|
11-13 of 13 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by Snake18 on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey...I`m tattoed...
Does that make me a stereotipe reptile keeper ? lol Just kidding Jeremmy...
You`re right. ;)
Alex S.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by FlaSnakeHunter on January 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To IANB:
So, let me get this right...because there are many more dogs, it's ok that 17 people die each year from dog bites ?? How many people would have to die to make it statistically significant ? Surely the stats for both total bites per year and for hospitalizations per year demonstrate the analogous nature of my argument.
How about this stat...
Getting bitten by a dog is the second most frequent cause of visits to emergency rooms. (Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments," JAMA 1998;279:53, citing US Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Injuries associated with selected sports and recreational equipment treated in hospital emergency departments, calendar year 1994." Consumer Product Safety Review, Summer 1996;1:5. Also citing US Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Stair Steps and Baby Walkers Don't Mix." Washington D.C.:US Consumer Product Safety Commission;1992. Consumer Product Safety Alert No. 009207.)
Or this stat...
Dog attack victims in the US suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.)
Or...
That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion. (Voelker R. "Dog bites recognized as public health problem." JAMA 1997;277:278,280.)
Or...
In 2003 dog bites accounted for about one quarter of all homeowner’s insurance liability claims, costing roughly $321.6 million, down slightly from about $345.5 the previous year. (Insurance Information Institute.) In 2002 (latest data available) liability claims accounted for 6 percent of homeowners claim costs. (Ibid.) The same year the average dog bite claim cost insurers $16,600. (Ibid.) In 1998, one in three homeowner insurance claims pertained to a dog bite but the average insurance payout was $12,000. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.)
Or...
Researchers from the CDC estimated that the direct medical costs of dog bites per year equal $164.9 million in the USA. Quinlan KP, Sacks JJ. Hospitalizations for Dog Bite Injuries [letter] JAMA 1999; 281:232-233.
And...
The number of dogs in the United States increased by only 2% between 1991 and 1998. (Wise JK & Yang JJ, "Dog and Cat Ownership, 1991-1998," JAMA 1994;204:1166-67.) The number of bites, and the cost to insurance companies, however, rose significantly. In 1986, nonfatal dog bites resulted in an estimated 585,000 injuries that required medical attention or restricted activity. (Sosin DM, Sachs JJ, Sattin RW. Causes of nonfatal injuries in the United States, 1986. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1992;24:685-687.) By 1994 an estimated 800,000 sought medical care for bites. (Weiss HB, Friedman D, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;279:51-53.) This is a 36% increase in medically attended bites from 1986 to 1994. The cost to insurance companies, measured only by homeowner claims (as opposed to health insurance claims and claims on other lines) grew significantly over the past decade, although it went down by about 4% between 2002 and 2003.
More...
The median age of patients bitten was 15 years, with children, especially boys aged 5 to 9 years, having the highest incidence rate.
More...
The odds that a bite victim will be a child are 3.2 to 1. (CDC.)
More...
Children seen in emergency departments were more likely than older persons to be bitten on the face, neck, and head. 77% of injuries to children under 10 years old are facial.
More...
Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.
More...
The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
More...
The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.
More...
When a child less than 4 years old is the victim, the family dog was the attacker half the time (47%), and the attack almost always happened in the family home (90%).
Oh, regarding your statement about the relative dangers of a RAT TERRIER...try telling that to the parents of the 6 month old as detailed in the following:
The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)
Is that enough ?? My point is that we would never consider banishing or illegalizing dogs as they are man's best friend...personally, I love dogs, as well as all animals; in fact, I have two dogs (cockapoos) who consider me to be their alpha leader of the pack.
lOOK we proceed through life generally unaware, or at least apathetic, of most of the dangers which surround us until some overzealous legislator seeking to impress his/her constituency writes a bill to enact laws to protect us from life itself.
Don't get me wrong, we should be cognizant of the inherent dangers which surround, however, personally, I do not want my legislators fabricating laws which purportedly protect me to the point of utter inactivity and boredom. The next thing you know, they will be enacting laws banning fishing due to the number of people who are injured from fishing hooks.
So, to reiterate and perhaps belabor the point, people should be allowed to keep venomous reptiles because in this country we have the unalienable right to do so within the constraints of sufficient responsibility.
|
| |
|
RE: Why should people be allowed to keep venomous?
|
Reply
|
|
by 91C2 on January 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Comparing dogs to snake is fine, but keep in mind that it has to be comparable.
All dogs to all snakes. Eliminate the dangerous breeds of each and measure the remaining. There are more snakes of danger than dogs, of course, and there are more of these dogs than snakes.
Does it really matter? No.
The sad fact is that there are more humans of danger than anything else. But, no one monitors these people to see if they have weapons any any sort. Humans do more damage than all other creatures combined. Can you name one species of anything we have not destroyed? NO.
Which would you rather have living in your area...
Thief? Rapist? Child molestor? Murderer? Drug dealer? Racist? Gangs? Aggressive dogs? "Hots" keeper?
Suddenly, we aren't so bad, are we?
Conclusively, when I am asked "why?", I reply that I will move away when a serial killer offers to buy my home.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
