>>This is the tactic that polititions try to use to shut down the argument about snake death vs. dog debate. The problem is that they include all dogs on there side and limit the snakes to 3 or 4 types. If you use only the large potntialy dangerous snakes to the large potentialy dangerous dogs it would be alot closer.
>>You cant count a toy dog if you are not going to count a king snake.

I see your point. However, even small dogs are capable of killing human beings -- a pomeranian killed an infant a few years ago -- while small snakes can't (not counting venomous). Actually, speaking of venomous, maybe they should be included as well? Hmm.

But even if you do restrict the population comparison to large breeds, there's still more of them around than large snakes.

>>I am sure you could get a conservative estamate of snakes by looking at 3 years of import data and then doing a rough estamate of captive borns for 3 years. I would be fine with a conservative number on the snake side beacuse snake deaths are so rare 2 or 3 in 10 years and dog deaths are common 20 to 40 a year that statisticly dogs I am sure would come out much more dangerous.

I think you're probably right that dogs would still come out more dangerous. But it would be an interesting number to see, and IMHO it would be more useful to the anti-ban side than the overall number is.
-----
----

0.1 Peruvian rainbow boa (Amaru)
2.0 Brazilian rainbow boas (TBA)
0.3 Honduran milksnakes (Chicchan, Chanir, Hari)
1.0 Thayeri kingsnake (TBA)
2.7 corns (Cetto, Tolosa, TBA)
1,000,000.1,000,000 other critters

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]