I see your point, but fish don't pose a deadly threat to humans. Rattlesnakes do. We don't have to worry about stumbling on a poisonous largemouth bass and being bitten while we are hiking through the mountains. If I were to find a rattle snake on my property, I would definately kill it. It would pose a threat to my future kids, wife and animals. I have to put my family first, before I let a rattlesnake live on my property. Bullsnakes, gardner snakes, etc, can make themselves at home on my property (as long as they don't come inside -- then I might have to take more drastic action). They eat the Rattle Snakes. Killing a fish and leaving it on the bank for no reason serves no purposeness, other than complete laziness and disregard for nature. Killing a rattlesnake, however, serves as a means of protection. I am putting this into context that the rattlesnake is close to my property. Now, if I were on a hike, miles fmy my house, and came into contact with a rattlesnake, I wouldn't necassarily kill it. I would most likely walk around and avoid it.crankbait42 wrote:when people kill snakes just because it kind of makes me mad. kind of like people just killing and leaving fish. if you eat them thats fine but when people just want the rattles or just leave it there it makes me kind of angry.
Beerman
