Posted by:
pikiemikie
at Sat Aug 10 22:43:02 2013 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by pikiemikie ]
To use the word "Venom" in the traditional sense. The one,which the general public understands by the way, is misleading in my opinion, when it comes to hogs. If they had this kind of venom, most or all of the people they bite would have a bad reaction. But with hogs bites, it seems the other way around. Why is this? Allergic reaction, someone's body chemistry, etc. Hogs have a weak venom if you will. But it is so weak as to not really warrant the word. To put hogs and Boomslangs in the same sentence or compare them is not fair. Hogs are basically harmless. Boomslang venom can kill a person. It's good to warn people of the possible reactions one might have if bit. I agree. But most people will not have this reaction. So if a hog bites someone and that person has no reaction whatsoever, is it really "Venom"? Just something to think about.
[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]
|
