Practices, Experiences and Opinions of Snake Catchers and Their Clients in Southern Australia

2006·1.7 MB·English

by  Nick Clemann

Research Reports
Practices, experiences and opinions ofsnake catchers
and their clients in southern Australia
NickClemann
ArthurRylahInstituteforEnvironmentalResearch,DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment
POBox 137,Heidelberg,Victoria3084
Abstract
Theoccurrence ofsnakes on private properties concerns many residents. Translocation ofsnakes by
licensed snake catchers from private properties to public land is a common management practice in
manyurbanised areas in Australia. However, little is known aboutthe practicesofthe snake catchers
and the effectiveness ofthis management in terms ofsolving human-snake conflict. Mail question-
naires were used to survey licensed snake catchers from South Australia, and South Australian and
Victorianresidents whohaveusedsnakecatchers.Catchersreceivedcalls from springtoautumn.The
most frequently relocated snakes in South Australia were Brown SnakesPseudonaja spp. Catchers
chosereleasesitesbasedonpennitstipulations,perceivedsuitabilityofhabitat,and likelihoodofrepeat
encounterswith humans. Residentsdetailed variousbeliefs fortheoccurrenceofsnakeson theirprop-
erty, includingpreyand shelteravailability, and proximity to 'snake habitat', and, after firsthavinga
snakeremoved from theirproperty, most foundsnakessubsequently. Theserepeatencounterssuggest
thateducationregardingsnakeencountersanddiscouragingsnakesfromenfering/stayingontheirprop-
erties should beprovided to residents,and that alternative managementstrategies forsnakes in urban
areasshouldbeinvestigated.(TheVictorianNaturalist123(6),2006,383-389)
Introduction
Human-snakeconflictiscommonwherev- in snake translocation include the effects
er both are abundant (Sealy 1997, Nowak of capture and relocation on individual
1998, Whitakerand Shine 1999,Feam etal. snakes, and impacts on conspecifics and
2001, Shine and Koenig 2001, Clemann et other taxa at both the 'donor’ and release
al. 2004). Thisconflict is heightened where sites. Both issues have been largely
highly venomous snakes occur. A recent neglected. Most studiesofsnakes relocated
survey ofresidents in urban areas ofNew to solve human-snake conflict have
South Wales showed that, of all animals involved viperid taxa in North America
likely to beencountered in suburbia, snakes (e.g. Sealy 1997, Nowack 1998). Only
were the least desired around people’s recently has there been any investigation
homes(Daviesetal. 2004).Themostabun- into the effects of translocation on
dant and frequently-encountered snakes in Australian elapid snakes (Butler et al.
south-eastern Australia are large, highly 2005a, b).
venomous members of the family An initial investigation of the human
Elapidae. Several ofthese are common in dimensionsofhuman-snake conflictexam-
both urban and rural areas, and frequently ined the practices oflicensed snake catch-
come into contact with humans (Clemann ers and "first-contact organisations’ who
etal. 2004). Althoughdirectpersecution of channel calls from the public to snake
snakes remains common (Whitaker and catchers in urbanised areas in Victoria
Shine 2000), relocation of 'nuisance’ (Clemann et al. 2004). That study showed
snakes is often the government-sanctioned that many elapid snakes were relocated
approach to managing this issue (Clemann every year, and that snake catchers, whilst
etal. 2004). usually following permit stipulations,
Human-snake conflict involves two key apply a suite of subjective criteria when
issues - human dimensions and biological/ choosingreleasesites. Inthepresentstudy,
ecological factors. The human dimensions 1 expand on previous results (Clemann et
issue involves the opinions, biases, motiva- al. 2004), adding data from questionnaire
tions, knowledge and behaviours ofpeople surveys oflicensed snakecatchers and res-
and organisations involved in this conflict. idents who have used the services ofthese
The biological/ecological factors involved catchers in South Australia, and also pre-
Vol. 123 (6) 2006 383
Research Reports
sent some details from Victorian residents residents' questionnaires to former clients
who have used snake catchers. (i.e. potentially 225 residents ifeach catcher
forwardedquestionnairesto five residents).
Permitstipulations The South Australian DEH was unwilling
Within Victoria* snake catchers operate toreleasecontact details forlicensed snake
under permits issued by the Department of catchers. Consequently, a DEH staffmem-
Sustainability and Environment (DSE), ber forwarded questionnaires to licensed
allowing them to capture and translocate snake catchers, and, as for Victoria, these
snakes. These catchers are predominantly snake catchers were asked to forward
private citizens, although a minority arc questionnaires to five residents who had
keepers at zoological parks or are used their services. Questionnaires were
employed by local governments, either as mailed to 28 licensed snake catchers in
full-time animal officers, oron an as-need- South Australia, and therefore potentially
ed basis. Permit stipulations require catch- to 140residents.
ers to release snakes on public land with The snake catcher's questionnaire sought
suitable habitat no more than five kilome- details of: 1. the number ofcalls received
tres from the point ofcapture. This dis- to remove snakes each year; 2. thepropor-
tance was perceived by policy-makers to tion ofcall-outsthat resulted in the capture
be sufficient to solve human-snake con- ofa snake; 3. the seasonal timing ofcalls;
flict, whilst not moving the snake beyond 4. the relative contribution of different
the probable natural distribution of the species to the total captures; 5. the imme-
species(S Watharow, pers. comm.). diate future ofcaptured snakes (transloca-
In South Australia a 'Snake Catcher’s tion. euthanasia, kept captive by selfor
Permit’ is required to capture and translo- others, sold to others or commercial pet
cate snakes. This permit allows catchers to trade); 6. the distance that snakes were
capture and translocate any reptile that is translocated; 7. the selection and number
causing anxiety or danger to a member of ofrelease sites; 8. whethercatchersoffered
the public. It directs catchers to translocate residents information regarding snakes and
any indigenous snakesremoved fromprop- snake management; 9. whether catchers
erties, although captured Eastern Brown advertised their services; and 10. whether
Snakes Pseudonaja textilis may be kept or thecatcherschargeda feeforthe service.
traded (Department for Environment and The resident’s questionnaire sought
Heritage (DEH) 2004). Translocation dis- details of: l. the first organisation called to
tance is a maximum oftwo kilometres, but arrange for a snake removal; 2. the resi-
snakes arc not to be released close to dent’sbeliefs aboutthe reason forthe pres-
dwellings. Alternatively, snakes may be ence of the snake on their property; 3.
retained for onward transmission to the whether they expected to find snakes on
South Australian Museum or to the holder their property following the initial
ofa permittotake protectedanimals. removal; 4. whether they had found subse-
Methods quent snakes; 5. whether they were
Licensed snakecatchers in South Australia charged a fee; 6. whether they thought the
and residents who have used the services of fee was reasonable; and 7. whether they
snake catchers in South Australia and weresatisfiedwith the serviceprovided.
Victoria were surveyed by mail-out ques- Results
tionnaires, which included postage-paid Tables and 2 summarise the question-
reply envelopes. Questionnaires were not naire resul1ts from snake catchers and resi-
sentdirectly to residents. Rather, eachsnake dents respectively. Questionnaires were
catcher receiving a questionnaire was asked returned by nine (32%) catchers from
toforwardaspecific ‘resident’ questionnaire South Australia (Table 1). One return was
to five people who had used their services. notincludedin Table 1 becausethatperson
Each ofthe state governments hasa register had only recently received a licence, had
oflicensed snake catchers. In Victoria, the not attended any call-outs, and did not pro-
45 licensed snake catchers surveyed by vide answers to any questions.
Clemannetal.(2004)wereaskedtoforward Questionnaires were returned by four
384 The Victorian Naturalist
Research Reports
C£'>
<
3 &w answered
O ©I
>» £
o
Q U R Z Not
D-«iEOuo4-—*-•»•T.Cc4,«cc>S3//)U3-Dd3>_-^Co^C„OOc3l..=_f<>—>2p-qi5<“X_oLc4/i>d &>cD-/d|-ica’/sdS3O£ JZ->g2U<- 3©03_X« G.w Zo aNnsowerted
—X _-o 3-id CL verbal
?•0£3.£ 3-0£3 ^c >,X3) 0>) Yes,
« «
Si*C«-. answered
« «.ts Not
km
10
S-2*->*3S >oS.6—C 1«1si- J£2 Within
answered
w Not
U. L»
o
.SC2«|XQ>J ^r-\C0Qs' OcX-®/'dN®CQ^ O0^[O0i£o5n5®C/oDCSToCL 20^C3-XX c3 ~50%-50%
<8\s.s CQ^U QXQ0CQ^eZg CU-QJ >~SCM--Ss-s oCQo EBSRBB
§X5©2-"W=SDSSEii«3 ‘oaCp.g£3 O©uoZ|©—£i«l22^^CCLL .'x1o^i<£3uQoZ1£3L0r3-3* OO aNnsowerted
c/D in <u
«4>3_£s^5i-
<50%
D33’Ec3S-a o>>-> XcCO9C£L'<ow>L35.-X"JoC£§J ooo1x<>iL>1X2a. —<^0u3 u>£<-d-’a«> mo<£c©a?d-ix<nCt4-£3o)o3j°N-.StM^oCo >»o 50-100(rtesopondo-5f0%these)
Vol. 123 (6) 2006 385
Research Reports
South Australian and seven Victorian resi-
5co dents (Table 2). It is not known how many
catchers cooperated with forwarding ques-
($AUD)? COCO tionnairesto residents.
you cWq„Ct3:J SouthAustraliansnakecatchers
Dochargefaee -•2§coIoI ruFrailvecitrieesspaonnddteonwtnsc,atwchheerresasotpweroaotpeedrati-n
ed in suburban Adelaide; one did not indi-
cate his or her area of operation. One
catchersimply removed snakes from his or
youadvertise? her own property, and therefore had not
Do received any call-outs (but was present for
-«w&.§s;St§^s tahnedroenmeovfraolmoafhoonreses-nshaokwe).frMoomstacsocnhsoiodl-
0,1-2, ered that approximately 50% or more of
you information V0Q^-C2 attended calls resulted in the capture ofthe
Dooffer 'tJMSI3s snake. Several noted that they did not
Q1 attend all calls, resolving up to 50% of
use .8*8 inquiries over the telephone, or that a con-
II _C C3 siderable proportion of calls were false
Alwayssamereleasesite? > Zo ^S3T33 §C5 alarms- 'lizards' or imagination’.
a ' CQ SouthAustralianand Victorianresidents
SJ— £ Two ofthe four South Australian respon-
-s: <u dents lived in rural cities, one lived within
o>-^
Distancesnakesmoved(km)? SMCIO>II aAdecloauipdlee,oafndkiolnoemedtirdesnootfintdhiecacteentwrheeroef
they lived. Two South Australian residents
werechargeda fee bythecatcher, and both
believed thefeestobe reasonable(one not-
ingthat ‘our family safety isworth more').
of
captured One respondent offered to pay the snake
Fate snakes catcher, but this payment was refused, and
—oa-sO: Cv). another noted that they were not charged
• Cl)
since they had caught the snake, and sim-
3 ^CC *3 S § ply wanted the catcherto relocate it so that
U,UJ
>*</> noone would kill it.
Speciesinvolved captures? c/fCQ ^ ac All responding Victorian residents lived
in CQ rv Ub<r* in Melbourne suburbs. Three mentioned
of of *CCIQIQ2O=X)^OH 3q awcetaitvhiteyr(a's..a.wefacatlowraycsongtertibautsinnagkteoasftnearkea
Oflc/i II go really hot, dry day’), and local disturbance,
Monthshighestnumbercall-outs .£ dss-gs such as adjacent housing developments,
Q ^| was also mentioned as a reason for the
.52
presenceofsnakes.
.O 5b-2 All respondents expected to encounter
result capture other snakes on their property subsequent
call-outs
Percentage a to the initial removal; indeed seven had
ofthatin ^^ 55i>oj,- _ wdiotnhessnoa.keTsheeliicsitseudeboofthreppoesaittiveencaonudntneergs-
g.8* ative responses from residents; 'removing
cont'd of per 2g''.o the snake has nothing to do with getting
1. 02ooa,co more’, and Tm hoping thatoncethe hous-
Table Usualnumbercall-outs year <3 o es are built behind us, the snakes won’t be
c« CQ to<
386 The Victorian Naturalist
Research Reports
<u <u
3 > 233_o 1) O 3
_
>o>a>.-<C30)0.a£a1> > >- >- <C'22/j5*0<C/u5 53-/3n o >*
<u bfl
£ 2.
3 53 s s
£
Si
9-a
4* w£
o
>- z z Z
£2 c»
OyS--
= O ^ zo
>•
>_
.“23 S2
„c £_ io-
3 0 3
O 3
^
>- >-
<D 2
33_3<c3u 2-5
^ Z £ 09W0)O3D£333
> £ 2 pH 3&3 •C23oL'-j^5f3ix<y>3:u T3
33c^_3—^<my!• 2<awD> 3£ 32 CoO §3-2§29°
-3S.’S o
Pa. oa> 1>1a^3
o
1aa00^>o>>^.’--*Sc<g-oo«Ui ’-3C>>aL» JZ-9r**2S2 ^£s uQ/j .£- '2&33O“CQ>b(poU--_a33o3_, -.OSg*C-3J-)cOj3-*OuLay,
£ §o 5 o£ a-’ zsS) c^o 300
.-E22383.‘SO©©1-~=CXSj=-33wgsM t£upI J3Sp"—.22 3o —2U3g33-i^37c3Qa3-O33j>-- r^gcg>5G,.O£\£O2n-3U_2£ua33i. 5o £^2duc £>Od H 2XoU3o ^3o= U
.Go33O<iS5-« GdO<3 G•OO3<c3/5 CO/D<3 > >
Vol. 123 (6) 2006 387
.
Research Reports
so prevalent',versus ‘theyhaveevery right relocated in South Australia. Similarly,
to be here’ and ‘1 hope the housing devel- most Victorian catchers reported moving
opment doesn't deprive them ofhabitat snakes no furtherthan fivekilometres from
..
(1 have found dead snakes that were) prob- the point ofcapture (as per permit stipula-
ably killed by feral eats which are a far tions, Clemann et al. 2004), whereas most
worse problem from an ecological stand- catchers in South Australia move snakes
point-at leastthe snakesare native!’. no more than two kilometres, as per their
permitrequirements.
Discussion
In other respects the reported practices of
Theresponserate ofthe South Australian South Australian catchers mirrored those of
snake catchers (32%) is similar to that their Victorian counterparts. Snake catchers
reported by Clemann et al. (2004) for the from both states may be involved in many
same questionnaire sentto Victorian catch- relocations annually (usually tens per catch-
ers (31%), and is typical for mail surveys, er, but sometimes far more). The months
which usually generate a response rate of and seasons reported as having the highest
10-50% (Neuman 2000). However, some number ofcall-outs were spring to autumn
snake catchers are wary ofinteraction with (OctobertoApril). Thisistheperiodofpeak
licensing agencies (pers. obs.). and may activity for reptiles in temperate south-east-
have beenreluctant to respond to the ques- ern Australia, where mostectothermic verte-
tionnaire, even though it was administered brates undergo a period ofconsiderably
from a research (rather than regulatory) reduced activity in the colder months. Most
government institute. Similarly, some non- catchers in both states use multiple release
respondents may have been unwilling to sites, and chose sites that they believed
detail practices that infringed their permit reduced the chance offurther human-snake
conditions, although others did report such conflict,aswell assuitingtheperceivedeco-
activities. logical needs ofthe snake (Clemann et al.
The responserateofresidents is unknown, 2004). Finally, most snake catchers in both
since itisnot knownhowmanysnakecatch- statesofferinformationtoresidentsonsnake
ers forwarded questionnaires. Somecatchers biologyandmanagement.
may have been selective as to whom they
forwardedquestionnaires,possibly including SouthAustralianatul Victorian residents
only those residents whom they felt would Although sample sizes were very small,
providea positiveappraisal oftheirservices. there was an apparent difference between
Since only athirdofcatchersreturnedques- South Australian and Victorian residents in
tionnaires, it is likely that many were simi- terms offirst contact organisations. Those
larly casual in forwarding questionnaires to in South Australia called specific snake
residents. A similarresponse rate from resi- removal companies, a friend who was a
dents who did receive a questionnaire may licensed snake catcher, or a fauna park,
have contributed to the very poor response whereas the Victorians contacted their
rate, and it is likely that the responses from local council, perhaps reflecting differ-
residents represent experiences with only a ences in available services or differential
coupleofcatchers ineachstate. understanding amongst residents about the
availability of these services. In areas
SouthAustraliansnakecatchers where snakes commonly occur on private
The main differences between the prac- properties, such as where housing estates
tices ofVictorian snake catchers reported adjoin creeks orbushland, contact between
by Clemann et at. (2004) and the present residents and catcher is often prompted by
study relate to differences in species’ kword-of-mouth' recommendation between
abundance and distribution, and differ- neighbours. In this way particular catchers,
ences in permit stipulations. For example, businesses or local governments become
whilst Tiger Snakes Notechis scutatus known as an effective pointoffirst contact
were the most frequently relocated snake (S Watharow pers. comm.).
in most parts of greater Melbourne Residents reported three broad beliefs as
(Clemann et al. 2004), Brown Snakes to why snakes occurred on or were attract-
Pseudonaja spp. were most frequently ed to their property - proximity to bush-
388 The Victorian Naturalist
).
Research Reports
land or other snake habitat (especially (then at Dcakin University) sent and collected
when this habitat was being disturbed), Victorian questionnaires. Jennie Rodrigues
availability ofpotential prey, or availabili- (South Australian DEH) forwarded question-
ty ofshelter. Although sonic ofthese rea- nSaiimroesntWoaltihcaernsoewdpsrnoavkiedecdatcihnefrosrmiantitohnatosntatthee.
sons may be intuitive, in some cases these activities oflicensed snake catchers in Victoria.
opinions are also likely to reflect the PhoebeMacakand IanNorman(Victorian DSE)
advice or observations of the attending provided a critique ofan earlier draft ofthis
catchers (Clemann el al. 2004), most of paper.
whom offerinformation on snake habits. References
All respondents believed that they would Butler l(, Malone R and Clemann N (2005a) The
encounter more snakes after the initial effectsoftranslocationonthespatialecologyoftiger
rfoermcoevdalb.yMtohsetlfyactthitshawtatshedyuehatdoeonrcoreuinn-- BustWnliealdrkleiHsf,e[MRNaeoslteeoacnhrecishBs3c2au.ntda1t6Cu5sl-)e1m7ina1nansNubu(r2b0a0n5bl)anAdcstciavpiet.y
tered at least one more snake. Although patterns and habitat preferences ofresident and
improved property management might translocatedtigersnakes(Notechisscutatus)inasub-
urbanlandscape. WildlifeResearch32, 157-163.
minimise the number of snakes subse- ClemannN,McGeeTandOdgersJ(2004)Snakeman-
quentlyoccurringon someofthese proper- agement on private properties in Melbourne,
Australia.HumanDimensionsofWildlife9, 133-142.
ties. the removal ofa snake clearly does DaviesRG, WebberLM and BarnesGS(2004) Urban
not provide a lasting solution to unwanted wildlifemanagement it'sasmuchaboutpeople! in
contact between humans and snakes. Urban wildlife: more than meetsthe eye, edited by
DanielLunneyandShelleyBurgin.RoyalZoological
Relocated snakes are part ofa larger local Society ofNew South Wales, Mosman, NSW.
npoepcuelsastairoynf,oransdo,mecornesseiqdueenntstltyo,acitcewpitllthbaet DEppM,3(8200443) luuna Permits- South Australia. Viewed
snakes occuron or neartheirproperty, and Te1aJmunSe,2R0o0b4i.nson B, Samhono .1 and Shine R (2001)
moving individual snakes several kilome- Pythonsinthepergola:theecologyof‘nuisance'ear-
tresdoesnotprevent repeatencounters. pinetspoyutthh-oenasst(eMronreQluieaesnpsillaontda.fWriolmdlsifuebuRrebsaenarhacbhit2a8t,s
Residents from both stateswere verypos- 573-579.
itive in theirappraisal oftheserviceprovid- Neuman WL(2000)Socialresearchmethods: qualita-
ed by catchers, and some specifically men- Btiovsetaonn)dquantitative,approaches.(AllynandBacon:
tioned the value ofthe information provid- NowakEM(1998)Implicationsofnuisancerattlesnake
ed by the catchers regarding snake biology relocationatMontezumaCastleNational Monument.
SonoranHerpetologist11.2-5.
and property management. Clearly, snake Reinert HK and Rupert RR (1999) Impacts oftrans-
catchers provide a valuable community location on behaviour and survival oftimber rat-
sHeorwveicveetrh,attirsahnisglholcyarteignagrdsendakbeysremsiadyentbse. Se3tal3le,ys4n.5a1-k(e61s1,9.9C7)mSthaolurst-hdoirsrtiadnucse.tJroaunrsnlaolcaotfioHneropfettoilmobegry
problematic for the snakes, and does not rattlesnakesinaNorthCarolinastatepark,asuccess-
provide a lasting solution to human-snake ful conservationand management program. Sonoran
Herpetologist10,94-99.
conflict. Moving snakes over large dis- Shine Rand KoenigJ (2001)Snakesin thegarden: an
tances can lead to aberrant behaviour analysis ofreptiles "rescued" by community-based
(Butler et ai 2005a, b) and elevated mor- w2i8l3d.life carers. Biological Conservation 102, 271-
tality rates (e.g. Rcincrt and Rupert 1999). Whitaker PB and Shine R (4999) Responses offree-
Additionally, relocated snakes may travel rangingbrownsnakes(PseudonajatextHis:Elapidae)
to encounters with humans. Wildlife Research 26,
from release sites into neighbouring pri- 689-704.
vate properties (Butleretal. 2005a). There WhitakerPB and Shine R(2000)Sourcesofmortality
is a need for greater public education oflarge elapid snakes in an agricultural landscape.
regarding the management of snakes, as JournalofHerpetology34, 121-128.
well as the evaluation ofalternative man-
agementpractices.
Acknowledgements Received4August2005;accepted2November2006
I thank each ofthe snakecatchers and residents
who participated in this study. Jodie Odgers
Vol. 123 (6) 2006 389