Python Strangles 2-Year-Old Central Florida Girl

Originally Posted by timebider

It's very true that you can't legislate the stupidity out of people. What you CAN do is use carefully-crafted legislation to JAIL the stupid out of them!

I have to disagree, but only with that particular part of your statement.
Coming from someone who works in that particular profession, I can tell you first-hand that some laws actually do very little to dissuade the criminal element...I am well-acquainted with a number of "frequent fliers," in our system for one reason or another. The problem seems to be either they are able to afford really good lawyers that get them off on one technicality or another or they end up getting probation. I have seen countless inmates in on violation of probation, only to have their probation restored so they can go back out and commit more crimes. Eventually, they continue to get caught and come back, but eventually they get back out again. If you ask me, if the system would actually crack down on these jokers & give them stiffer penalties instead of pandering to them and give them chance after chance after chance, the laws might actually mean something!
But, those are just my observations.................................

Originally Posted by timebider

It also helps that my kids (ages 7 and 4) are able to speak knowledgeably about reptiles. My son can even spout off Latin species names and discuss husbandry in detail. People wind up so impressed that they forget to feel paranoid.

You Rock! That's an awesome game plan. I just got full custody of my 12 yr old in Sept. and am still working on breaking the fear that was programmed into her. Between that and all these bans/laws popping up I'm touchy about snake haters right now. Sorry

Troi,

Very interesting and thought-provoking insight you offered. Thanks for sharing that. I have often wondered if the phenomenon of "frequent-flyer" jailbirds is restricted to certain types of crime/criminal, or is an across-the-board kind of phenomenon. I definitely think there are certain personality types that lend themselves to a tendency to wind up in stir over and over again. But I've always viewed addictive-type crimes - the ones people commit when their minds are wired wrong - as being the ones people can't quit, like pedophilia, drinking and driving, drugs...that kind of thing.

I completely agree that many laws, and the interpretation and enforcement of them, are total jokes. I actually don't believe in "justice" as anything other than an abstract, high-minded concept to which we should aspire, but probably will seldom, if ever, reach. That's why I emphasize "well-crafted" legislation (insofar as is possible). New laws are coming for sure; the best way to avoid being knocked down by the wave is to meet and ride it. (My apologies for the crappy surfer analogy, but you get the idea.)

Jane Austen wrote of one of her characters that he was a person of "sound, rather than quick, abilities." That pretty much sums me up. After I ruminate on this issue some more, I may come up with a different opinion, but that's my initial view: accept that laws are coming and do whatever we can to make them favor us as much as possible.

'Night, all! Summer's here, school's out, and midnight is my new witching hour so I can keep up with the little heathens. LOL

I keep saying, when people start telling you "See? That python killed a baby, all pythons should be banned!" you should respond with "Really? So when are you banning all pet dogs? Dogs killed more people in the last 5 years than pythons have killed in the last 29 years."

12 people in 29 years... that's less than one person every 2 years. If I could find the statistics on how many giant pythons are owned, vs how many dogs are owned in the US, we could do a percentage of attacks vs number of pets. I imagine it would end up being something like one in a trillion chance.

Originally Posted by Wolfy-hound

I keep saying, when people start telling you "See? That python killed a baby, all pythons should be banned!" you should respond with "Really? So when are you banning all pet dogs? Dogs killed more people in the last 5 years than pythons have killed in the last 29 years."

Go one better, how many people have killed other people in the past 29 years?

When I am safer around people than snakes I will reconsider my anti legislation stance.

I did a very little research on the number of animals owned. It's not really easy to find and if I spent a little more time I might find some better stats.

here is the sight:http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp
total number of dogs: 72,114,000
total number of snakes: 586,000
I think it might be really low. But that's good, just see.
These stats are for 2007.
So if 1% of these snakes are giant constrictors thats, 5860 in the US as pets.
Now you could say that the population of these snakes has been the same which it has not it has been growing I'm sure. But lets assume that these 12 deaths came from these 5860
That ends up being .00204 probability ( or 0.204% chance) that any one of these snakes to be involved.
I think the odds of dieing in a car crash are highter. Not sure.
Any way I know that I would need to do more research and I used really low numbers just to show how unlikely this is. I also know that when you calculate morbidity rates and lifetime odds and other bio-stats that I have not used the exact formulas and I would have to look in to them more. This is just a rough idea. I do have a BS in stats but it has been a long time sense I used any of it so I'm a little rusty.

hope this helps
Amy

Originally Posted by Wolfy-hound

I keep saying, when people start telling you "See? That python killed a baby, all pythons should be banned!" you should respond with "Really? So when are you banning all pet dogs? Dogs killed more people in the last 5 years than pythons have killed in the last 29 years."

12 people in 29 years... that's less than one person every 2 years. If I could find the statistics on how many giant pythons are owned, vs how many dogs are owned in the US, we could do a percentage of attacks vs number of pets. I imagine it would end up being something like one in a trillion chance.

I like that--and that's exactly what I'm going to start saying!

Originally Posted by Twizted Paths

Go one better, how many people have killed other people in the past 29 years?

When I am safer around people than snakes I will reconsider my anti legislation stance.

Another good one! That'll come in handy for when I'm at work...

Originally Posted by baysideboas

I did a very little research on the number of animals owned. It's not really easy to find and if I spent a little more time I might find some better stats.

here is the sight:http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp
total number of dogs: 72,114,000
total number of snakes: 586,000
I think it might be really low. But that's good, just see.
These stats are for 2007.
So if 1% of these snakes are giant constrictors thats, 5860 in the US as pets.
Now you could say that the population of these snakes has been the same which it has not it has been growing I'm sure. But lets assume that these 12 deaths came from these 5860
That ends up being .00204 probability ( or 0.204% chance) that any one of these snakes to be involved.
I think the odds of dieing in a car crash are highter. Not sure.
Any way I know that I would need to do more research and I used really low numbers just to show how unlikely this is. I also know that when you calculate morbidity rates and lifetime odds and other bio-stats that I have not used the exact formulas and I would have to look in to them more. This is just a rough idea. I do have a BS in stats but it has been a long time sense I used any of it so I'm a little rusty.

hope this helps
Amy

Good job! I bet between you & Jerry, those figures would take shape in no time!

I agree that the general public is ridiculously narrow-minded and ignorant about reptiles; it is also indisputable that, statistically speaking, death-by-python is a very remote possibility for anyone, anywhere. I, too, despise legislation; I can't keep some of my favorite and/or "dream" species because of paranoid citizens and politicians where I live, and that is just .

BUT. More, and tougher, legislation is undoubtedly headed our way. With all the recent negative publicity leading up to this particular incident, it's unavoidable. The public will demand protection/retribution/snake bans even more vociferously than they were before Shaiunna Hare's death. This story is now international news, and many media outlets are so eager to sensationalize it that they are even less concerned than usual with verifying basic facts, much less emphasizing officials' comments that it was the OWNERS' fault the snake escaped and killed the child - NOT the snake's. The issue of large pythons in Florida and beyond is on the fast track to being spotlighted as a serious national concern. (There was even a feature article about the Everglades Burm population in The New Yorker recently. The New Yorker literary magazine, for crying out loud!!)

Reptile hobbyists are the minority, and no matter how right we are about this issue, we are still up against publicity-hungry politicians who want to be re-elected by a paranoid, uneducated public that is insisting upon action. I'm a pragmatist; I personally would rather help determine what form that action takes, and minimize its impact upon responsible herpers as much as possible, than wait ineffectually to get smacked with unfavorable and unreasonable laws. Uneducated people can lose all sense of reason when it comes to large snakes; snappy comebacks and defensive posturing (no matter how accurate our statistics) will not substitute for proactive, careful consideration of solutions that take into account everyone's concerns. We may be screwed anyway, but why not do our best to preserve our rights by working WITH the ignorant morons? That's all I'm sayin'.

The numbers and statistics you (collective you) have been digging up are somewhat deceptive.

You took a good first step in looking up the number of deaths over a given time period and then dividing them by the only firm numbers you could find related to the number of total captive animals.

You completely failed to take into account interaction hours. And non-fatal injuries.

There are a greater raw number of dog deaths. You took the first step in looking at the total number of dogs but skipped the next step of trying to determine how frequently dogs and snakes are actually in contact with people- an important next step in trying to find any kind of meaningful information about how probable a fatal interaction might be. This can be difficult to compute in there, since hard numbers are unlikely to be readily available- but you should consider that the average giant constrictor (which has sufficiently aged to be able to cause a human fatality) probably sees less than two interaction hours per week. The average dog probably sees fourteen-sixteen a day. Meaning that contact time during which an attack is even possible is going to push the ratio of interaction:fatalities to much, much closer numbers.

It's a bit inappropriate to compare it to other activities as well, since nobody actually *needs* to own a large constrictor but they do, arguably, need to drive a car.

Don't get me wrong here... I am and always have been completely against unreasonable legislation, especially if the anti-pet folks capitalize on an unfortunate sensational incident to push it through. I just feel a need to play devil's advocate when the subject comes up about arguments that can be presented to lawmakers if they have holes in them or counters that someone sitting on the other side of this fence can point out just as easily as I have. Consider it peer review to help you tighten up your side of the debate.

It may also be worth noting that this animal, kept in this area at this size, was already in violation of existing permit laws. Much like gun control laws, animal restrictions really only apply to the people who are inclined to obey the law to begin with- who are also the subsect of owners who would be keeping them responsibly and would have been far, far less likely to find themselves in this situation to begin with. Irresponsible people who are inclined to break the laws are no more likely to follow a law banning ownership than they were to follow a law that required a permit for ownership.

All that said, I genuinely feel bad for the parents here. The snake wasn't free roaming, the stepfather/boyfriend made an error in judgment when it came to securing the animal and it got loose. He did, based on the article, make a reasonable attempt to secure the animal though, bagged inside an enclosure- it probably seemed quite secure. Without seeing exactly how it had been contained, I can't say that I would have been able to use my greater experience or my massive (ego driven) intellect to notice and prevent the problem had I been in a similar situation. I cannot call them stupid, I cannot call them irresponsible... I can just call the whole thing an improbable and truly tragic loss of innocent human life. I also really doubt there's anyone in the world who's blaming the stepfather/boyfriend more than himself right about now. I sort of doubt he's here reading Fauna but on the off chance he is... I don't think he needs to be beaten up by self righteous folks who haven't got the details and are just worried about their own ability to keep burms in the future.

If legislation rises from this, then we can rise to meet it and make sure it's reasonable, logical and appropriate. Until it does though... I for one am inclined to let a family grieve for their loss without kicking them in the face while they do it.

Originally Posted by Twizted Paths

The mother and boyfriend both need locked up.

What is it with the "lets just lock them up" mentality that the people in this country have? Lets take some folks who probably dont have a true criminal bone in their body, throw them into prison for poor judgment and then watch them come out as REAL criminals.

The prison system should be used for violent offenders that are a threat to society. Putting honest hard working people into prison for unfortunate accidents, which we are doing by the thousands every year now in this country, is not the answer.