Abstract
The mitigation of human-rattlesnake conflicts often involves euthanizing or translocating the offending rattlesnake. Although translocation is generally considered more humane, especially by the general public, it may negatively impact the translocated individual and may not be effective if that individual returns to areas where the probability of human conflict is high. We used radiotelemetry to experimentally study the effects of short- (SDT) and long-distance translocation (LDT; beyond the typical home range or activity range) on adult Red Diamond Rattlesnakes (Crotalus ruber) near a residential development in Southern California. Though the results were mixed, some analyses suggested that higher numbers of SDTs were associated with larger activity areas and increased movement. For snakes undergoing LDT, the activity areas and mean daily movement distances were 1.8–4.6 times larger than those of non-LDT snakes in the year of translocation, but were similar in the following year. Cox regression models revealed that, for both LDT and non-LDT snakes, every 1 m increase in the distance moved resulted in a 1.2% decreased risk of moving back into a human-modified area and a 1.6% decreased risk of returning to the original site of conflict. We failed to detect an effect of either LDT or SDT on body mass change or survival. Our findings suggest that LDT of nuisance snakes may be a viable option for at least some rattlesnake populations or species, especially those in which individuals do not require communal overwintering sites.
Highlights
As human development encroaches on natural areas, human interactions and conflicts with native wildlife increase [1,2,3,4,5]
Snakes returning to significant human modification (SHM) areas were subjected to as many as 14 short-distance translocation (SDT)
The results of our statistical models were mixed for the effect of SDTs, some of these models suggested an increase in activity range size of 0.18–0.56 ha per SDT and an increase in mean daily movement (MDM) of
Summary
As human development encroaches on natural areas, human interactions and conflicts with native wildlife increase [1,2,3,4,5]. The latter becomes acute when nuisance wildlife moves onto private property, as a person’s access to their property cannot be limited In such cases, removing the offending animal is the only option, apart from doing nothing, though education can enhance tolerance. The results of our statistical models were mixed for the effect of SDTs, some of these models suggested an increase in activity range size of 0.18–0.56 ha per SDT and an increase in MDM of. The effect of LDT (vs non-LDT) was much clearer, with the models suggesting a 3.47–4.58-fold increase in the activity area and a 1.84-fold increase in MDM for LDT snakes compared to non-LDT snakes during their first year after translocation. The difference between years suggests that these snakes became acclimated to their new environment [59]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
