Mosquitoes don't kill humans, they are just vectors. And the potentially fatal organisms they host aren't even animals (protists and viruses). Using that same logic, humans are by far the most "deadly" because we, as vectors ourselves, spread deadly diseases to one another.
Wow... and a snake isnt an animal because it is a reptile, a buffalo isnt because it is bovinae, ow and ofcourse a monkey isnt because thet are, primates...
where does this thinking come from, ive seen it too many times to be a fluke. Is it at the same places creationism is taught? (Not trying to be funny or rude, I just really wonder what the source of this is)
Well, Oceanic White-tips are one of the most deadly species on the planet. However, neither they, nor White-tip Reef sharks are ever called White Sharks.
Can you please remove the sting ray question because the whole point of Steve Irwin's show when he died was to prove they're not a threat. They have killed almost noone ever. He accidentally stepped on the stingray I think provoking the sting to happen. He died from a freak and incredibly unlikely accident and it kind of insults his memory to put stingrays on a list of deadly animals. This is coming from a true blue Australian who has swum with stingrays.
I am against people who, to make a television program or to promote themselves, handle and intervene with animals. To handle wild creatures and to have them in zoos and then handle them for the amusement of audiences is to my mind the very opposite of what we as a human race should do. The less interaction that wild animals have with humans the better for them.
I'm with cooldrive, while certain zoos around the world still have issues, thinking that zoos are wholly or even mostly bad for animal conservation and welfare is an extremely outdated view now.
Clearly, zoo promotional campaigns are doing a good job miseducating the public. I don't know where to begin with the irony of defending zoos by calling actual conservation best-practices outdated.
Effective wildlife conservation means conserving habitat and sanctuaries, not keeping wildlife in prisons in perpetuity. People can learn to support conservation efforts in ways that don't involve animal objectification and cruelty. Backyard zoos and breeding programs do little to nothing to preserve species. (As a side note, providing rehab and care for injured/permanently disabled wildlife is different from permanently interned animals on display.)
There are lots of online articles and data articulating how zoos do more harm than good -- I recommend checking them out if you're on the fence :)
Ok, couple things: first off, I was confused about whether you meant the deadliest, 2nd-deadliest, and 3rd-deadliest snake in the US, or the deadliest animals overall. I kept trying to type coral snake, diamondback rattler, etc. Second, "the most dangerous game" is a misleading clue. I thought you were asking us to name the most dangerous game animal, so I kept trying moose, elk, bison, etc.
Poison dart frogs are not venomous. Venom requires a delivery system such as fangs. They secret toxins in their skin. So that makes them poisonous. If you want to avoid the word "poisonous" you could use "toxic" as a replacement.
Cleanup: "Jaws" didn't have an exclamation mark in its name, and no one killed "the" Steve Irwin, unless you're differentiating him from all those other Steve Irwins.
Went on a "swimming with dolphins" trip in a tributary of the Amazon once, but never saw any. The next day though we went "fishing for piranhas" and caught a bunch of them very easily.
I was expecting it to be in a different river, but no... same river, same spot, same time of day. I asked the guide whether it might have been a bit dangerous swimming in a river full of piranhas. He said, "No, they only eat you if they are hungry."
"There are YouTube videos claiming to show drunk elephants destroying villages after eating fermented marula fruit.
But, here's the thing: According to the BBC, elephants are so huge that it would take massive amounts of marula fruit to get them drunk. In order to actually become inebriated, an elephant would have to eat 400% more fruit than it normally does, without drinking any water.
While they may be way too big to get wasted, a 1984 study in the Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society found that elephants could eat enough fruit to become slightly "buzzed." In that state they became lazier when eating and bathing – not exactly rampaging behavior."
get Pit Bulls off this list, it is irresponsible, disingenuous, and frankly pathetic to include them. The rest of these animals are inherently deadly, a pitbull is only violent when a dirtbag human trains them to be that way. Look at their history, they're some of the most gentle breeds out there - used to watch over children, protect families, etc. You're enforcing negative stereotypes, which leads to dogs being put to sleep because no one will adopt them. This is disgusting.
66% of fatal dog bites in the U.S. are caused by pit bulls. This is not a "negative stereotype". It's a fact. And while I agree that it is the owners of pit bulls who are to blame, there is something else which you haven't considered. When pit bulls bite, they are more likely to kill their victim. This is a trait inherent to the breed, which is one reason that pit bulls are banned in England and Wales. I'm sorry this makes you uncomfortable. It's sad when unwanted pets are killed. It's much worse when a child is killed by a dog.
It isn't inherent in the breed, what's inherent in the breed is that they are more likely to be used in illegal dogfights and therefore more likely to be raised violently. That's not the fault of their genetics.
Please accept bill terriër for pitbull since that is the name of the breed also Brazilian wandering spider is much more dangerous than the Blackwidow and although the blackmamba is really venomous they rarely have contact with humans on the contrary the puff adder is less venomous but comes more in contact with humans and there is no cure for the venom
hmm i feel if it was that plasmodium - protisists, the thing that cause malria - was considered then ohter microrganisms can also be consideredd, liek viri and bactria. and they arnt realy animals. ther ar so many actual animals that ar dealy, such as monkys dolphins crocidilains panthers casuriforms even mustelidas (oters honey bagers), but they dont kil ppl. at least not enoug to make this list. however, almoost evrything has the capacity of murder, so that would end up making the list assez longe.
aslo it would be much funi if human ( liek mi ) w as on this list.
I do too btw.
a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
By your thinking a Cod is not an animal it's a fish etc.
where does this thinking come from, ive seen it too many times to be a fluke. Is it at the same places creationism is taught? (Not trying to be funny or rude, I just really wonder what the source of this is)
Effective wildlife conservation means conserving habitat and sanctuaries, not keeping wildlife in prisons in perpetuity. People can learn to support conservation efforts in ways that don't involve animal objectification and cruelty. Backyard zoos and breeding programs do little to nothing to preserve species. (As a side note, providing rehab and care for injured/permanently disabled wildlife is different from permanently interned animals on display.)
There are lots of online articles and data articulating how zoos do more harm than good -- I recommend checking them out if you're on the fence :)
(I'm with Malbaby, if it wasn't obvious :)
I was expecting it to be in a different river, but no... same river, same spot, same time of day. I asked the guide whether it might have been a bit dangerous swimming in a river full of piranhas. He said, "No, they only eat you if they are hungry."
"There are YouTube videos claiming to show drunk elephants destroying villages after eating fermented marula fruit.
But, here's the thing: According to the BBC, elephants are so huge that it would take massive amounts of marula fruit to get them drunk. In order to actually become inebriated, an elephant would have to eat 400% more fruit than it normally does, without drinking any water.
While they may be way too big to get wasted, a 1984 study in the Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society found that elephants could eat enough fruit to become slightly "buzzed." In that state they became lazier when eating and bathing – not exactly rampaging behavior."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashaumer/9-animals-that-could-teach-us-something-about-drugs-and-alco
aslo it would be much funi if human ( liek mi ) w as on this list.