creates positive

externalities. There are 130 karst invertebrates that occupy the same habitat with the rattlesnakes,

26 of the listed species are federally threatened or endangered (Davis, 2016). Banning of

“gassing” would also allow the species to thrive.

Public Goods

Public goods are goods that anyone can benefit from, individuals cannot be excluded

from it and can’t take it away (Weimer & Vining, 2011). The public good associated with

rattlesnake roundups is the educational factor. Roundups do teach the community/spectators the

dangers of rattlesnakes, but they do not necessarily educate them on the effects of “gassing” on

other species and environment (Mushinsky, Savitzky, Brodie, Brown, Campbell, Enge,

Fitzgerald, Greene, Gregory, Jensen, Painter, Price, & Timmerman, n.d.).

Common-pool Goods

Common-pool goods are resources that are natural or constructed and are hard

to

exclude/limit to people once the resource has been created (Anderies & Janssen, 2013). The

rattlesnakes themselves are common-pool goods.

The rattlesnake hunters may capture as many

snakes as they want and the only regulation is they must acquire a hunting license to capture the

snakes (Fitzgerald & Painter, 2000).

Distributive Justice

The conflict with “gassing” environmentally is the effects on habitats of non-targeted

wildlife, contamination of groundwater, human-health risks if the meat is eaten, and the

inhumane treatment of the snakes after they are captured (Center for Biological Diversity, 2016).

The roundup communities argue that if Texas Parks and Wildlife Department create a ban policy

on the “gassing” of rattlesnakes, it will definitely impact the events negatively. Opponents of the

ban also argue that the population of snakes will go up and pose a threat to people being bit

(Shlachter, 2014).

Actor’s Views

The environmentalists, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are

proponents to manage and create a healthy, wildlife habitat for all animals and prevent harm to

them and the environment’s resources in the process of rattlesnake extraction (Snake Harvest

Working Group Final Report, 2016). Hunters view the ban of “gassing” a threat to

their

communities’ economy and tradition/culture (Shlachter, 2014).

In conclusion, implementing a ban policy on “gassing” will not be an easy task for all

involved. “Texas is 95 percent privately owned, so it is probably difficult to get caught red-

handed with your hose down a crack”, a statement made by Andy Gluesenkamp, state

herpetologist through TPWD (Osborn, 2006). State wildlife agencies have the responsibility to

recognize the value of all wildlife and resources and educate roundup communities on other

snake capture methods for successful events (Davis, 2016).