OT: Fixing Lunch

[Bullethead 12]

To the photo you posted: That is a mighty big rattler, no wonder you ended up with so much meat, and a fine skin to boot. Deft handling of that flint too, well done Bullethead.

 

Thank you, sir. But cutting up lunch with a flake is so easy a caveman could do it . A flint flake is at least as sharp as a razor blade, often sharper. It just glides right through; the main trick is to take it slow so you don't go off in an undesirable direction. And if it gets dull, just pick up another or pop a fresh one off your core rock. I think it's pretty cool that I can, with 1 casual swing of my arm, create an edge that modern technology can only equal with a huge industrial complex.

 

I personally think that Mankind's 1st invention ever was the flake-as-knife. Nature is full of heavy, blunt things you can use as hammers, clubs, and axes, and also full of long, pointy things you can use for projectile points, awls, needles, etc. But it has damn few sharp edges and life is SO much easier with a knife than without. And it seems that making flake knives remained the primary use of knappable stone all through the Stone Age. The sexy biface projectile points get all the attention but the old boys all seem to have had way more flake and blade cores than bifaces.

 

As to the snake, it was a bit above the local average size but not really that big. Canebrake rattlers get a bit over 7 feet long in this area and I think they approach 8 feet in other places. The skin, however, was exceptional. The colors were as bright and bold as you ever see, so I'm thinking this snake had just shed its previous skin not long before. They're doing that around here this time of year--I've found several old skins lying around recently.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yuppers BH, you may well be right about the flake-as-knife being mankind's first true invention. And 7' for those canebrake rattlers you say? That has our Minnesota timber rattlers beat by a strong double. Average size for such a snake around here is about 34" to 38", with 53" being the state record. Always amazes me how dramatic an effect climate and environment can have on essentially the same species.

 

.

[Tamper 9]

Not at all to differ just for the sake of differing, but I doubt any canebrake rattler will reach 7 feet (and certainly not 8).

 

The distinction of "biggest" (longest and heaviest) rattler belongs to the eastern diamondback, and those rarely go beyond 7 feet, the heaviest known specimen being just over 7-foot-9. (There are frequent claims of 8-foot specimens, but no confirmed documented specimens have been produced).

 

By comparison, Canebrake rattlers go around 5 feet, the longest reported specimen being just over 6-foot-2.

 

Folks commonly overestimate the length of snakes. Not that it's any wonder, because they are almost universally feared or reviled. Of course, the official records aren't to say that nothing bigger ever existed, but no recorded proof exists in modern history. On the whole, there just aren't going to be that many exceptions to the rule. Snakes of either type much beyond high averages are exceptionally rare. The length of skins found after shedding can mislead size estimates, and also species are sometimes confused, which might lead to over-estimating the size of a certain type.

 

I am no expert on snakes, I just recognized upon reading that something didn't look right. The data/figures above came from Wikipedia (it's not as if I knew all that).

[Bullethead 12]

By comparison, Canebrake rattlers go around 5 feet, the longest reported specimen being just over 6-foot-2.

 

I shot one behind my house some years ago that was right at 7 feet. The shotgun vaporized the front 5-6" inches, I cut about 5-6" of rattles off the back, and the remaining skin, which I still have, is still over 6' long. I've seen a number of others locally that big, too. They're not that uncommon around here. It's just that nobody thinks of snakes as things to put in the record books, so they go unreported, like mine. However, you can find their hides nailed up in houses throughout this area.

 

Interestingly, I've only seen 2 eastern diamondbacks in this area my whole life and neither was quite 3' long. So perhaps the canebrakes hereabouts (of which we have millions) have filled both niches and thus grow to diamondback size.

[Tamper 9]

Perhaps you, and others around you, should consider indulging the rest of society. You know - just for our edification. After all, someone must have thought of putting these things in record books at some point; otherwise, the official records would be...well, blank. But, being as they're not all that uncommon, one does have to wonder why those who do this sort of thing - you know, herpetologists and folks like that - why they wouldn't just go on down there, where there live such fine exceptions to what they've managed to find all this time.

 

I can see it now (Scene in lab, several snake experts standing around):

 

[snake Guy 1] Darn shame the biggest canebrake rattler we've found so far only went just over 6 feet.

[snake Guy 2] Yep.<Pauses, scratching head> Hey, wait a sec...my third cousin's neighbor told my uncle that the canebrake rattlers down in Loo-zanna grow way bigger than anywhere else. 15, mebbe 25 per cent bigger, he sez. You don't reckon...

[sG1] What the heck are we waiting for? Let's go find us a record-setter!

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the interim, I'll stick with the documented findings. I also need to go check some more sources to make sure none of them say (for example) "Longest on record (not counting Louisiana)."

Edited June 27, 2012 by Tamper

[Bullethead 12]

I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the interim, I'll stick with the documented findings. I also need to go check some more sources to make sure none of them say (for example) "Longest on record (not counting Louisiana)."

 

I read somewhere the state record was 7'2". Wikipedia isn't the source of all knowledge.

 

It's a bit late tonight but I'll try to remember to post a pic of my skin tomorrow. PM me if I forget.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bullethead

[Tamper 9]

If you have any pics to share, they're always appreciated. But me, I'm an empirical data kind of guy. State record 7'2"...now there's something exceptional to see. If I have to choose, I'd prefer the reference for that state record.

 

Then maybe we can set out about figuring why the folks who write some of the articles over at Wikipedia are so tragically misinformed. The good news - as I'm sure you know - is that anyone can update Wikipedia...so, with documentation of your state record-setting specimen firmly in hand, we can go educate those lying rascals...

 

Of course, you're absolutely right though...Wikipedia isn't by far the only source for this sort of info. A nice lady named Shelly Cox - she works for the Missouri Dept. of Conservation, and is a self-described "amateur herpetologist" posted the following tidbits at a website called Explore Missouri (http://naturalmissouri.blogspot.com/2010/07/timber-rattlesnakes.html):

 

"The timber rattlesnake is the largest of all the venomous snakes in Missouri, reaching lengths up to 5 feet. The largest recorded specimen in Missouri was 47 inches long. The all time record for this species is one recorded in Alabama, at a length of 6 feet 2 1/2 inches and weighing in at 5.5 pounds. That would be one seriously large timber rattler."

I am impressed, again...man, you really need to get these folks updated. Apparently Missouri - the one and only "Show Me State", mind you - is also woefully unaware of how big these things grow where you are. Not only has she published the rather embarrasing fact that Missouri could only muster a record of less than 4 feet...but she has the audacity to hand the 'all-time record' crown to Alabama...and she clearly doesn't know 'seriously large' timber rattlers the likes of those in Louisiana.

 

The nerve!

 

(edit: Further research indicates that they may have heard of the 6'2.5" record as far away as New York http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7147.html) Apparently the lying mongrels at Wikipedia have gotten to a whole lot of people out there.)

Edited June 27, 2012 by Tamper

[Bullethead 12]

Hmmm... Well, here's the skin as promised. I guess these things shrink with time because when I measured it just now, it was only 5'3". I KNOW this sucker used to be 6'1" so about 1" per year of shrinkage.... But OTOH, I have consumed much stump juice since then.

 

I just keep it rolled up, not on anything to keep it stretched out, and I only partially unroll it to use as a background for some of the arrowheads I make, to keep as few scales as possible from falling off. This is the 1st time I've had it fully unrolled since shortly after I shot it.

 

But even at its current reduced length, this skin plus the removed parts on each end would still equal or exceed what you're claiming the world record is. You can see by the width of the front end that the shotgun took off quite a bit of its neck--it had a ways to go tapering down before the head, which itself was 2-3" long.

 

[Tamper 9]

Nice pic.

 

The problem, ya see, is that it isn't my "claim" at all. The records I've cited are claims by others - all but me - in places from Missouri to Alabama to New York state. (I provided references for your benefit).

 

So, it's not me you'd need to convince. Like I said, if I have to choose, I'd prefer a reference for that LA state record. Then I'd be your biggest advocate.

 

Incidentally, while I'm not sure where the reference for an inch per year in shrinkage is, I do know that almost everything I saw indicated that a. you cannot use a skin to determine the length of a live snake, and b. skinning the snake results in quite a lot of stretching of the skin - between 15 and 25% as I recall. Even where considerable caution was used explicitly to avoid the strecthing. This is explained by the simple fact that snake skin stretches in order to accommodate their eating habits. Commonly, this involves swallowing whole another animal which is often many times larger than the snake itself. If the snakes' skin didn't stretch, they'd burst.

 

As I understood it, skins are generally refused as proof of the length of a living snake. Of course I will gladly provide references once I return home if you'd like (I am indisposed of my desktop ATM).

Edited July 4, 2012 by Tamper

[Bullethead 12]

So, it's not me you'd need to convince. Like I said, if I have to choose, I'd prefer a reference for that LA state record. Then I'd be your biggest advocate.

 

So find it like you did the other stuff.

 

As I understood it, skins are generally refused as proof of the length of a living snake. Of course I will gladly provide references once I return home if you'd like (I am indisposed of my desktop ATM).

 

No, I totally agree with you. Skin is elastic in both directions. But you have to agree, nonetheless, that the snake that wore this skin, even at it's current reduced length, was at a minimum at or above 6' in length and a contender for the world record you've turned up. All I can say is that it was rather bigger than that, about 7'long. But the skin is all I have left of it. The meat got eaten, the bones tossed, and my dog chewed up the rattles. And this was not the biggest canebrake I've ever seen.

 

As for why nobody else in the world seems to know about the size of our snakes, I can offer the panther (aka cougar/moutain lion/puma). Check this out:

 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/florida-panther-id-tips

 

Despite the official denial of their existence, and the panther officially having been extinct in Lousy Anna for about 100 years, they've never left. I've seen them occasionally all my life, both tan and black, and find their tracks out in the woods not infrequently. Several of my neighbors have shot them when they come up to their houses. In fact, a few years ago, just across the state line in Mississippi, a guy hit one with his car and it weighed 260 pounds, nearly 3 times the average size of that species. That got in the local papers and TV news, and here's a pic of it:

 

http://philcoinms.multiply.com/journal/item/19?&show_interstitial=1&u=%2Fjournal%2Fitem

 

But despite this, officially we still have no panthers here, let alone giant ones.

 

My point is, don't put too much faith in the official side of things. As you can see in the 1st link above, even the Lousy Anna "Possum Police" don't believe in panthers.

 

And for the record, I know of no serious reports of bigfoot around here. Just big snakes and big cats :).

[Hasse Wind 46]

And for the record, I know of no serious reports of bigfoot around here. Just big snakes and big cats :).

 

Please let us know if your mother shoots a bigfoot.

[Flyby PC 23]

Think about smoked fish ( or anything smoked) it was smoked to preserve it, and often reconstituted with water before eating. The posh folks used milk, and if you want something really tastey with two ingredients, smoked mackerel simmered for 5 minutes in milk. Mackerel is best, because it's well tastey but you're not pulling the bones out every mouthful.

 

I've never eaten snake that I know of, but perhaps did in China. Ate quite a few meaty things which were superb, but let's just say they didn't taste like any meat I knew, - before or since.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Bullethead 12]

Please let us know if your mother shoots a bigfoot.

 

Sure thing ;). But I just mentioned the lack of bigfoot sightings around here to show that just because folks in an area claim they've got cryptozoological things doesn't mean they're nuts,

 

This particular corner of Lousy Anna (West Feliciana Parish, about 20 miles wide) is quite different from the rest of the state. It's the very southwestern-most extreme end of the very last foothills of the Appalachians, a continuation of a range of hills running SW to NE across the middle of Mississippi and getting bigger in that direction. I actually live on some of the highest ground in Lousy Anna and there's nothing remotely resembling a hill anywhere else in the state until you go about 150 miles NW. Because of this, the habitat is very different from the surrounding areas of the state. It's like I live on the tip of a peninsula stretching down from Mississippi. When sea levels were higher, it probably WAS the tip of a peninsula.

 

But now it's effectively an island. This place is so cut up by gullies that there's not much good farmland, so that's why it's all forest. Much of adjoining Mississippi, however, is open farmland or was until recently. As a result, West Feliciana is a small clump of unique habitat about 20 miles square. There are even isolated populations of plants and animals here that normally live a few hundred miles to the north, thought to be relics that didn't move back north when the glaciers melted. And some of the normal Lousy Anna wildlife here has strange mutations, probably from inbreeding.

 

For example, we're overrun with chipmunks, which are very rare or nonexistent in the rest of Lousy Anna. People come here from the rest of the state just to see them. We have some fox squirrels with black heads with a white stripe down the middle (we call them "skunk heads"). Many of our gray squirrels are black all over, some have red tails. And our wild turkeys come in 4 flavors: regular (brown with black markings), blue with black markings, white with black markings, and white with blue markings. And of course, panthers that don't officially exist (that giant in Liberty MS was only about 30 miles from here).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hasse Wind 46]

Well, there's certainly plenty of living space for undiscovered species in North America. And a big primate like the bigfoot would need plenty of space to survive and maintain a sufficient breeding population.

[Bullethead 12]

Well, there's certainly plenty of living space for undiscovered species in North America. And a big primate like the bigfoot would need plenty of space to survive and maintain a sufficient breeding population.

 

I'm sorry I mentioned bigfoot. I don't believe in the thing myself. Now, I do believe in crazy rednecks who go feral from consuming too much stump juice, magic mushrooms, and meth out in the woods. Some of my neighbors are like that and I imagine that outsiders who've never spoken with them in the grocery store or church might mistake them for bigfoot, even in daylight .

 

I keep waiting for the so-called "History Channel" to air a new "reality" show called "Troll Hunters". It would follow the adventures of a group of Indians stumbling around blindly in the Norwegian woods at night, all because they'd heard of this ancient European legend about trolls, and had found written references to them in various sagas and medieval manuscripts .

[Hasse Wind 46]

Rednecks can be found all over the planet. I'm sure some Norwegian subspecies are called trolls.

[Tamper 9]

I'm probably going to regret posting a 'partial response', but it needs to be said: It's remarkable how the "official" records can be dismissed at one moment, but then bring up something that hasn't "officially" been recognized...and suddenly it's only what withstands scrutiny that counts.

 

Snake sizes without any official proof? No problem.

 

Bigfoot? Get real...

 

I have to ask: What's worse? Only acknowledging what is officially recognized (but being consistent in what you require as "proof"), or believing what you want to, regardless of proof - and picking and choosing when to acknowledge official sources?

 

This is why my stance is what it is: Without some kind of certified records or documentation, it doesn't officially exist. Maybe it will be proven one day, but not as of right now. The record for the biggest canebrake/timber rattler is well-known and documented; anything else without proof might as well be a product of (forgive me, this would not be my choice of words) "juiced-up rednecks". (I was born, raised and still live in the extreme south, and I'm *more* than qualified in using the term).

 

I come from a long line of these creatures (juiced-up rednecks, that is *lol*) and I've heard countless stories of huge snakes. Funny, no official records exist, and it's always "Well, it got away", "We threw it out", etc...pretty much the very reason we have the phrase [sic] "No official records exist."

 

You can't decide everything you don't personally believe is just a hallucination; if one requires some kind of evidence before acknowledging something, one should at least consider applying the same standards universally.

 

I could be wrong, sure - but at least I'm consistent in the standards.

 

(PS, One problem I have with the pic is there's no frame of reference...we have no idea how tall you are, and even if we did there is no absolute rule concerning height v. arm reach, and as far as I can see, that's the only real 'evidence' you have. Plus, there is the whole "Skin isn't proof of length" issue. Again, nice pic - obviously a fair-sized snake no doubt. It's just not proof of anything, in any sense of the word).

[Bullethead 12]

I'm probably going to regret posting a 'partial response', but it needs to be said: It's remarkable how the "official" records can be dismissed at one moment, but then bring up something that hasn't "officially" been recognized...and suddenly it's only what withstands scrutiny that counts

 

Well, the "Possum Police" give a maximum length of 70" (as in 5'10") for canebrakes, so the reference I saw to 7'10" obviously wasn't the official state record I thought it was. Still, I know I saw it somewhere, and have seen a number of them about that size, including the 1 I killed.

 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/serpentes/canebrake-rattlesnake

 

The reason why mentioned the panther was to give a possible reason for why you couldn't find mention of Lousy Anna's much bigger specimens. That was when I still had hope of finding what I thought was the Lousy Anna record. If Lousy Anna's own "Possum Police" don't acknowledge the existence of panthers at all, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then it shouldn't be surprising that folks outside Lousy Anna hadn't heard of our bigger snakes.

(PS, One problem I have with the pic is there's no frame of reference...we have no idea how tall you are, and even if we did there is no absolute rule concerning height v. arm reach, and as far as I can see, that's the only real 'evidence' you have. Plus, there is the whole "Skin isn't proof of length" issue. Again, nice pic - obviously a fair-sized snake no doubt. It's just not proof of anything, in any sense of the word).

 

I told you the skin's length as of the day I measured it, so it really doesn't matter how tall I am, especially as you can't see anything below my chest. But for the record, I'm 5'11" and my arms span a full fathom when fully extended, measured from the middle fingertips. As you can see in the pic, they're not fully extended, so the skin is obviously shorter than 6'. And I agreed with you that skins are too variable in size to be reliable indicators of length.