British wildlife student dies in front of girlfriend minutes after being bitten by black mamba snake
Last updated at 12:26pm on 11th March 2008


A British wildlife student died after being bitten by a black mamba snake during a field trip in South Africa.

Nathan Layton, 27, fell into a coma in front of girlfriend Laura Woolley and died within minutes.

Relatives told how Mr Layton of Wing, Berkshire, had wanted to become a vet working in the South African bush.


Nathan died in front of his girlfriend after being bitten by a black mamba while in South Africa


He was on a course paid for with compensation money from a near-fatal car crash.

They were with a group of teachers and fellow students when it happened.


His aunt Jacqui Edwards told The Sun newspaper: "Within minutes, he was dead."

She described him as "a loving, caring person with such a warm heart".

The student had dreamed of a life saving animals in the South African bush – like vet-turned-game park ranger Danny Trevanion in ITV drama Wild At Heart.

And he had just enrolled on a college wildlife course.

His devastated parents are arranging for his body to be flown back to Britain.

The black mamba is the world's fastest snake and can slither at speeds of up to 12mph.

It is also the world's second deadliest snake.

That snake gives me the heebie jeebies.

We all know that this DOES happen, but how often does it happen. This is the first time I can recall hearing of someone bitten by a snake and dying. Perhaps someone can locate some statistics, Actuaries, that can tell us how likely we are to be a victim of death by snake while hunting in Africa.

I would be willing to bet the odds are greater to die by lightening strike and much greater to fall victim to insect bite.

Eyedoc,

Second one in a couple of weeks. Yikes.

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=371101228#371101228

Thanks for the link, I did not catch that one when it was originally posted. That fellow really did not die from snake bite as much as he died from stupidity.

Hopefully someone will come forward with some numbers.

If he thought he was modelling his ambition on that incredibly stupid TV series 'Wild at Heart, he was probably trying to stroke the damn thing and therefore, it was nothing more than a bit of natural selection .........

Shakari, I know exactly what you mean, I have seen a few episodes, but I can't stand watching it. It is so separated from reality! Any real wildlife vet would roll their eyes back at the stuff that goes on in the show. It sends a dangerous message out to people too, making them think it is ok to jump out of the Landy and stroll up to a lion having a meal, or stand a few metres away from a 'wild' elephant.

All the animals in the show are tame, hand-reared animals, but are made out to be completely wild. The problem with this is when you start doing what you see on tv out in the real bush, especially if you do not know any better, it will get you killed, and for some people they do not know any better. My condolences go out to the family. I do not know how he came to be bitten, but it is rare to get bitten unless you are messing with a snake, and these are one of the snakes that you do not mess with.

The really sad thing about it is that sooo many people in the UK seem to think that life here is really like that!

I can honestly say, I've never seen a bigger bunch of drivel in my life than that bloody ridiculous programme.

quote:

e was on a course paid for with compensation money from a near-fatal car crash.

well if the car didn't get him the snake did - guess when your times up its up

Damn and last spring while on my Leopard hunt the PH got pissed because he missed catching a black mamba.

Shakari, I would back you up on that, the show is most certainly a load of drivel! As you suggest,it is sad and all-together scary how some people will believe everything they see on tv, especially when the portrayal is completely false. They could have made it a really good series, if they had made it a bit more realistic.

Another thing that astounds me about the show is that these things are supposed to have researchers and technical advisers etc...... whoever had those jobs should be charged with taking money under false pretenses!

Shakari, what can I say! It really is horrifying though how popular the show has become over here, as well as the publicity it has recieved. It really scares me that so many people believe such stuff!

Just goes to show you how dumb and naive the great British public really are huh?

Did you see that other stupid documentary about some 'Africa hand'/British public school twit who helped set up a safari lodge? - He insisted the only possible way to catch giraffe was to lassoo them........ At leat one died in the operation and maybe more.......

Shakari, I too think the guys behind the scenes are not doing much good at all. There are obviously local staff and a vet involved. They are just playing along to the producers who want it to go their way (and are obviously being paid to keep quiet), even though it may be completely false. People should be entitled to enjoy the show, but they should not be blatantly misled by it. They could have made it eductional, but they threw that one out of the window I am afraid.

Shakari, I am afraid that I did not see any of that show where they worked at starting a safari-lodge. I was always out working when the show came on (thank goodness)! From what you describe, I do not think that I could have faced the torment of watching it anyway!

Roping giraffes? How do they propose to do that? And exactly who was killed in the process...the wrangler, the horse or the village they were dragged through? Where's Ray at?

quote:

Just goes to show you how dumb and naive the great British public really are huh?

Shakari

I don't think the British have a monopoly on this one. I seem to remember the American TV audience being enamored by some crazy Australian A$$hole. The late great's name was??? Ah damn it seems to have escaped my memory. Steve.....Steve.....Irwin that's it.

Brett

Brett, easy there tiger! Steve actually did a hell of a lot for awareness and conservation of wildlife in Auz. I am sure he is considered to be a hero in Auz. I think that he knew full well of the risks he was taking most of the time. I think that he did some pretty foolhardy stuff at times and pushed things a little too far more often than not, but he always meant well. He always got the point accross though, and was a real conservtaionist, but I would not have agreed with some of the risks he took in doing so.

Nzou,

I think I can agree with that to some degree.

Brett

Irwin might have considered himself a so-called conservationist, but he was a RABID anti-hunter. No matter what you might believe that CANNOT be disputed. He didn't fool me or the many thousands of others including hunters who were and still are truly concerned about conservation and proper game management, which must include hunting in the mix. He did not believe that hunting had any place in conservation at all. He died taking a knowingly foolish risk.

Yikes.

Nzou

I think we can all thank Steve Irwin for inspiring kids to learn and care about wildlife. I can also appreciate his love and enthusiasm for wildlife, but after that I can't say much good. I think Use Enough Gun summed my thoughts up pretty well with his post. Steve was an unabashed anti-hunter. He also took foolish risks with dangerous animals for the sake of television and to me that's disrespectful to the animals.

Brett

Brett, I could probably agree with you there too. I believe that he was not too keen on hunting, but I have found that to be a truism with many people involved in conservation. I think hunting is either in your blood or it is not, and you can not convince someone who is opposed to it otherwise, it is a bit of a waste of time more often than not. He did do a lot for awareness of conservation through his shows, and I think that his opinion on hunting was obviously his own. He may have been a bit over zealous with his anti-hunting antics, which is a most unfortunate, but in the end he did contribute quite a bit to wildlife conservation. You need to take the good with the bad sometimes. I would, like you not agree with his dissapproval of hunting, but there are many 'hunters' too out there that can not be considered conservationists and they are often the ones that give it a bad name if that makes any sense. Just shooting an animal does not make you a consevationist unfortunately, it goes further than that. I am sure that all the true hunters would agree in the need for quotas, etc and money and research generated going back into the system for preservation and enjoyment of generations to come.

Brett, I too think that he showed disrespect at times for the animals that he worked with. I think that he always knew how dangerous the animals were that he was working with, but chose to take the risks. I think that he knew the power of the camera and television and used it to good effect. I would still consider him a conservationist for his efforts and awareness, especially for children, where most of his work was aimed, but then children are the future conservationists. I do agree with you in that he did not have to bash hunting, that was not really necessary, and somewhat unfortunate.

My kid grew up watching him. They are now 10 and 12. They well knew what a nutcase he was and how most of his activities were detremental to the animals. That opinion was developed by them, having grown up in a rural setting and much exposure to the blood sports.

crane, he was a nutter through and through! I personally found him a bit loud and over-enthusiastic to the point of being almost sickening at times. I know that I am probably digging myself a hole here, but I still enjoyed his shows quite often with reservations of course.

I think he really should have respected the animals that he worked with a lot more, and for not doing so was incredibly foolish. I think that if he had he would probably still be around today. Still, he was an entertainer and did his part for adding some spice to television and introducing wildlife to youngsters. I think his motto was always along the lines of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

As to being a role-model, if I had kids I would be scared that they would try do the same foolish things he very often did. He did not glamourize dangerous risk-taking, but I think could be perceived to be that way inclined at times. It was all to try make it as exciting as possible for the camera. I think that most children would probably be able to understand that some of things he did were not at all wise, and he said it himself all the time to let them know. You could ultimately say that he was a slave to the camera. All the negative aspects aside he was not a bad persosn, and certainly did a fair bit for wildlife.

Yes, he and Michael Jackson. As you all recall, one famous incident dealt with heights and the other with crocs. Shameful at best.

Use Enough Gun, you lost me there I am afraid. What do you mean about the heights? Forgive me, but I did not watch all his episodes! I think with the Michael Jackson part, you are probably referring to zoos. I personally do not like to see some animals in them myself, but they are a powerful eductional tool and can be important for maintaining very rare species. As long as a zoo is well run and properly maintained it is not so bad, but I have been to one or two which were pretty run down and can make the experience quite different to what it should be. In those circumstances they can be quite a depressing place to be in.

Michael Jackson dangled his infant son from a very high window ledge. Steve Irwin dangled his infant son in front of a huge saltwater croc. Both did it apparently as publicity stunts for the papparazzi and the cameras.

Steve Irwin was nearly the best thing since the Three Stooges. He did make me laugh. Even the way he died. Who could make that up?

Crikey!

Still, as a natural born son of Adam, I do hate snakes.

Especially mambas.

Falsifying the facts for show, giving human or cartoon style names to wild animals in supposed educational documentaries, and stupid publicity stunts for mass entertainment are all about as immoral behaviour as "canned hunting"

In fact, it's possibly even worse, because hunters of canned animals don't usually try and show it on tv to millions of people.

I think that referring to him a 'true conservationist' was probably a little misguided on my part. I enjoyed his shows, but that was more for seeing the crocs and snakes rather than all the monkeying around in front of the camera and stuff that came out of his mouth to be perfectly honest. As to putting his kid at risk, I can not think why someone would do such a thing! It is one thing to put your self at risk, but another to involve someone else, especially your own child. Still I think that he meant well, even if he was a little distant from reality at times. It is easy to see many faults in the guy, but his awareness to others of the importance of conservation and setting up a decent zoo was not a bad thing. It is a pity he did not ultimately learn from his mistakes. I always thought that something would get him in the end.

quote:

Brett, easy there tiger! Steve actually did a hell of a lot for awareness and conservation of wildlife in Auz. I am sure he is considered to be a hero in Auz. I think that he knew full well of the risks he was taking most of the time. I think that he did some pretty foolhardy stuff at times and pushed things a little too far more often than not, but he always meant well. He always got the point accross though, and was a real conservtaionist, but I would not have agreed with some of the risks he took in doing so.

The man was a dick head and very much hated here in the NT for his anti croc hunting stance. BUT an anti hunter he was not. He used to hunt pigs as a kid and on one of his early shows his dog bailed a big boar in a dam, which he killed. What he was, was smart. He knew where the $$ were and that was on animal planet! His wacked out wife is just as bad if not worse...and don't get me started on that brat of a kid of his

Irwin and other like him have a lot to answer for. People watch his shows and think they can go out and pick up a tiapan! What they don't know is, is that they are his own snakes bought along and planted. Dick heads!

quote:

What he was, was smart. He knew where the $$ were

A trait that his wife and daughter seem to have picked up!
People watch his shows and think they can go out and pick up a tiapan! What they don't know is, is that they are his own snakes bought along and planted
Is that so? I always wondered how he was able to find these snakes so easily!!
Peter.

Bakes, you would know better than anyone what the general consensus was on Steve there in Auz. I think that I lodged my foot quite well and truly into my mouth on this one! I find it quite interesting that he was not adverse to hunting pigs. I saw one of his shows where here wrestled a sow to the ground no trouble, which I thought was quite daring to say the least, especially given the fact they can slash your legs to pieces without any problems. He seemed to know what he was doing there though, maybe his hunting experience side coming through.

As for taipans, I believe the inland taipan is as bad as they get and the coastal one is not far behind in terms of toxicity anywhere in the world. I am not familiar with them, but I think that I would advise giving them a wide berth unless you have antivenom and a hospital in your back-yard. I can well believe that the snakes were all his, it would take quite a considerable amount of camera work and searching for one normally I would think, even if you knew where to look. Again, I think that he had the whole camera and television thing mastered. I do not think that he should be seen as role-model for kids due to his unnacceptable risks with dangerous animals.

I think that he was passionate about his work though, and setting up the zoo was obviously quite an achievement. As to being very much against hunting. I do now know why he did not accept hunting as an important part of conservation. Fact is if he was a real croc hunter, I do not think he would have been given as much publicity as he received. Try convincing parents and schools that you want to teach kids about conservation and awareness when you are a hardened croc killer! I think that he did have interests in trying to protect the wildlife, especially his beloved crocs, but his views and methods were probably quite questionable. Anyway, that is my bit, I think that I have had my say, will leave the subject now.

The general concensus in Australia since the death of Erwin is that he is some kind of National freakin' hero... but as Bakes rightly pointed out ... those in the know realise that he became a puppet for liberationists and his screwed-up family seem to want to keep his stupid dream alive of saving the planet from all the nasty people. Before his death Erwin was busy buying up large tracts of land in Queensland to create his own private wildlife refuges, just as similar groups are doing in the USA.

I do disagree with Bakes however about him not being an anti hunter. Sure he did 'hunt' earlier on (destroying those nasty feral pigs) but his stripes soon changed when we went international and his television shows (and now his daughters shows even more) regularly spout anti-hunting doctrine and the lies, and half-truths that go with it.

These people are dangerous - do not think for one minute they have done or will do anything for real conservation.

I met a Ranger in RSA who helped out on on of Irwin's African snake shows...
Steve rarked all the animals up before he "stumbled" on them for the cameras - but you don't have to be a snake expert to see that was the case.
Ironically this Ranger was bitten by a black mamba (I'm pretty sure that's what it was) and was VERY sick, suffering cardiac arrest.
Fortunately they had a well supplied medical team just around the corner.

Sorry I wasn't clear (have the flu...snif)
He never used to be an anti. He changed when he met the missus and things started taking off for him, thats why I never liked him, he's a turn coat. He never got charged for interfering with wildlife at antarctica and I think that gave the message to him that he could do what he liked. The Irwins arn't out to raise awareness, they are out to raise money. That's why little Bindy (who names a kid after a spikey weed ) is out carrying on with dads work....god bless her. He lobbied hard and stopped the trophy hunting of croc's. We have THE expert on crocs up here in Dr Graham Web who supports the hunting of crocs and the government backs ole Stevie.

Nzou
Inlands are the number one in the world, followed by the coastal. New Guinea also has a tiapan species that kills quite a few each year.

I thought that Bindy was the name of Irwin's favorite croc. That's what Irwin said on an interview. In either case, who, in their right mind would name their daughter after a weed or a croc, unless it was for more publicity. At least Michael Jackson named his son Prince.