Interesting Animal Related Fatality Statistics

This is not about herps specifically, but I found the statistics interesting.
0.5 people killed annually by pythons compared to 219 by horses.
1.2 million to one odds you'll die from a venomous animal compared to 206,000 to 1 that you'll be killed by a dog.
In light of these statistics it's very hard to understand the constant attempts to ban herps while never mentioning the other FAR more dangerous animals that are so common.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Annually, about 130 people die each year in accidental encounters with deer, usually as the result of traffic accidents.

Only horses have a role in more human deaths annually, according to researchers.

Average annual deaths caused by animals, 1992-1997

#
# Horses 219
# Deer 130*
# Cattle 28.4
# Dogs 16 *
# Insects 8.4
# Birds 5.2
# Elephants 1.0
# Tigers 0.6
# Hogs 0.6
Pythons 0.5

* National Highway Safety Administration. All other data: Department of Health and Human Services. For more information: Research from Wemjournal.com

Government researchers, however, say your odds of being killed by an animal in an accident or encounter are extremely rare.

Your lifetime odds of being killed by a large animal are 50,000 to 1, and by a dog, 206,000 to 1.

In comparison, the lifetime odds of being killed in a transportation accident are 77 to 1; lightning, 56,000 to 1; and venomous animals, 1.2 million to 1.

Link to story

Nice thread, Clay. Sure would be nice if people would take reality into account, instead of acting on paradigms and preconceptions founded in fear and superstition.

It would be interesting to see a more up-to date version.

Originally Posted by Clay Davenport

In light of these statistics it's very hard to understand the constant attempts to ban herps while never mentioning the other FAR more dangerous animals that are so common.

No kidding, we would not want our law makers to allow little things like facts influence their decisions.

And you know what? I'm not going to avoid horses or dogs either.

I was reading an article just today where a man just died from complications following having been gored in the face by a buck in rut (deer).

I read the Press Release. According to a writer for the Daytona News that published this 'great news', this "rule" could not get enough votes to pass either house, so SOMEBODY ramrodded it through 'adminstratively". Does that give you shivers? It should. The scientist they quoted was the Senator from Florida. Does that make you nauseous? It should. We need some ideas about what to do to repeal this, and we need them fast. Any lawyers out there with an idea how to do that?

USARK is working to try to put together a federal lawsuit to overturn the ruling.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=297574
USARK:
www.usark.org

another organization that helps fight for our rights is PIJAC
http://www.pijac.org/

Do those numbers seemed a bit inaccurate to you guys? For instance, I know 40-50 people die each year from bee stings. And, really, once a year someone is killed by an elephant in this country? Bird flu wasn't really counted back then, so 5 people per year were killed by birds? I agree with Vince; I'd like to see a more current list.

Noelle

Bird flu doesn't count, there is avian influenza (primarily in some ducks and ruddy turnstones) in the United States but not the strain that is transmittable to humans... that occurs only overseas and is a result of poor poultry husbandry.

Are those statistics accounting for the difference in abundance of those animals, or are they just looking at the number of deaths divided by the total human population in the United States? I'd be interested what the corrected probabilities are once you account for how likely it is for you to encounter such animals.

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Are those statistics accounting for the difference in abundance of those animals, or are they just looking at the number of deaths divided by the total human population in the United States? I'd be interested what the corrected probabilities are once you account for how likely it is for you to encounter such animals.

The way I read it, those are the average number of deaths per year, not percentages, so definitely not accounting for probability. I agree, I'd like to see it factored in. However, I don't think it would work. Might work with cats, dogs, cows, etc., but the only sampling of non-native animals would be private keepers. The rate of tiger deaths by keepers is very high, even if it's less than one per year, but would average out to zero when you factor in the entire population. My parrots have never made an attempt on my life (they would argue), but my rate of encounter is very high. I think it's too small of a sample size to be at all informative.
Just thinking out loud, and hey, everyone, sign the petition!!!

Noelle