Burm or dog, bigger threat? V 1.0

[X-Factor]

My 2 cents is this; if you look at the stats (which I haven't so am purely guessing) I think you will find that dog attacks FAR FAR outweight those of burms (or any other large boid). Danger POTENTIAL? Toss up. By the statistics you could almost 100% say that dogs are more dangerous. Now, if you look at the ratio of fatalities vs injuries within dog and large snake attacks, the snakes would probably be more dangerous...someone will need to pull the numbers from somewhere. I think you are more LIKELY to die from a snake attack than a dog attack, but are more likely to be attacked by a dog than a snake. This is assuming you never handle a larger boid properly (aka 6' per person rule) and that you deal with dogs often.

[bleeding_sarcasm]

Neither and both. Either animal can be dangerous in the hands of in irresponsible keeper.

People who take care of their dogs, Train and socialize them, dont have aggressive dogs [breed has nothing to do with it] and people who dont handle their snakes, or lock them up securely, or handle large snakes alone, will have a dangerous snake, compared to those who hand tame it, keep it in a secure, locking enclosure, and only take it out when another individual is present to help in case of an emergency.

The animal completely depends on the keeper.

[TKR Reptiles]

i would say the burm without a doubt. b/c with a dog you just have a mouth to worry about, and with a berm you have a mouth and a body to wrap you up and constrict you.

[mrcota]

Here is something to put this topic into prospective:
.
I live in an area that has many wild Burmese Pythons and many free roaming dogs that are cared for by people (fed by them and taken in/given shelter and a home). There are constant reports of children and adults that I know who are bitten and attacked by dogs. I am CONSTANTLY attacked by dogs (taking aggressive action against me). As a matter of fact, I had a dog come after me this week!!! I have NEVER been attacked by a Burmese Python nor have I known anyone that has been attacked by a Burmese Python. This entire country, that is in the very centre of the Burmese Python geographic distribution has yet to have a human fatality or attack on record- whether it be children or adults.
.
On top of the sheer aggression and attacks, consider the great number of diseases that are carried by both dogs and their parasites, many which are fatal; compare that to a remote possibility of salmonella from a Burmese Python?
.
All things being equal, dogs are infinitely more of a threat.
.
Debate ended
.
Michael

[Red-Tailed_mustang]

As pets I would have to say both are very dangerous. As far as which is more dangerous?? They way the owner raises/respects the dog and cares for/respects the Burm, Retic, Anaconda, etc.

Now on the other hand in the wild Wolves rarely attack people IMO a feral dog will attack you before a wolf. Large constrictors in the wild?? Many areas where they live along side humans are rural ares and tropical rain forest etc etc. It would be hard to get an accurate account of how many wild large constrictors attack humans. I wouldn't think it would be that often.

So as pets I would think that dogs are more dangerous to other people than large constrictors. Yet Large constrictors would be more dangerous for the keeper. All in all it comes back to how responsible the owner/s is/are.

In the wild I would think feral dogs are more dangerous than Large constrictors. Since most of the time feral dogs will form packs and packs are more dangerous than lone animals.

[RioBravoReptiles]

Neither a Burmese python or a dog is any threat while in the care of a careful, prepared and responsible owner.
.
On the other hand most anything could be a danger if misused or improperly kept.
.
That's what I think.

[angrybananapeel]

Originally Posted by RioBravoReptiles

Neither a Burmese python or a dog is any threat while in the care of a careful, prepared and responsible owner.
.
On the other hand most anything could be a danger if misused or improperly kept.

That's what I think.

I have to respectfully disagree.... on semantics only.

Both are a threat to a certain degree. Recognizing and minimizing the threat they pose is the responsibility of the owner/caretaker. They pose a threat all of the time... and it is their owners job to minimize the threat they pose.

A dog can be trained, and a snake can be conditioned. snakes will get used to being handled, sometimes, but dogs can be socialized (and dogs can be taught to be vicious). I would have to say that the most tame dog (regardless of reputation of breed) would be much safer than the most "tame" snake left in a certain situations. You can teach a dog not to eat your steak, but I doubt you could teach a snake not to eat your pet rat.
Honestly, neither one is a "threat" to mankind, in general. We are a threat to them. Most animals in this world would be better off without us.

[RioBravoReptiles]

Originally Posted by angrybananapeel

I have to respectfully disagree.... on semantics only.

.
Well, if you define a threat as any potential for harm then 'semantically' you have a point. But get busy removing the bathtub and all the electrical outlets from your house, sharp knives (and much more). Maybe you should dig a hole and live in there .. 'cause the world and everything in it is a dangerous place for you!
.
Back to the original question.. by any statistical model or analysis.. dogs of most any size or breed cause much more injury and death than Burmese pythons or any constricting snake...
.
My earlier answer was not supposed to be tricky or ambiguous in any way.. but if it was