Indeed, they do, German.
Your comment that the report of a snake bite at Oswego lake was a result of someone chasing after a snake is quite plausible. When I worked in a PA state park as an environmental educator, a small group of people went after a water snake from a causeway in the park. The law enforcement rangers were on the scene trying to keep order. On of them asked me to talk some sense to the people who had been throwing rocks, etc, at the snake, from an environmental point of view. I explained to them, as you mentioned, that snakes are a threat when you threaten them. In another case, a mother brought her little girl, who had gotten bitten by a garter (non-poisionous) snake, into the park office. When they descibed the snake, I new what it was, and although the snake wasn't poisionous, recommended the bite be cleaned ASAP. I told the little girl that snakes, like other critters, usually don't attack people but if you accidently step on them, they may bite. The girl then admitted that she was chasing after the snake, reaching into the brush to try to grab it.
I still feel uneasy about restoring the population of a poisionous critter, though. I think it's great that there are efforts to protect the endangered Pine Barrens Treefrog. I understand your argument about risk, however, we're talking about a risk in a particular place for a particular activity. Remember, a statistician is someone who drowns while wading across a river with an average three foot depth.
I can dig the idea of restoring the forest to its natural state, to some extent. This is what the forestry professor I mentioned advocates. I think, however, that hiking in a area where there are no poisionous snakes is good. Just because they were once in the area, and even though "we" caused their decline, it doesn't mean we are obligated to welcome them back, so to speak. Dinosaurs once roamed that earth but are now extinct. Even though we can't blame this on global warming from factories (joke), the biosphere is still doing OK, despite the extinction of these giants. In short, they are expendible.
It really isn't a small minority of folks who want the flora and fauna of the earth to suit them. On the contrary, the environmentalists, who want to keep the hand we were dealt, are in the minority. I realize that not all of them are extremists -- you don't seem to be, German -- but even the more reasonable ones see nature in a differen light, for better or worse. I remember someone who lived in California told me that in the major national parks and forests there, the vast majority of people flock to a limited area, and that much of the park, where people can backpack, is not crowded. I also remember reading a paper by a professor, in wildlife or forestry or something, at Penn State that said the people who visit remote areas, backpackers and such, are a small percentage of the people who visit the woods. This may have changed since then.
In general, I believe that fundamentally humans have the right to modify the environment to suit their needs, not just to protect themselves from grave danger, such as the West Nile Virus, but from nuisances, such as black flys. It is debatable, however, how far we should go to accomplish this. I believe in the practice of multiple use, where land is managed for recreation, wildlife, water quality, soils (I'm not sure if I missed any). This seems to be the case in the Pine Barrens. I read where the Oswego lake area is more crowded than other areas, and is more condusive to people who like boating and other such activities. The batona trail in general, and the area around Atsion and north is a great spot for those who want solitude and enjoy nature. When I visited these areas, I run into very few people. Sometimes I don't see anyone at all!
I'm not sold on the idea of protecting the timer rattler, nor of keeping things exactly the way they were. In the case of the dinosaurs, those with nostagia for these giants can always watch JURRASIC PARK.
I believe that we have dominion over the earth.
