Number of deaths due to constrictor snakes?

[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.

[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
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

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

[OhhWatALoser]

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

[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!?

[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.

[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.

[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.