Get off you're high horse Australia!

[user 23122]

sums my thoughts up completely its like arguing whats more deadly the great white shark or the bull shark. Bull sharks are obviously more feroscious,more numerous and hurt more people but the great white has the power and size to inflict catastrophic damage when it attacks in earnest. In saying thats orcas are more deadlier than both of them put together. This argument comes down to the true meaning of the word deadly maybe our fierce snake should be renamed potentially deadliest land snake on earth

The lack of sufficient medical treatment in a poor country can make a snake more dangerous, but lets say for arguments sake Inland Tai's were introduced and thrived in these countries where they cannot seek proper medical attention when bitten, fatal bites from Tai’s would surpass that of the other previously thought “deadliest” species that you speak of.

 

[the_jungle_jim]

as i said why don't we ask some aboriginals related to the tribe/tribes that were in the known distribution of the inland tai if they remember stories about them.

i do know that there are stories passed down about the coastal tai.

If you find someone who has been told stories passed down, ask them to help you find and catch them alive lmao.

So lets put fierce snakes and browns or any other Australian ven in a heavily populated
place and see what happens.

yes but lets put them into somewhere like india where the population is huge, densely poplulated and as far as snakebite goes uneducated, just wait 20 years and then see the stats.

wouldn't take long for us to be placed on the high horse forever!

 

[user 23122]

surely the LD50 test used on coastal taipans which are second on the list would have some relevance they have killed people in the past and what about the taipan species found in png i think the locals there would agree on taipans being top of the list. We all know they are not the most aggressive snakes on earth but they pack the hardest punch making them IMO the most deadly

 

[$NaKe PiMp]

David williams could enlighten us on the PNG Taipan and Death adder Deathrate and it being one of the highest rates of snakebite death per population in the world,
not sure if he posts here
or Bryan frys opinion would be highly regarded also

 

[Snake-Supplies]

maybe because shri lanka has 238947209341320948 more people than Aus does...

 

[mmafan555]

Not so. take that same t4est and apply it to spiders. The old sydney funnelweb has toxins that effect primates far more than other mammals like mice. testing Funnelweb venom to the LD50 on mice you'd conclude that funnelweb spiders would give a nasty bite but wouldn't be too much of a worry to healthy adult human.

This isnt the only example... I have tons more that I will be posting sometime later today of huge differences in toxicities of different venom's for different mammals.... As I said before... its not even a mammal vs non mammal issue... Its an individual mammal issue... Dogs.. cats, cattle, mice, humans, horses, elephants etc would react differently to different toxins.

In asia there is a little snake called a Saw Scaled Viper
I have played with a few as well as King cobras and kraits etc
When the Saw Scale hits you his whole body is incorporated into the strike
EVERY strike leaves venom
They kill a lot of people and dont back off
Inland Taipans are not aggressive
Saw scale is a long way down the venom count but I would put it right up there as VERY dangerous
less than one metre but nasty

Yes russells and saw scaled vipers are very very dangerous snakes.... Kraits are also very dangerous at night.. Kraits are highly nocturnal so during the day they are very docile and sluggish and shy and almost never bite people.. but at night they can be rather aggressive and are alot more active

Kraits actullay go into peoples homes at night in search of the lizards and skinks that are in the homes and bite people who are sleeping.. They are VERY feared throughout their range especially the common krait.

Oh and actullay contrary to popular belief.. their actullay is a decently good supply of antivenom in India/Sri Lanka... its just people waste their time going to quacks and "healers" instead of going to the hospital and the roads/way of transportation is terrible... So people often either die before they arrive or they get to the hospital and the venom has had so much time to cause damage that they die... If you get bitten by a snake and go to the hospital straight away.. You will likely survive and they do have a decent supply of antivenom...

 

[Snake_Whisperer]

I would surmise that the myth of "9 of the 10 Deadliest Snakes in the World) probably gained global attention with the release of the 1998 "documentary : Ten Deadliest Snakes in the World by Steve Irwin. Not knocking the man but by passing this myth off as fact has done nothing positive and in all liklihood, solidified the Australian general public's irrational hatred for snakes. (You should have seen the look on the little old lady's face on Friday when I opted to show her the harmless GTS I removed from her front entry, thought she was going to have a heart attack). While there is no doubt that based on the LD50 test, Australian elapids are indeed highly toxic and deadly to mice, one cannot argue the fact that, to humans, they are simply not that deadly. Not to say I want to get bitten, but going by the numbers, there are 1.1 deaths per year by snakebite in Australia. It is hard to nail down any sort of exact numbers internationally, but working off the averages I could find, globally, estimates are somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 (yes, an unreliable range to be sure), snakebites per year. In any "study" I have found, all have offered up the Saw Scaled Viper as the deadliest snake in the world, often attriubeted with causing half of the snakebite deaths in the world every year. The Russel's Viper and Common Krait are then usually offered up as #2 and #3.

Of all the factors that come into play, the LD50 results do not at all qualify as a reliable determinator for "deadliness" or even toxicity to humans. It was a misuse of those particular test results, for commercial gain, that created this myth. I mean, you would not sell nearly as many DVD's with a title like: "The Ten Deadliest Snakes in the World if You're a Mouse, But Very Seldom, If Ever Kill Humans". Is this an invitation to people to start snuggling with their favorite elapis? No, don't be an idiot. Are they dangerous? That is a question that would be posed by a stupid person (questions cannot be stupid apparently).

As an aside, I have heard of no deaths attributed the bite of O. microlepidotus. Based only on the word of herpers with as much experience as I have had life, I have heard of between 7-9 envenomations and no deaths. Back in 2008 when this thread was started, someone mentioned that this is not so. Does anyone have a link to the information concerning these supposed fatalitites? I have looked but could find nothing on the subject. All I could find was the following undated piece from AVRU:

Fierce snake venom is also similar to that of the coastal taipan, although it is more toxic by weight. Similar clinical effects of paralysis and clotting disturbance are caused by envenomation. Average venom yield is 44mg, with a record yield of 110mg. All recorded bites to date have been to snake handlers and no deaths have been documented.

 

[moosenoose]

So lets put fierce snakes and browns or any other Australian ven in a heavily populated
place and see what happens.

Can you imagine eastern browns in India?? The population would be reduced by half! :lol: All those budding snake-charmers wouldn't stand a chance!

I seriously don't understand the point of this thread? LD50 supposedly defines the toxicity level of a venom on a subject, that subject (right or wrong) is measured using mice. It is proven that inland taipans kill 50% of the mice tested, faster than any other land snake, with the eastern brown ranking just a fraction under (of course the coastal tai is in there as well). So I don't quite understand the point that's attempting to be made here?? Are you saying just because something has bitten more people, that it's potency has somewhat increased?? :lol: Not the point of the LD50 test....and yes, as I said before, perhaps the test of LD50 should be over 3 subjects (maybe 4 if you wanted to include amphibians?....is this starting to look stupid or what! :lol (mice, insects and fish) as all would behave different to venoms that have evolved to suit the needs of the animal administering it.

I think people are mixing their words here, dangerous doesn't necessarily mean deadly (or visa versa)

 

[bigguy]

This topic has been flogged to death so many times. There are 3 ways to classify snakes, yet everyone here trys to roll it all into one classification. WILL NOT WORK.

What is the most toxic snake = Fierce Snake
What snake kill the most humans = Saw Scaled Viper followed closel by the Russels Pit Viper and Asian Cobra
What snake has the highest potental of death without hospital treatment = probably Coastal Taipan

Jamie Seymour of James Cook Univerity conducted tests of snake venoms on human tissue and found Fierce, Common Browns and Coastal Taipans were in fact the most destructive. This negates Bush's paper of humans are not mice. Give it a rest guys. The results speak for themselves. It appears the old LD50 tests were right.

Why do overseas snakes kill more people than in Australia. Quite simple.

Our snakes are in no way near the numbers found in 3rd world countries. Our human popualation of only 23 million is spread out over a massive country. Most people wear appropiate clothing. We have devoloped the most effective first aid treatment for bites(pressure and immobilisation). We have the best antivenoms in the world and treatment is free.

In most 3rd world countries the snake populations could be anywhere from 100 to 1000 times greater per square klm than Australia. The humam population is 100 to 1000 times greater per square klm than Australia. Due to poverty and or monsoonal rains creating mud, shoes and long pants are rarely worn. Nearly all the bites in these countries occur on the lower limbs or feet. There is no first aid taught . Antivenoms are some of the worst quality. Good hopitals are rare and treatment could cost a years wages for most people. It is all of the above factors that cause the massive death rates overseas, not that our snakes are pussies.

Of all of the world venomous snakes, the Coastal Taipan is considered by most people to have the highest risk of causing death from a bite. Before antivenom in 1955, it was 100% death rate from a full bite of a Taipan. This is the only species of snake in the world that caused 100% death rate. Its large, massive fangs for an elapid, huge venom glands, 3rd most toxic venom, and lands multible bites in blinding spead.Not a good combination. Even though death from Taipans are rare these days in Australia, they are causing havic in PNG, which now has the highest snakebite death per population in the world. David Williams continual work in PNG would varify this.

The quote Aussie pythons are more dangerous than Fierce Snakes is true at this point in time. Python= 1 human death Fierce Snake = 0 As I always say to people in my shows, Fierce Snakes have never caused a death that we know of, but it would be a different matter if they were found in peoples backyards in the suburbs. Luckerly they are not.

 

[mmafan555]

What is the most toxic snake = Fierce Snake
What snake kill the most humans = Saw Scaled Viper followed closel by the Russels Pit Viper and Asian Cobra
What snake has the highest potental of death without hospital treatment = probably Coastal Taipan

Jamie Seymour of James Cook Univerity conducted tests of snake venoms on human tissue and found Fierce, Common Browns and Coastal Taipans were in fact the most destructive. This negates Bush's paper of humans are not mice. Give it a rest guys. The results speak for themselves. It appears the old LD50 tests were right.

I have done extensive research and never found anything on the so called test conducted by Jamie Seymout[ who is biased and not very credible imo ] I did see that show where seymour claimed that he tested snake venoms on grown human heart cells and that the inland taipan was the most toxic... but he never said anything about the brown snake or anything else..And also Human heart cells.... come on lol. I wasnt aware intercelluar tests were accurate in a normal snakebite..lol.. Thats an equally flawed way of testing and as I said I have never come across this so called test that he did.. Only accurate ways of testing would be a under the skin test[ subcutaneous or intravenous etc].. Testing it on artificially grown human heart cells is useless.

As for the highest untreated death rate... Well first off NO snake has an 100 percent untreated mortality rate... Simply because all snakes can give dry bites. The coastal taipan doesnt always envenomate with every bite..It gives dry bites or bites with only an extremely small amount of venom just like other snakes do... But I do agree that a full coastal taipan envenomation would probably have a 90-100percent fatality rate if untreated and it is definately top 3 and possibly number 1 for humans.


The ld50 lists are not accurate... Just as the they would not be accurate for dogs, cats, horses, rhinos, cattle, frogs, snakes, humans... Its a rough guide for anything thats not a mouse... thats it and I will post some evidence to support my claim later tonight

 

[cement]

I don't know who called our elapids pussies, but I think you may be part of the overall feel of this irresponsible thread trying to downplay an envenomation from highly venomous snakes.

I have met the fella who has been administered the record dose of taipan antivenom for his bite from a coastal tai which he copped under the armpit, and he was extremely fortunate to have got to the hospital. Not to mention extremely fortunate to have come back at all as he was, for so long, basically dead.

To try to downplay the effects of envenomation even from our "harmless" elapids, is irresponsible and downright dangerous in itself as NO-ONE knows how a bite will affect them. I was given some examples from S. Eipper the other day-
Demansia- confirmed death of 1 person in PNG
Hemiaspis- have caused significant local and mild systematic effects, however they have caused a very serious anaphylactic reaction in a herper who has been bitten previously by other species.
Cacophis- have killed large dogs there fore potentially dangerous to young or elderly people.
Parasuta- have caused an anaphylactic death in Vic 2007
Boiga- have causd significant envenomation in minors in Guam, and anaphylactic reactions in herpers
Vermicella- have caused systemic evenomations
Cryptophis- has caused one death.
And the list goes on...

 

[mmafan555]

Can you imagine eastern browns in India?? The population would be reduced by half! :lol: All those budding snake-charmers wouldn't stand a chance!

I seriously don't understand the point of this thread? LD50 supposedly defines the toxicity level of a venom on a subject, that subject (right or wrong) is measured using mice. It is proven that inland taipans kill 50% of the mice tested, faster than any other land snake, with the eastern brown ranking just a fraction under (of course the coastal tai is in there as well). So I don't quite understand the point that's attempting to be made here?? Are you saying just because something has bitten more people, that it's potency has somewhat increased?? :lol: Not the point of the LD50 test....and yes, as I said before, perhaps the test of LD50 should be over 3 subjects (maybe 4 if you wanted to include amphibians?....is this starting to look stupid or what! :lol (mice, insects and fish) as all would behave different to venoms that have evolved to suit the needs of the animal administering it.

I think people are mixing their words here, dangerous doesn't necessarily mean deadly (or visa versa)

First off your eastern brown comment is laughable... The people in india would GLADLY rather have an eastern brown then a few of the snakes that they have now... Or atleast I would.....And your way off.. The truth is EVERY single animals has a different ld50 value... Its not a mammals vs amphibians vs reptiles issue... its an each animals issue... Dogs, cats, humans, mice, mongooses, cattle, horses all would have a different ld50 top 20 for snake venoms... Of course some may have very similiar and maybe even virtually identical results... but their is no set "most venomous snake or top 10".... Only a set "most venomous snake or top 10" for 1 particular animal

Can you imagine eastern browns in India?? The population would be reduced by half! :lol: All those budding snake-charmers wouldn't stand a chance!

(or visa versa)

The snake charmers de-fang the cobras... Thus making them not dangerous...Thats why it was banned in India as it is animal cruelty... They would do the same thing to browns if they did snake charming with browns[ which they wouldn't as cobras are considered a sacred snake]..

 

[slim6y]

I don't know who called our elapids pussies, but I think you may be part of the overall feel of this irresponsible thread trying to downplay an envenomation from highly venomous snakes.

I have met the fella who has been administered the record dose of taipan antivenom for his bite from a coastal tai which he copped under the armpit, and he was extremely fortunate to have got to the hospital. Not to mention extremely fortunate to have come back at all as he was, for so long, basically dead.

To try to downplay the effects of envenomation even from our "harmless" elapids, is irresponsible and downright dangerous in itself as NO-ONE knows how a bite will affect them. I was given some examples from S. Eipper the other day-
Demansia- confirmed death of 1 person in PNG
Hemiaspis- have caused significant local and mild systematic effects, however they have caused a very serious anaphylactic reaction in a herper who has been bitten previously by other species.
Cacophis- have killed large dogs there fore potentially dangerous to young or elderly people.
Parasuta- have caused an anaphylactic death in Vic 2007
Boiga- have causd significant envenomation in minors in Guam, and anaphylactic reactions in herpers
Vermicella- have caused systemic evenomations
Cryptophis- has caused one death.
And the list goes on...

You're 100% correct cement.... How is T by the way? Haven't seen him in years.... Worst possible luck to be bitten by a tai... and even worse under the armpit... Try pressure bandaging that....

Australians have been thoroughly aware of the dangers of snakes from the dawn of Australian time... They are thoroughly dangerous... There's NO ifs, NO buts, NO maybes...

There's anywhere from (a stat I haven't seen actually proven yet) 6 snake bite related deaths per year. This is tiny (and considered minor) in comparison to India or Africa... But there are clear cut (non LD50 related) reasons for this...

An LD50 is the considered LD to kill 50% of a 'population' it is NOT just tested on rats or mice... There maybe other animals also tested. I know this for a fact with herbivorous animals being tested for the LD50 of aminita species (toxic fungi).

When human volunteers come forward, then maybe we can have an LD50 for humans... But until then we use extrapolation techniques that will 'match' as close as realistically without using humans.

Personally - Australia does like the highest predatory animal density population in the world (South Australia somewhere)... We do like the spotlight... and it is purely advertised - the potential is there.

So - while bees and mosquitoes still kill more people per year than any other creatures... Our snakes still remain highly venomous and extremely dangerous - and should be avoided... Even the young fellow mentioned above (bitten under the armpit) was a considerably experienced snake handler... You can never be quit sure - can you?

 

[mmafan555]

You're 100% correct cement.... How is T by the way? Haven't seen him in years.... Worst possible luck to be bitten by a tai... and even worse under the armpit... Try pressure bandaging that....

Australians have been thoroughly aware of the dangers of snakes from the dawn of Australian time... They are thoroughly dangerous... There's NO ifs, NO buts, NO maybes...

There's anywhere from (a stat I haven't seen actually proven yet) 6 snake bite related deaths per year. This is tiny (and considered minor) in comparison to India or Africa... But there are clear cut (non LD50 related) reasons for this...

An LD50 is the considered LD to kill 50% of a 'population' it is NOT just tested on rats or mice... There maybe other animals also tested. I know this for a fact with herbivorous animals being tested for the LD50 of aminita species (toxic fungi).

When human volunteers come forward, then maybe we can have an LD50 for humans... But until then we use extrapolation techniques that will 'match' as close as realistically without using humans.

Personally - Australia does like the highest predatory animal density population in the world (South Australia somewhere)... We do like the spotlight... and it is purely advertised - the potential is there.

So - while bees and mosquitoes still kill more people per year than any other creatures... Our snakes still remain highly venomous and extremely dangerous - and should be avoided... Even the young fellow mentioned above (bitten under the armpit) was a considerably experienced snake handler... You can never be quit sure - can you?

My intention was not at all to say that Australia doesnt have dangerous snakes and animals in general[ it definitely does] Just that I think that Aussies have a tendency to exaggerate and overrate the danger and lethality of their animals. Why they do this... well I have a decent idea but they definitely do it and some people like Seymour/ Steve Irwin should know better than to do that sort of crap. I have a huge amount of respect for Irwin and was/am a fan of him.. but he was more knowledgeable on crocs than he was on snakes imho..

If anything snakes from other continents are 10x more downplayed in the danger that they pose than the "overhyped Australian snakes" atleast imo this is the case. Of course the fact reamins that their are plenty of snakes in Australia that can and will bite and kill you if you are foolish...so caution and respect and common sense should always be taught..

I still fail to see how "australia has the most dangerous animals of any place in the world." I hear this extremely ignorant comment all the time[ Not saying that you said it] and its just complete ridiculous garbage... I mean think about it for a minute.. Australia has ONE dangerous large native animals that can go on land... Thats it.... Now look at Asia/Africa and even North America and think of all their dangerous large potential land animals...Then Australia has the always talked about venomous marine animals.... Which can be be deadly but only on extremely rare occassions kill/hurt people.. People also forget that these marine animals are NOT exclusive to Australia... Stonefish, Box Jellies,Conesnails, Blue ringed Octopuses etc are found through the indo pacific region and depending on the animals even elsewhere... Yet you never hear them being listed as a countries most dangerous animals yet in Australia they for some reason get all this ridiculous hype about them being horribly dangerous and blah blah blah and its just confusing to me to say the least.. I've talked to people who have done walking safaris in Africa who then ask me... "I dont think I would go/live in Australia... To many horribly dangerous animals with venom etc etc that kill so many people" and its just incredibly ridiculous that people think like that when its so untrue. Sure those animals are potentially dangerous but the chance of seeing one is incredibly rare and they are found in quite a few other countries.

Of course Aussie snakes can be dangerous but so can highly venomous snakes everywhere and the reputation[ what ignorant people believe/think] is that like Australia has some monopoly on highly dangerous/venomous snakes and they dont by any stretch of the imagination

 

[cement]

Ok I officially give up on trying to get the point of this thread.

If you hear this "all the time", its a first for me!

"I still fail to see how "australia has the most dangerous animals of any place in the world." I hear this extremely ignorant comment all the time[ Not saying that you said it] and its just complete ridiculous garbage..

Most tourists I know, hear that we have some dangerous wildlife, but some reckon we have kangaroos bouncing down Pitt St in Sydney too. I don't know of anyone who goes around saying we have the most dangerous animals in the world.
Not worth 7 pages of ....

Slim, yep he is a great handler and last I heard, now a catcher in NT, and getting involved with crocs.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

The focus on venom distorts the argument totally. A snake with potent venom may not be as likely to kill you as a snake with milder venom but a far better delivery system - the long hypodermic fangs of a viper are far more efficient than the scratch & run fangs of our dangerous elapids. Cultural responses following a bite also play a big part in how a snakebite is treated in various parts of the world.

It's all about how you define 'dangerous' & 'deadly' - far too many variables for me!

Jamie

 

[user 23122]

The focus on venom distorts the argument totally. A snake with potent venom may not be as likely to kill you as a snake with milder venom but a far better delivery system - the long hypodermic fangs of a viper are far more efficient than the scratch & run fangs of our dangerous elapids. Cultural responses following a bite also play a big part in how a snakebite is treated in various parts of the world.

It's all about how you define 'dangerous' & 'deadly' - far too many variables for me!

Jamie

pretty much sums this whole argument up completely

 

[the_jungle_jim]

My intention was not at all to say that Australia doesnt have dangerous snakes and animals in general[ it definitely does] Just that I think that Aussies have a tendency to exaggerate and overrate the danger and lethality of their animals. Why they do this... well I have a decent idea but they definitely do it and some people like Seymour/ Steve Irwin should know better than to do that sort of crap. I have a huge amount of respect for Irwin and was/am a fan of him.. but he was more knowledgeable on crocs than he was on snakes imho..

If anything snakes from other continents are 10x more downplayed in the danger that they pose than the "overhyped Australian snakes" atleast imo this is the case. Of course the fact reamins that their are plenty of snakes in Australia that can and will bite and kill you if you are foolish...so caution and respect and common sense should always be taught..

I still fail to see how "australia has the most dangerous animals of any place in the world." I hear this extremely ignorant comment all the time[ Not saying that you said it] and its just complete ridiculous garbage... I mean think about it for a minute.. Australia has ONE dangerous large native animals that can go on land... Thats it.... Now look at Asia/Africa and even North America and think of all their dangerous large potential land animals...Then Australia has the always talked about venomous marine animals.... Which can be be deadly but only on extremely rare occassions kill/hurt people.. People also forget that these marine animals are NOT exclusive to Australia... Stonefish, Box Jellies,Conesnails, Blue ringed Octopuses etc are found through the indo pacific region and depending on the animals even elsewhere... Yet you never hear them being listed as a countries most dangerous animals yet in Australia they for some reason get all this ridiculous hype about them being horribly dangerous and blah blah blah and its just confusing to me to say the least.. I've talked to people who have done walking safaris in Africa who then ask me... "I dont think I would go/live in Australia... To many horribly dangerous animals with venom etc etc that kill so many people" and its just incredibly ridiculous that people think like that when its so untrue. Sure those animals are potentially dangerous but the chance of seeing one is incredibly rare and they are found in quite a few other countries.

Of course Aussie snakes can be dangerous but so can highly venomous snakes everywhere and the reputation[ what ignorant people believe/think] is that like Australia has some monopoly on highly dangerous/venomous snakes and they dont by any stretch of the imagination

GET OFF YOUR HIGHHORSE mmafan555, I am guessing you are from the USA.

And you dare to call us arrogant.

As I say find an aboriginal from the vicinity that they are found in with stories of inland tais and ask one of them to help you catch one. lmao.

If one of my mate's "fiercies" escaped when it was hungry on a warm day in Sydney, it would be a a true test when it saw a food source. Being captively bred they have lost their fear of humans and see us as their mealticket. When I see them, as soon as they see me their eyes follow me.

mmafan55, why don't you come over and get tagged by a juvinile and agree (by contract) to deny any help for lets say 5 minutes, then you must ask for help (part of the agreement) if you can. Come on, they're just pussies and you're not a mouse are you?

 

[Shredder]

This argument seems to go on like the rpm/jag debate.

Question for waz,

Whats the deadliest spider in the world and how many people have died from it?

 

[Klaery]

I didn't have time to read through all posts but did want to agree with you regarding the LD50 test on mice and how it is not always relevant to humans. Look at funnelwebs. A mouse would just about explode due to the excess liquid before it died of funnelweb venom. A primate on the other hand...

Whats the deadliest spider in the world and how many people have died from it?

Haha good question and brings up similar arguments. I bet 9/10 people wouldn't even know what the most dangerous spider is Australia is (If you were bitten and there was no medical aid). I bet many people straight of the bat think sydney funnelweb but in theory it does not rate top 2 by a fair margin.