The other way to look at it is that in some areas, rattlesnakes are not nuisances due to scarcity, and also due to scarcity they are protected.
I am not sure how that translates to hatred or anti-hunter sentiment - unless you are saying that hunters don't care about elimination of a species. If that is what you are suggesting, then you should look first at yourself, if hunting gets banned.
Exactly. Hunters are the reason we have hunt-able species in many areas. The reintroduction of Wild Turkeys and Elk to areas where they had previously eradicated, along with the continued stocking of other native and non-native game animals is all because hunters want them there. Hunters license fees and taxes from hunting equipment buy land and pay for food plots for the general public to enjoy. Hunters are the true conversationalists. Many folks don't realize that without hunters, many of the animals they enjoy having around would be gone, their habitat greatly reduced and those cute little forest creatures soon become frustrating pests. What sticks in the heads of these same folks is negative images of hunters. Newspaper articles about poachers/violators needlessly killing animals out of season or way over their bag limits. Pictures or hearsay of property damage done by hunters, either on purpose or just negligence. Disrespectful public display of dead animals, as hangin' in trees or nailin' to the side of a building for long periods of time.
No one here has voiced an objection to the hunting of rattlesnakes where legal. Some have suggested the illegal hunting of snakes in areas where they are protected. Which one of these opinions would most likely upset a non-hunter or someone neutral to hunting?