Is this statement accurate?

[dkspftw]

So we all know BPs are generally pretty mild-mannered, harmless pets that get a bad rap because they have a scary name, and are related to larger, more difficult constrictors.

I'm looking for ways to express this to people, and I'm wondering if you all think the following statement is accurate, or hyperbole:

"BPs are less dangerous to a person than a cat is, and less dangerous to a cat than an adult rat is."

I guess I could see a large BP successfully overpowering a cat in self-defense, but it seems super unlikely given a cat's speed and armament. I know I'm terrified of what my cats might do to one of my snakes if it got out.

This isn't meant to be one of those stupid animal vs. animal fight threads. I'm examining the accuracy of my phraseology, possibly for penning a letter to a politician. Thoughts?

[jdhutton2000]

Yes'ish. BP's natural instinct to ball up in defense and hide and ambush prey would make me say they are a LOT less dangerous. BUT that doesn't mean they are danger free. Had to throw in that disclaimer.

[CORBIN911]

Also even most "Strikes" are mearly bumps​ there they boink you with there nose.

[Pythonfriend]

the first part is true, cats can do more damage, BPs do not have that much biting power, cats can really cause deep wounds.

but im not sure about the second part. one time i came across a youtube video where a BP attacked a cat, and the cat was screaming and completely defenseless. the BP didnt manage to strangle the cat because it was squeezing the wrong end, but the cat was really helpless and could not get out, it could not move enough to use its teeth or claws, and people had to intervene and untangle them. i would say its random and anything could happen, ranging from dead cat to dead BP.

maybe its better to not talk in terms of "more dangerous" and "less dangerous", also because then the word "dangerous" appears so often. i would just point out that they are harmless for humans because any normal person only needs one arm to fight them off.

[jdhutton2000]

the first part is true, cats can do more damage, BPs do not have that much biting power, cats can really cause deep wounds.

but im not sure about the second part. one time i came across a youtube video where a BP attacked a cat, and the cat was screaming and completely defenseless. the BP didnt manage to strangle the cat because it was squeezing the wrong end, but the cat was really helpless and could not get out, it could not move enough to use its teeth or claws, and people had to intervene and untangle them. i would say its random and anything could happen, ranging from dead cat to dead BP.

maybe its better to not talk in terms of "more dangerous" and "less dangerous", also because then the word "dangerous" appears so often. i would just point out that they are harmless for humans because any normal person only needs one arm to fight them off.

And even if they have one arm or no arms, just hop in some water...lol

[bcr229]

Rather than referring to the amount of danger or potential for harm when comparing BP's with some other animal, I would try to create a more positive or humorous association. As an example, BP's are often called the "pet rocks" of the snake world, because their defense is to become a ball of snake and act like a rock.

In fact, I wouldn't even put the word "danger" in my letter. So, instead of writing "Ball pythons are no more dangerous as pets than dogs or cats," you could reword it "Ball pythons are just as safe, if not safer, as pets, than dogs and cats." Same meaning but it creates a different mindset in the reader.

[LLLReptile]

Yep, agree with BCR229 - try to stay away from using words with a negative connotation along with the thing you're trying to convince someone is good. When writing letters to politicians, you also want to stay away from putting ideas in their head that they may not have had before.

"My ball python is so sweet, I take it for walks in the park and let it crawl in the grass! Kids come up and play with it all the time!"

Sounds good, right?

Switch that around - a policy maker or alarmist is going to see that and think "Oh no, these snakes are in the park! What if one escapes? Do they tie them up? They let kids touch them, what if one bites a kid? What happens if it poops on the grass, kids crawl on the grass! Dogs use that park, will snake poop make a dog sick?"

We know the answers to many of these questions, and are perfectly comfortable with those answers and the harmlessness of our pets. But what seems like a really great thing to talk about turns out to be terrible - we want to keep conversations with those new to reptiles positive and simple.

"Ball pythons are like the pet rocks of the reptile world, they're so harmless and docile" is a great one. "I use my snake for educational outreach" is another; you're saying the same thing, but instead of sounding like a potential risk of a loose snake in the park, you instead sound like an intelligent keeper who's a benefit to their community.

I would not even bring up the possibility that a snake would go after a cat or dog unless the other person does first. Phrasing it as a dog or cat could cause more damage to a person, yes, I do that regularly. One of my go-to phrases when people ask me about the snakes biting is that I am more worried about being bitten by the snake's food than I am about being bitten by the snake - no joke, either, rat bites suck!

Hope that helps!

-Jen

[Reinz]

I agree with LLL Reptile, that the food is more dangerous!

I dread feeding for that very reason. I just haven't found a good way yet to handle those darn rats!

Thank Goodness for gloves.