Talk:Rattlesnake round-up

Neutrality

I've nominated this to be checked for neutrality. The article also makes numerous unsubstantiated claims that laws do not protect reptiles because people think they don't feel pain. The article is written exclusively from an animal rights POV and does not include arguments in favor of the event. The article is also lacking an overall neutral POV Gpshaw (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no arguements in favor, nor any basis for the event beyond the ophiophobia of primitive, poorly-educated local hicks. Go ahead, find me any actual claim of benefit about these events other than "snakes are bad hur hur hur". As for the laws, that's an undisputable fact. No state has laws that protect reptiles from cruelty, and reports of such cruelty do not get investigated. This article is "biased" because it reflects reality. See the articles on evolution and global warming for how this works. Mokele (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having been to the Sweetwater, Tx rattle snake round up event many many years ago I can detest that I was not very "amused" by what went on there. While the event does try to entertain the guests it's not like it's all the event was about, or for. I'm sure to the casual viewer it may have looked like a good reason to inflict pain on a small reptile but more was going on, at least to the one I went to. The event, while run by "hicks" as stated above, was actually providing a valuable service in education on how to handle snakes, how to avoid them, what to do when you do find one, how you can live with snakes (not literally), and finally the milking of snakes (for venom antitoxin production). Most of the ranchers, in days past, needed the removal of the snakes due to the direct impact of these animals on the use of horses and cows in the area, thus the creation of these events. Now, I'm not saying that rattle snake round ups have a place in our society (one where tractors that protect ranch hands are used instead of horses) or that I even liked my visit to one, nor am I saying that these events can't be improved, far from it. What I am saying is that this article is not neutral. There is another side to this story who's followers would love to dispute some of the statements in the current article and this article should probably stick to the facts and not take sides. --Ceaser (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original post. This article is extremely subjective and long on opinion with almost no cited facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basket548 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please either add citations to the article or remove language that criticizes from an animal rights POV. Deleting my comments in the talk page does not improve the article.Basket548 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mokele is correct. Unless people have reliable sources that talk about the perceived "benefits" of tormenting and slaughtering animals for amusement, then we will not include such idiocy here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you both stick to the subject instead of including adhominem diatribes in your argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.44.104 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Entirely biased article written purely from an animal rights perspective; every single paragraph includes some reference to these being bad. Where is the information on the history, organisation and local significance of these events? Where are the accounts from people who organise or participate describing the other side of the debate (which, as noted above, is very much not just "hurf durf kill snaek")? Seriously, this is like writing an article on petroleum that focuses entirely on pollution and global warming without any reference to what you can actually use petroleum for or where it comes from, with every single citation from environmentalist publications. See Bullfighting for what an NPOV bloodsport article should look like. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a crack at reworking the article to be less soapboxy and reduced the animal rights / conservation aspects to the final paragraph, with the rest focusing on what the events actually are and what they do for local economies. A more thorough criticism section should ONLY exist if the rest of the article is likewise expanded, per the policy WP:UNDUE. This article is not called "criticism of rattlesnake round-ups." Herr Gruber (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And to forestall the inevitable ad-hominem attacks, I do not support these events. I have a pet snake, in point of fact, which is thoroughly adorable and is currently watching me type as if it's trying to figure out my secret. However, it isn't correct to, as Mokele has done, deny any other viewpoint exists and spend a year reverting all removals of an entirely unsourced POV section he added on the basis doing so is "vandalism." These events bring a lot of money into the communities that host them, and I imagine are regarded, like bullfighting in some countries, as a perfectly valid form of entertainment by these communities. Some people say those communities are wrong, but it isn't NPOV to claim that this justifies pretending their point of view does not exist. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if in trying to be neutral, the article has lost its meaningful content. It doesn't tell me what a Rattlesnake Roundup actually is. Please replace some of the content which describes or defines the event. Thanks. (I just dropped by when it appeared in Category:Stubs as needing stub-sorting.) PamD (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Had a crack at doing so, removed the rodeo reference since as you mentioned in the edit reason it doesn't really help to describe these events. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem

The link is bad (error about bad URL) but dpwglTe6bHM is the video id at YouTube so it seem to be right. Not sure how to fix it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.86.109.5 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Impact?

This is a pretty low-tier source, but during an episode of Scishow Talk-show a guest mentioned that these events might be the cause of an increase in 'silent rattlers', and I've found multiple other sources on these silent snakes- Here, and here. While neither of these cites rattlesnake roundups, is plausibility alone and hearsay enough to go on to create a new paragraph mentioning this? Modern catch-and-release events are much less strongly selective than mass-culls, but it's hard to imagine that capture and release do not negatively effect welfare and survival in some way. Large events especially would inflict some selective pressure-but would this be anywhere close to the pressure creates by private citizens with sticks and shotguns?24.154.38.173 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)