What Do We Know About Coral Snakes?

Every spring I receive many questions about venomous snakes from people throughout the Southeast. Answers to some recent questions will be provided in this and next week's columns.

Q. I hear a lot about the danger of rattlesnakes and copperheads in the South but no one provides much information about coral snakes. Are they really different from the other poisonous species?

A. Snakes qualify as one of the world's most fascinating group of creatures with which virtually everyone is familiar. A snake on a playground will nearly always attract a bigger crowd than any bird, with the exception of, say, an ostrich or an albatross. People are intrigued with snakes of every size, in part because we know that some of them are potentially dangerous. Yet only six of the 52 species that occur naturally in the southern United States east of the Mississippi River are venomous. Of the remaining 46, all have teeth, and a few will bite if picked up but even these can be considered harmless.

To most people, the words "venomous" and "poisonous" are synonymous. The technical distinction is that venom is injected into the bloodstream; poison is typically injected or absorbed through mucous membranes. As far as I know, no snakes are poisonous to eat, although I have only tried a few so cannot speak with certainty about all of them. The copperhead, cottonmouth, and three kinds of southeastern rattlesnakes, all venomous, are known as pit vipers. The heat-sensitive pit is located between the nostril and eye. If you are using the presence of this pit to determine if a live snake in the woods is venomous or not, you are probably too close to the snake. The coral snake is distinguished from the pit vipers in several ways. Nonetheless, despite many people's misconception, coral snakes have hollow fangs in the front of the mouth with tubular connections to venom sacs located in the head, as do pit vipers.

Coral snakes are the only North American snakes in the cobra family. The type of venom they inject, generally referred to as neurotoxic, is distinctively different from that of most other U.S. snakes. The venom affects the nervous system and results in muscle paralysis. As the venom effect progresses through the body, the muscles of the diaphragm can become paralyzed, resulting in difficulty in breathing. If that difficulty continues, the result can be fatal.

From a human safety standpoint, southeastern coral snakes are small, rare, and unlikely to bite a person unless picked up, which no one other than a herpetologist should do. An accidental bite from an unseen coral snake is a truly rare event. The greatest likelihood of a coral snake bite is to a child who might pick up a brightly colored red, yellow, and black snake because it is pretty. The eastern variety, which is one of the 70 species of coral snakes found in the Americas, is found in the Coastal Plain from Louisiana to the Carolinas and throughout Florida.

Despite the potency of coral snake venom, a victim has plenty of time to get to a hospital. According to the book "Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere" (2004; Cornell University Press) even "the onset of symptoms usually begins during the first 2-6 hours following a bite" and "may require 48 hours to reach the maximum effect." Ample time would be available anywhere in the country to reach a medical facility.

I have firsthand knowledge of two eastern coral snake bites (to a young girl and an adult male); both of them had happy endings. Each person was bitten on the finger. Numbness and paralysis slowly progressed up the arm; the attending physician told me the man could not feel a needle stuck into his hand. When each victim was given coral snake antivenin, the process immediately reversed itself and the paralysis gradually disappeared. Why the man picked up a coral snake in the first place is a question he will now be able to answer for the rest of his life.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.

Let's Begin America's Great Outdoors Initiative

President Obama has announced the creation of a community-based conservation plan, a program called America's Great Outdoors Initiative. The goal is to "achieve lasting conservation of the outdoor spaces that power our nation's economy, shape our culture, and build our outdoor traditions." The initiative seeks to get people, especially young people, outdoors on a more regular basis so they can appreciate the importance of the nation's lands and waters.

The much-needed reinvigoration of outdoor appreciation should include an understanding of the need for our natural environments to coexist with farming, ranching and other agricultural endeavors. We need to rekindle an appreciation in Americans, especially young ones, for hunting, fishing and other activities that put families and friends outdoors. Getting youngsters away from computers and other electronic devices for a few hours a week or month would be in society's best interest.

America's Great Outdoors Initiative gives farmers, ranchers and private landowners an opportunity to contribute by offering support for those who "help protect rural landscapes and provide access for recreation." Likewise, revenues from oil and gas removal will help protect parks, green spaces and wildlife habitats, as well as promote recreational activities at the sites. The idea is to move our country in a direction that creates "a 21st-century conservation ethic . . . for environmental stewardship" that connects us "to our historic, cultural, and natural heritage."

The president's plan is intended to develop local, community-level conservation and recreation agendas. Surveys taken across the country revealed that among the steps needed to accomplish the goals of the program were accessible parks, including "a new generation of great urban parks," or green spaces for children, and restoration of rivers to revitalize communities. The ideas presented on the Great Outdoors website at http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/ should receive widespread support.

The site invites comments on any aspect of being outdoors and on the many issues involved with outdoor activities. Some links lead to debates among people who favor outdoor activities but do not always agree on the details, such as whether mountain bikers who pay fees should have greater access to certain trails than do hikers who pay no fees. On another topic, someone noted that "one of the things that drives me crazy as a hunter and hiker . . . is the overgrazing on Forest Service lands." Should the federal government be subsidizing cattle ranchers rather than opening up the lands for camping, hunting or bird-watching?

The first thing many will ask is how such an initiative will be paid for; how will it affect the economy? Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack addressed the issue in part, saying, "America's farmlands and woodlands help fuel our economy and create jobs across the rural areas of our country. This plan seeks to work in partnership with landowners, conservation groups, states and others to conserve our working lands and our public lands and to reconnect Americans." The long-term economic value of a program that engenders new appreciation of our natural environment will more than pay for any short-term costs.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar noted that the program was based on "practical, common-sense ideas from the American people on how our natural, cultural, and historic resources can help us be a more competitive, stronger, and healthier nation. Together, we are adapting our conservation strategies to meet the challenges of today and empowering communities to protect and preserve our working lands and natural landscapes for generations to come." Clearly, this is a long-term perspective. When we think of the environment, natural habitats and native wildlife we should always take a comprehensive, long-term view not a myopic, short-term one.

Today's children spend half as much time outside as their parents did. Also, many Americans live in urban communities without access to safe, open, green spaces. You do not have to be an ecologist or an environmentalist to know that having a society that has drifted away from its environmental roots is not good for the economy, the environment or the country itself.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

 

Why Don't Hawks Fight Back?

Q: A pair of red-tailed hawks has nested near our house for years. Several times I have seen one or both of them harassed by crows. I watched a five-minute dogfight today with the hawk just trying to get away. It was very entertaining, but puzzling. Why do these large raptors let the crows that are less than half their size and without their weapons harass them?

Q: I have seen crows pester a couple of big hawks. Sometimes the hawks just sit on a tree branch and let the crows fly around and make a lot of noise. Sometimes they fly away, with the crows chasing them. Would the hawks act differently if they had a nest with babies in it?

A: Very good questions about a commonly observed phenomenon called mobbing, in which several smaller birds harass a larger predatory bird. Why would a red-tailed hawk, bald eagle or great horned owl let a bunch of smaller birds, like crows, pester it? And why would a smaller bird take the risk of attacking these large predators? The answer, as is usually the case when animal behavior and ecology are involved, is complex. Some explanations seem relatively straightforward whereas others are more speculative.

From the crows' perspective, mobbing behavior may have adaptive significance in terms of survival in that a large potential predator may be driven from an area where crows raise their young because the babies might become prey for some raptors. In a situation in which a predator such as a large hawk is simply in between meals, either sitting or flying, and has no special stake in a particular location, mobbing behavior by crows could be very effective. The hawk would presumably not find the annoyance worth the effort of staying around and would move on to another area to hunt. In other words, the crows don't want the predator in the area and the hawk itself doesn't really care whether it is there or somewhere else.

In search of an answer to the question of what a pair of these birds of prey would do when harassed by crows if they had a couple of babies in a nest, I asked an ornithologist. In fact, I asked 11 ornithologists. Some are top-flight amateur bird watchers and some are professional scientists who have studied hawks or eagles. The answers I got were consistent, and surprising.

All agreed that if a red-tailed hawk reached out and grabbed a crow with its talons, that would be the end of the crow. Or as one of the professionals put it, in scientific terms, "the crow would be toast." But although large raptors have the necessary weapons, the energy cost of pursuing or otherwise attempting to catch a crow is normally not worth it. Crows are agile creatures and would be very difficult to catch in flight. So a hawk typically ignores the crows or flies away.

The answers from the bird researchers about what hawks or eagles would do if eggs or babies were in the nest were especially interesting. Statements like the following were telling. "I have never seen crows approach when young were present, but birds of prey will fiercely protect their nests." One commented, "None of our staff has ever seen crows or raccoons be predators on an eagle nest with eggs or young in it." Another said, "I don't know for sure, but when there's a nest involved, the stakes are higher and the raptor would probably fight back. The crows know this and keep their distance." Or as another put it, "When baby hawks are in the nest, the area around it becomes a no-fly zone for crows."

Observations of how hawks respond when crows use their mobbing behavior tactics are frequent. But what a pair of hawks or eagles would do if crows tried their antics when eggs or babies are in the nest remains unanswered. Ironically, the fact that such attacks seldom or never occur, may be because crows already know the answer.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

 

Darwin Realized That Animals Are Deceitful

If you have ever played poker, encouraged a child to believe in Santa Claus, or skirted the truth to avoid embarrassing a friend, you have been deceitful. Although humans are generally discouraged from lying, all of us occasionally tell little white lies. You may be surprised to know that the natural world is also full of deceitful behavior.

In his 1871 book "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin noted the "marvellously deceptive appearance, through variation and natural selection" of certain tropical butterflies. He was referring to edible species with color patterns similar to those of species unpalatable to birds. The mimics resembled the inedible species "so closely in every stripe and shade of colour that they could not be distinguished except by an experienced entomologist." Darwin's innate understanding of biology was amazing.

The discovery of mimicry in butterflies is credited to Henry Bates, another famous English naturalist. Today biologists refer to Batesian mimicry, in which a harmless form has evolved to be mistaken for a noxious one to avoid predation. Early naturalists knew that animals use deceit and subterfuge to survive. Darwin noted that some animals mimic others "in order to be mistaken for the protected kinds and thus to escape being devoured." In short, many animals are unmitigated liars.

The use of color patterns to deceive potential predators is widespread. Ocelli, or false eyes, are a common deceptive feature. Many defenseless butterflies and moths have ocelli on their wings that look like a pair of large eyes belonging to a much larger creature. The ocelli deter certain predators from trying to eat the butterfly. A dramatic example is the peacock butterfly of Europe. Birds avoid attacking the seemingly big-eyed flying creature.

In the natural world, camouflage is the quintessential deceit. Some animals add a form of misdirection called flash colors. For example, the bright yellow on the back legs of the eastern gray treefrog is hidden when the treefrog is sitting on a tree. It is so well camouflaged on a gray-barked oak tree, it is virtually invisible. But when the treefrog jumps, a pursuing bird sees a brilliant flash of yellow. Upon landing, the treefrog folds up its legs and once again blends in with the tree trunk. The bird, meanwhile, searches futilely for a yellow frog.

Animals use other ways to deceive predators, including behaviors that make them appear bigger or more dangerous than they really are. Common hognose snakes carry deception to an extreme, starting with an impressive threat display. When confronted by a predator, the hognose raises the front part of its body, expands its neck and hisses. This would be an honest display if these snakes had hollow fangs and injected venom. But hognose snakes do not even bite, let alone carry any of the weaponry of a cobra or a rattlesnake, which use threat displays honestly. Then, as if it had not already been dishonest enough, if a hognose is pestered further and continues to feel threatened, it will roll over on its back, let its tongue hang limply out of its mouth and play dead. Another deceitful performance. North America's only marsupial has long held the franchise on "playing possum," but many other animals also play dead.

Though plants do not engage in Batesian mimicry, they are not above duplicity. The flower of the voodoo lily of Southeast Asia produces a smell like rotting meat that attracts scarab beetles, which feed on carrion. The flower is like a good-smelling restaurant (to a scavenger). But the restaurant is not open for business. Instead the voodoo lily hoaxes beetles into pollinating its flowers. The bee orchids of Europe engage in a phenomenon known as sexual deception. The flowers look and smell like females of certain species of bees so that males are attracted to them, which results in pollination of the orchid flowers.

Deceit is a common means of survival and reproduction in the natural world and is probably more prevalent among humans than we like to admit.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

What Should We Do About Rabies?

I've received the following questions about rabies.

Q. We watched a raccoon climb a tree in our backyard one afternoon. We approached and it just sat there, seemingly unafraid, on a limb five feet above the ground. It started drooling and growling, so we backed away. Later that week we found a dead raccoon in the backyard. Could the animal have had rabies?

A. It very likely did have rabies, and leaving it alone was certainly the right thing to do. Several aspects of its behavior are telling. First, it was out in the middle of the day: Raccoons are usually nocturnal. Second, it let you get close. Third, it was drooling, not something we want to see in a raccoon, one of the most prevalent reservoirs for rabies. It probably died because it was infected with the rabies virus.

According to information received later from the same county, animal control picked up two more strange-acting raccoons that were found to have rabies. Incidental cases of rabies among wild mammals are not that unusual in many parts of the country and are certainly no cause for alarm. Knowing about the disease can help people avoid problems for themselves and for domestic dogs and cats, all of which are susceptible to infection by the rabies virus.

Q. What animals transmit rabies?

A. Any warm-blooded animal can harbor the virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control the most common US wildlife species to be infected are foxes, skunks, raccoons and bats. Unvaccinated domestic pets are also susceptible, as are coyotes, which have become more prevalent in the Southeast in the past two decades. The CDC notes that small mammals, including "squirrels, rats, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, chipmunks, rabbits, and hares are almost never found to be infected with rabies." They are not known to have caused rabies in humans in the United States. One odd statistic is that the woodchuck (aka, groundhog), has a high incidence of the disease. According to some scientists, possums supposedly do not get rabies, although they will certainly bite if given an opportunity.

The rabies virus is usually introduced by saliva during biting; rarely, it can enter the body through mucous membranes. The virus multiplies in the nervous system, and symptoms usually develop within three months, but occasionally can appear in only a few days. Rabies victims have difficulty swallowing water, because of paralysis of the throat muscles. The seeming aversion to water led to the name "hydrophobia," which means fear of water. The loss of muscular control of the throat muscles can also result in excessive drooling, leading to the "foaming at the mouth" symptom.

The first line of safety precautions for dealing with rabies is pretty much common sense. Don't pick up a drooling, growling raccoon (in fact, don't pick up any wild raccoon). Likewise for sick or injured bats. Bats are beautiful animals in flight, especially when they are eating mosquitoes, but if you find one on the ground or in a house, don't let it bite you. CDC records indicate that rabies has been documented in bats from all 48 of the conterminous states. All domestic dogs and cats should be vaccinated, especially those likely to go outside or come in contact with wild animals.

Q. I have heard some people suggest that we should start vaccinating wild animals to prevent rabies epidemics. Is this feasible?

A. Such a plan would be costly - and it's unnecessary. Wild animals are not the problem if we avoid situations in which we are likely to get bitten. CDC records show that "control of dog rabies through programs of animal vaccination . . . reduces the incidence of human rabies." Rabid dogs are the cause of more than 90% of human infections of the rabies virus and the source of more than 99% of human deaths from rabies worldwide.

We should have our pets vaccinated at a vet's or a rabies clinic, but let's leave the wild animals to take care of themselves.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

Let's Let Kids Catch Anything They Want

Should a little boy who catches a turtle in a trap have to let it go right away or should he be able to keep it for a day? I was recently asked to comment on a draft copy of an illustrated children's book someone has written about turtles. In the story, a little boy's dad takes him to a coastal marsh where they use a trap to catch crabs for dinner. They also catch a small diamondback terrapin. The boy is allowed to take the turtle home as a temporary pet.

My role as reviewer was to comment on whether the facts about terrapin ecology were accurate, not necessarily to comment on the story itself. However, other readers of the draft decried letting the boy keep the terrapin. Their argument was that allowing the boy to take the animal home signaled to readers that removing animals from the wild is acceptable. In their opinion the terrapin should never make it off the dock because the boy should drop it right back into the water.

I thought that was OK for the purposes of the book. But I told the author that I think in real life children should be able to catch any animal they want as long as they follow the one-day rule (or 10-day rule, or five-minute rule, or whatever time period a parent thinks appropriate for the animal in question) before they let it go. My reasoning is that the knowledge children gain by becoming familiar with different animals ultimately contributes far more to conservation efforts than the hands-off approach some people advocate.

Children should not be prohibited from catching and keeping any animal they can get their hands on. What better way to learn how an earthworm moves than holding it in your hands and watching it, or maybe even keeping it in a homemade terrarium? And isn't catching a tadpole and raising it in a bowl of water the best way to know what kind of frog or toad it will turn into? Why shouldn't a child take a caterpillar home, let it build a cocoon or chrysalis and turn into a moth or butterfly? Children should be taught proper husbandry for any pet but not discouraged from keeping them.

Let's not worry about a single specimen of a species being removed from its natural habitat. Instead, let's celebrate the wonderment and appreciation for nature that children get by catching an animal and keeping it for awhile. Children who grow into adults with an appreciation for nature from firsthand experience will likely be proponents of wildlife conservation. Conservation is best served when we focus on the well-being of the species population as a whole rather than an individual animal. No child is going to have a serious impact on the status of any animal population by removing one individual. If they do, the population was already doomed anyway.

Speaking of rules about keeping wild animals as pets, some states have laws that would benefit from revision. At the very least the laws should not apply to children. An example of one such ill-conceived regulation from Georgia: a kid who enjoys nature and wants to learn about animals cannot legally keep a flying squirrel, a garter snake, or even a green anole for a pet. This law is not in the best interest of wildlife protection. Any of those species can make good pets and be educational for the owner, and none are in danger of being affected by the removal of individuals by children.

The children's book about turtles has some good information on terrapin ecology. I do not know what decision the author made about whether to have the child keep the turtle or immediately let it go. But if he does keep the turtle, the message would be equally as good, maybe better, than if he releases it. Kids should be allowed to catch and keep (for a short while) anything they want except a cold.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Will Congress Undermine Environmental Progress?

We hold certain truths to be self-evident . . . among them is the fact that the U.S. Congress has changed its makeup considerably since the last election. Meanwhile, most environmentalists would agree that three of the best things any Congress ever did for the environment were the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, all passed in the 1970s during the Nixon administration.

 Most members of the general public who are aware of the way we used to treat the environment would agree that all of those changes were in the best interest of the general public. Will the current Congress keep this environmental progress intact? Is there any way such admirable advancements in environmental policy, which benefit the citizenry of an entire country, could be threatened? Can anyone come up with a reason why a politician would propose diluting strong environmental laws that are good for the country? Read on.

Another current self-evident truth is that times are tough economically, although a wide range of opinions can be found about exactly when they started and who should shoulder the blame. But whatever the perceived cause of our economic adversity, the new Congress will be expected to improve the situation. Unfortunately, during economic hard times, some officials elected to fix economic problems make environmental issues the scapegoat. People with self-serving agendas begin to attack environmental rules and regulation. Beware of rhetoric that uses slogans like "creating jobs," “reducing the national debt” or "being good for the economy" while undermining environmental safeguards. Such catchphrases are presented as if they are incompatible with protecting the environment. They are not. But we are already beginning to hear of moves afoot to weaken the laws that ensure clean water and clean air, and that protect our native species. Political efforts to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency are another red flag, usually a corporate agenda seeking unrestrained use of environmental resources that belong to all of us.

Attempts to change environmental laws that are good for the nation become especially noticeable when commerce intrudes on our common assets: air, water and the natural resources of our native plants and animals as well as their habitats. These commodities, all of them, belong as much to any one of us as to any other, regardless of wealth, land holdings or social position. Free enterprise should be lauded, but not at the cost of weak environmental laws that will benefit a few financially while being detrimental to the rest of us.

Less than four decades ago the House and Senate acted wisely and decisively with regard to safeguarding air, water and wildlife. The passage of that powerful environmental legislation has benefited the whole country. We have the highest water standards of any country in the world. This would not be true were it not for the Clean Water Act (1972). The Clean Air Act (1977) enacted strong measures against air pollution, focusing on the question, whose air is it anyway? The Endangered Species Act of 1973 saved several species from certain doom, and the program remains one of the ecological success stories of the last century. 

Significant environmental gains have been achieved through these laws, without dire economic consequences. Yet some people persist in wanting to weaken the regulations in all three of these nation-saving legislative acts. Anytime you hear someone, whether politician, industrialist or just plain folk, talk about the need to curtail any of these laws, take a careful look at who is going to benefit. I guarantee it will not be you. 

One thing is certain--the congressional zenith of passing the environmental laws of the 1970s to protect our natural heritage will be hard to follow. But for other senators and representatives to weaken them would be to reach a congressional nadir. Let’s not stand for it. Let’s make it clear to all that to truly realize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America, we must do so with clean air and water and with our biological communities and natural habitats intact.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com