# Other Pythons > General Pythons >  Number of deaths due to constrictor snakes?

## OhhWatALoser

Does anyone have a number of the number of deaths due to constrictor snakes or non-venomous snakes in america say in the last 10 years or X amount of years and a possible source to this info? I would imagine this number would be very low, but i can't seem to find what im looking for.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

never mind found my answer finally out of all places....the HSUS website "At least 11 people have been killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980" that artical was written in oct 24, 2008

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/pr...ns_102408.html

my next question has there been anymore since then?

heres random stats off the web...
Deaths in 2002
Falling over furniture: 785
Falling down stairs: 1,598
Falling off of ladder: 406
Drowning in bathtub: 352
Drowning in swimming pool: 636
Choking on food: 819
Bee, hornet, wasp sting: 54
Struck by lightning: 66
Accidental poisoning: 17,550 

and these people are worried about pythons.... python deaths .4 deaths per year

----------

_AlexisFitzy_ (03-14-2015),Citrus (03-14-2015),_hawaiianice99_ (12-09-2009)

----------


## hawaiianice99

Some of those make me wonder about the negiligence of the owners, is it difficult to "securely" house your animal?

----------


## DoubleB

I agree. All the deaths I've heard of comes from irresponsible owners. I remember one a few years back the owners let an adult burmese run free throughout the house and a child was killed. That's just stupidity.

----------


## Aeries

> The death count: The USA has sustained 25 fatal dog attacks in 2009. There were 23 in 2008, and 33 in 2007.


man's best friend eh?

----------

_kitedemon_ (03-14-2015)

----------


## greghall

YEAH BUT DOGS ARE SO CUTE & NICE! BAN THEM ALL lol!

----------

snake.named.fuzzy (03-14-2015)

----------


## Hulihzack

> I agree. All the deaths I've heard of comes from irresponsible owners. I remember one a few years back the owners let an adult burmese run free throughout the house and a child was killed. That's just stupidity.


Unfortunately, our government likes to legislate to the lowest of the low and say "too bad for the 99.9% of the good owners".  It's like with guns, you could ban them, but the people committing crimes with them aren't getting their guns legally anyway so it would really only screw over the legitimate gun business.

----------


## blackcrystal22

> Unfortunately, our government likes to legislate to the lowest of the low and say "too bad for the 99.9% of the good owners".  It's like with guns, you could ban them, but the people committing crimes with them aren't getting their guns legally anyway so it would really only screw over the legitimate gun business.


Sort-of.
Guns are by far more dangerous to human life than large pythons. 

Even if the guns are owned legally, the accident chance is much higher and the potential use of a gun is to kill, which is not what reptiles do under most circumstances.

----------


## Chocolate Muffin's

> never mind found my answer finally out of all places....the HSUS website "At least 11 people have been killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980" that artical was written in oct 24, 2008
> 
> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/pr...ns_102408.html
> 
> my next question has there been anymore since then?
> 
> heres random stats off the web...
> Deaths in 2002
> Falling over furniture: 785
> ...


Why are they including large constrictors on the "list" of dangerous animals anyway? This summer a small child was killed in Florida but that was parental gross negligence. Wasn't all of this dangerous animal stuff born from the "Chimp Attack" or has this always been a fight for herp owners? - Asking out of complete ignorance here, because I truly don't know, so please don't get frustrated with me : )

----------


## Chocolate Muffin's

> never mind found my answer finally out of all places....the HSUS website "At least 11 people have been killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980" that artical was written in oct 24, 2008
> 
> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/pr...ns_102408.html
> 
> my next question has there been anymore since then?
> 
> heres random stats off the web...
> Deaths in 2002
> Falling over furniture: 785
> ...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529835,00.html 

by fox news if you can imagine, this happened in July

----------


## wilomn

> Why are they including large constrictors on the "list" of dangerous animals anyway? This summer a small child was killed in Florida but that was parental gross negligence. Wasn't all of this dangerous animal stuff born from the "Chimp Attack" or has this always been a fight for herp owners? - Asking out of complete ignorance here, because I truly don't know, so please don't get frustrated with me : )


It's actually about votes. 

If you champion a popular cause, especially a cause that is popular and that you personally know nothing about but have strong feelings in regards to, like a baby being killed, then you too are a champion.

Pit yourself against someone like that nutjob that killed his baby and blamed it on the snake, and you're a veritable hero.

Once you're a hero, once the ignorant or easily persuaded have sided with you, you're in. Once you're in, money and power and the adoration of the admittedly ignorant but voting public, are all yours for the taking.

----------

_blackcrystal22_ (12-30-2009),_Chocolate Muffin's_ (12-09-2009),_MattU_ (12-09-2009)

----------


## nixer

> never mind found my answer finally out of all places....the HSUS website "At least 11 people have been killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980" that artical was written in oct 24, 2008
> 
> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/pr...ns_102408.html
> 
> my next question has there been anymore since then?
> 
> heres random stats off the web...
> Deaths in 2002
> Falling over furniture: 785
> ...


if your going to attempt to quote that look at the disclaimer  :Wink:

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> if your going to attempt to quote that look at the disclaimer


 :Confused:

----------


## greghall

I know alot of people on here are young people & supported the current adminstration you are getting a lesson in Liberalism=bigger goverment less individual rights! Hows that change working for you!?

----------

_bsd13_ (12-30-2009),marvelfreak (12-30-2009)

----------


## xdeus

> I know alot of people on here are young people & supported the current adminstration you are getting a lesson in Liberalism=bigger goverment less individual rights! Hows that change working for you!?


Please keep political discussions/debate fodder in the Quarantine Room.

----------

_Chocolate Muffin's_ (12-09-2009),MarkS (12-30-2009),marvelfreak (12-30-2009)

----------


## joHtoD3

Naturally you'd find the statistics on Humane Society website. They are the ones pushing to pas S373!

----------


## Hypancistrus

> Naturally you'd find the statistics on Humane Society website. They are the ones pushing to pas S373!


But the fact is that the HSUS will pick the most damning stats they can... if 11 in 18 years is the best they can come up with....

Where is the "rampant danger" to human health??

This is a witch hunt pure and simple. It's like taking someone's nail clippers when they get on a plane but leaving them with a ball point pen. You're doing something so the dumb, panicky American public "feels" safer... even though the "safety" is an illusion.

----------

marvelfreak (12-30-2009)

----------


## rayteurfs

I am a retired math teacher and a whole life lover of reptiles. I love to catch and keep these creatures. The discussion on the dangers of constrictors is a bit off. You cannot directly compare dog deaths, lightening deaths, etc. with snake deaths without taking into account the prevalence of these animals in homes. There are so many more people with dogs than with large constricting snakes that if you do not account for this, any conclusions are simply wrong. My guess is that large constrictor snakes are far more dangerous to have in a home than dogs. I was telling my wife just now that I would never ever have a large constrictor in the same house as a small child. Never. Snakes - as you all know - make Houdini look like an amateur when it comes to escaping. Sure, there are far, far less lives lost per year from snakes versus dogs  ...probably close to one to a 100, but there are more than likely 1000 times more dogs than large constrictors. That, if it were true - and I am not saying this is exact by any means - then large constrictors are 10 times more dangerous in the house than dogs. That being said, hey, it is fun to own snakes and keep them healthy, no?

----------


## John1982

> I am a retired math teacher and a whole life lover of reptiles. I love to catch and keep these creatures. The discussion on the dangers of constrictors is a bit off. You cannot directly compare dog deaths, lightening deaths, etc. with snake deaths without taking into account the prevalence of these animals in homes. There are so many more people with dogs than with large constricting snakes that if you do not account for this, any conclusions are simply wrong. My guess is that large constrictor snakes are far more dangerous to have in a home than dogs. I was telling my wife just now that I would never ever have a large constrictor in the same house as a small child. Never. Snakes - as you all know - make Houdini look like an amateur when it comes to escaping. Sure, there are far, far less lives lost per year from snakes versus dogs  ...probably close to one to a 100, but there are more than likely 1000 times more dogs than large constrictors. That, if it were true - and I am not saying this is exact by any means - then large constrictors are 10 times more dangerous in the house than dogs. That being said, hey, it is fun to own snakes and keep them healthy, no?


Welcome to the forum, Ray. For the record, this thread is over 5 years old. Considering the current circumstances, you might want to drop in and say hello on the introduction forum else folks take you for a simple troll trying to stir up trouble. Here's a link for your convenience:
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/forum...oduce-Yourself!




> Sure, there are far, far less lives lost per year from snakes versus dogs  ...probably close to one to a 100, but there are more than likely 1000 times more dogs than large constrictors. That, if it were true - and I am not saying this is exact by any means - then large constrictors are 10 times more dangerous in the house than dogs.


I've seen statistics about percentages of reptiles in households but none that single out "large" constrictors so it's hard to argue the validity of the numbers either way. Your guess is as good as anybody's involving percentages while your conjecture on their danger would almost assuredly be off as you seem to lack firsthand experience.




> I was telling my wife just now that I would never ever have a large constrictor in the same house as a small child. Never. Snakes - as you all know - make Houdini look like an amateur when it comes to escaping.


If you're a responsible keeper, not some crackpot keeping a snake in a glass aquarium with a blanket draped over the top, then your animals don't simply escape.

----------


## Bluebonnet Herp

> I am a retired math teacher and a whole life lover of reptiles. I love to catch and keep these creatures. The discussion on the dangers of constrictors is a bit off. You cannot directly compare dog deaths, lightening deaths, etc. with snake deaths without taking into account the prevalence of these animals in homes. There are so many more people with dogs than with large constricting snakes that if you do not account for this, any conclusions are simply wrong. My guess is that large constrictor snakes are far more dangerous to have in a home than dogs. I was telling my wife just now that I would never ever have a large constrictor in the same house as a small child. Never. Snakes - as you all know - make Houdini look like an amateur when it comes to escaping. Sure, there are far, far less lives lost per year from snakes versus dogs  ...probably close to one to a 100, but there are more than likely 1000 times more dogs than large constrictors. That, if it were true - and I am not saying this is exact by any means - then large constrictors are 10 times more dangerous in the house than dogs. That being said, hey, it is fun to own snakes and keep them healthy, no?


I think it depends on what kind of attack we're talking about. Based on circumstantial and physical evidence alone, I'm willing to bet a dog is still a more dangerous animal than a snake. For one, a dog has more reasons to kill a human. Dogs can actually eat people, they can maul people due to their jaws adapted for crushing meat and bones, and they're very territorial to boot. Snakes can't eat people, and they only bite when scared, 98% of the time being a non-lethal attack if it's a nonvenomous snake. The only way a constrictor is going to kill someone is either a feeding error or a wrestling match gone wrong as a result of the snake being grabbed in an irresponsible manner. And their bites are relatively weak for their size in comparison to some other vertebrates, as other vertebrates tend to have jaw bones and muscles for crushing. A snake has very flexible jaws and comparatively weaker jaw muscles, as their mouths are designed to stretch and maneuver large prey items down their gullet as opposed to ripping them to shreds. Such flexibility comes at the cost of mass and strength.
That said, I'm willing to bet a snake is more likely to _bite_ than a dog, but a dog is more likely to kill. A snake is easily predictable, while a dog can be more sophisticated in behavior. Snakes won't harm anyone who messes with them, while as dogs are known to have attacked and killed people minding their own business.
Another important factor is that pet snakes have never killed a member of the uninvolved public - every victim was either the owner, or someone of close, accepted proximity to the snake such as a family member. As previously stated, dogs that have broken out have killed people who had nothing to do with that dog. A dog can be a public safety hazard, but a nonvenomous pet snake is not. A pet snake is just a self-accepted risk, and a low risk at that.

P.S. Yes, I know this is a zombie thread, but was a point I felt needed addressing.

----------

*bcr229* (03-14-2015)

----------


## kitedemon

rayteurfs welcome. A dead thread resurrected, is well, alive again. I completely see what you are saying. The error of stats, more dogs mean more deaths. It should be a % or something to have true value, 0.1% (made up number) of dogs kill their owners or something along these lines. 

We always talk about responsible ownership, sadly it is the people whom should likely not own a snake at all, (or have kids) that make the stats (same for dogs for that matter) It is difficult to enforce good ownership on the part of a government. I live where for a long time (15+ years) large snakes have been illegal. I actually believe that a big snakes are not for everyone, that it requires a lot of knowledge and commitment to own one responsibility. I in part agree with what you are saying, they are not something you should be able to impulse buy. 

I believe that yes there are far far more dogs than big snakes. But I believe there are more injuries, not death, needing medical attention from dogs than snakes, even looking at % of total population. A dog bit often needs medical attention a snake bit often does not.

The law makers are reacting to public phobias, fear mongering, and sensational news articles rather than hard fact. The truth is simple the people whom keep them are dangerous the animal is just an animal. A good keeper, diligent, and careful understands the animal and takes steps to keep themselves and public safe from it. It is unimportant what that animal is. The dog people say it best,

Punish the Deed, Not the Breed. This is true of big snakes, punish individual action and keepers not generic keepers across the board.

----------

Citrus (03-14-2015)

----------


## Citrus

The fact of the matter is that nearly everyone who isn't in the reptile hobby view snakes as evil, scary, dangerous, and life threatening creatures. Doesn't matter if it's a nine inch ring neck snake or a 15+ foot snake, they are all assumed to be dangerous. My biggest pet peeve is uneducated people who are frightened by reptiles. I was at a zoo and saw a yellow ratsnake in an enclosure, this lady comes by and assumes "rat" was short for rattle snake and left the room. The other day I was holding a four foot long red tail boa and several people saw and literally ran away. 
And about the recent additions to the Lacey act, it's pointless. South florida is the only state that those snakes could live in. Down here the only worry that is sensible is that these snakes will take resources from native species. The growth of civilization is more of a threat to the native species than the invasives. Going back to what hypancistrus said, the people who are uneducated/ don't care about the wildlife and nature are only concerned about safety because of what I mentioned earlier. Whenever I mention that I have snakes, both when I was a kid with garter snakes, and now with ball pythons, people always ask how I keep such a big snake. I always point out that it's actually fairly small but it doesn't seem to matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Paragonimus westerma

I made some vague attempt to calculate how likely someone is to get killed by a pet dog vs getting killed by a pet snake a few months ago.

...unfortunately I'm bad at math and I lost most of my work anyway, but I'm going to try to recalculate.

Between 1990 and 2012:

10 large constrictor fatalities in the USA
http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Con...e_Fatality.pdf

340 dog fatalities in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_d..._United_States
[I know not the best source ever]

Estimated 69,926,000 pet dogs in USA in 2012
Estimated 1,150,000 pet snakes in USA in 2012
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/St...ownership.aspx

0.0000049 fatalities per dog.
0.0000087 fatalities per snake. 


Granted, I didn't take into account how the population of pet dogs and pet snakes changed over the 23 year period. 


Based on my horrible, flawed math, you are still somewhat more likely to get killed by a pet constrictor than by a pet dog. That being said, it should also be pointed out that, AFAIK, *all*​ of the snake-related fatalities have directly involved their owners and not some unrelated member of the public.


EDIT: I don't know what I did differently, since the first time I did this calculation the conclusion was actually the reverse; dogs were more likely to kill you than snakes. I think I used different population numbers.

EDIT2: Additionally, these stats don't make any distinction between the numbers of small vs large dogs, or large constrictors vs any other type of snake.

----------


## kitedemon

Paragonimus westerma I think the estimation of snakes is far too low. That would mean Brian Barczyk owns loosely 5% of all the snakes in the USA. I would guess at least double that number or greater.

----------

Citrus (03-18-2015)

----------

