Do people actually believe the thing about Australia's wildlife being dangerous?

[klown]

Australia does have the largest population of poisonous animals and insects in the world. While they are generally in the interior and they are not actively hunting humans, it's still a fact. When you live in an area where the worst thing is a bee, or something, that can be a huge shock.

 

[Yopaz]

In comparison to here your wildlife is crazy. It might not seem like it from your point of view, but you have at least one of the most jellyfish types, some of the most dangerous fish, some of the most dangerous spiders and some of the most dangerous snakes.

The most dangerous snake we have here is the viper. It causes a swelling if you get bitten, a big swelling if you're allergic. It's nowhere near fatal if you're not allergic.

We don't have spiders that can even pierce the skin, though their bite can still sting. Almost all of the predators in our wildlife are scared of humans thus we're never attacked by them.

Australia might not be the worst place in the world (I wouldn't know though, it could be) when it comes to wildlife, but in comparison to large parts of the world it is more dangerous.

However I love Australian wildlife, especially the marine life. I really wanted to spend time in Australia gathering samples for my degree.

 

[Asita]

As an Aussie, I'm also quite surprised how many people think it is legitimately dangerous here. There are dangerous animals here just like everywhere else in the world. And just like the rest of the world, most animals prefer living as far away from human populations as possible, they won't do anything unless a stupid tourist provokes them.

So while our wildlife is potentially deadly, very few people die at the hand of our animals.

Sea Wasp Box Jellyfish: hard to see, hard to notice its sting, one of the most venomous organisms on the planet. Without treatment death can occur in less than 3 minutes.

There have been no deaths from jellyfish since 2007. Jellyfish account for 66 deaths since records began in 1883. The box jellyfish was responsible for 64 deaths, and the Irukandji the other two. That's less than one death per year. There is generally not enough poison to produce anything more than a very itchy rash on adults, even from Box Jellyfish. Most deaths are children.

Blue Ringed Octopus: One of the world's most venomous marine animals. No antivenom exists. Unless you get continous artificial respiration for more than a day after being bitten, you're pretty muh dead.

Only two people have ever died from Blue Ringed Octopus poisoning.

Cone Snail: Highly venomous organism, no antivenom exists. Only treatment is to provide life support until the victim works the venom out of his/her system.

There has never been a recorded death from cone snails in Australia that I can find. There's only been about 30 deaths attributed to it in the world.

Stonefish: one of the most venomous fish in the world (anyone else noticing a trend here?) Thankfully antivenom does exist for this.

Only one death has ever been confirmed.

Snakes: The 10 most venomous snakes in the world all live in Australia

Less than 2 people a year die from a snakebite.

Sydney Funnelweb Spider: Deadliest spider in the world and highly aggressive to boot. Antivenom exists and is very effective in treatment, but stocks of antivenom are supposedly running low.

There have been no reported deaths from spiders since 1979.

The deadliest of all Australian creatures, responsible for an average of 10 deaths per year, is the European Honey Bee, which can induce anaphylactic shock in some people. A bee that can also be found in the UK.

Note the precursor to the post: "things in Australia that can rather famously kill you". I never made a claim about statistics.

That said, it's worth noting that fatality statistics are a bit misleading when the qualifier is 'danger'. Don't get me wrong, they're good statistics in and of themselves, but their use in this context is...questionable. Let me try to demonstrate: statistically bee stings account for more deaths than bear attacks (the latter had 28 deaths between 2000 and 2010, the WHO reports almost twice that number (54, to be exact) for the year 2000 in the USA alone). That would imply that bees are more dangerous than bears, right? WRONG. The danger of bees is largely confined to people allergic to their stings. Barring such an allergy, it generally takes upwards of 10 stings per pound of flesh to produce a legitimately dangerous reaction, and most people don't tend to stick around long enough to get stung that many times. The truth of the matter is that for most people an encounter with a bear is far more dangerous than an encounter with a bee hive. Statistics would be similarly misleading if we were to compare the annual number of fatalities for Peanuts and Brown Recluse Spiders (in the USA their respective fatality rates are 160 per year for peanuts and less than 3 per year for Brown Recluses).

With that in mind the question in this context is not "How many deaths can be attributed to these creatures?" but "Are the creatures listed legitimately dangerous?"

 

[Feylynn]

Yes I believe that Australia is a light forsaken zone of fear and death but it's because I live in Southern Ontario Canada and the most dangerous animal I've ever seen outside of a zoo is a toss up between a distant moose, penned horse or a pet dog.

Fear tends to be "what if" for me a lot of the time. For example the ideas of being stranded in the middle of the ocean, or worse the middle of space. I'm not likely to just be in the middle of the ocean any time soon and I'm really not likely to break free from our atmosphere by accident, but those are some scary scenarios.

I JUST DID IT AGAIN!
I've never been hurt by a moose, horse, or dog. So there you have it the most dangerous animal I've even encountered based on facts that happened is a kitten. those things are bloodthirsty and want only see the light fade from your eyes.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

I disagree, yes its exaggerated but Australia has some pretty nasty and dangerous wildlife but the thing is that if you stay near the cities and towns you are pretty much never going to encounter anything too dangerous. But at least we don't have those fish that swim up your pee hole and start applying hooks to the inside of your genitals.

So you only got a few things living around and/or in your homes that can kill you. Clearly, just a myth.

Unless you are living in the middle of nowhere, you will pretty much have nothing living around and/or in your home that can kill you. Maybe a couple of spiders but its very rare to get bitten by a spider and even if you do, antidotes are readily available if it was anything bad.

 

[Scow2]

Yes, yes it is. And the more Austrailians try to deny so, the less I believe them.

I rest [http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/14.html] my case [http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/855.html]

 

[370999]

Clearly it has been exaggerated, or people wouldn't be able to live there in any measure of comfort if 50% of the population died due to animal attacks.

But the wildlife is considerbly more exotic (and dangerous) compared to Ireland, where I am from.

You clearly aren't giving people very much credit.

Look across the planet, there are plenty of terribly shitty places that people live.

Like Detroit.

OH DANG!

I kid, I kid, nobody lives there.

But Detroit is different.

The problem with Detroit is not the natural enviroment but rather the lack of employment opportunities due to the collapse of industry.

Alos the death rate is nowhere near as high as 50%.

I also believe (though do feel free to correct me), that Detroit is a dying city.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

As others have said, you've done little to make outsider viewers feel better. It was like this one time I say someone on here say "The Australian spiders aren't so bad. You've just got to make sure you check your shoes before you put them on." And that just made me think:

A) What if I forgot to check the one time there is a spider in there?

And

B) What would I even do if I found a potentially dangerous spider in my shoe? Probably put a box over the shoe and then set it on fire, to be honest...

I never thought it was legitimately dangerous, but i dont like things with venom.. like a bear or a cougar the threats right there: sharp pointy things that make you hurt, but with a spider its like: whats that little thing gonna-oh death within 15 minutes from a single bite.. ill take a bear thank you. With a bear its a big obviously dangerous thing.. youre gonna know if its in your house. Spiders, snakes, snails.. not so much.

Anything anyone has is more dangerous than what we've got here in Sweden. Out most dangerous animal is the moose, and the only moose-related news I've heard recently, was a report half a year ago of a moose that had eaten a couple of fermented apples, gotten drunk, and then got stuck in a tree.

Spoiler

a moose bit my sister you know

I do hear they can get pretty vicious when you try to carve your initials into them.

Mind you, moose bites can be pretty nasty...

 

[kortin]

It's exaggeration for humor. Although, I would say that there are more animals and plants that are dangerous in Australia than most other places.

 

[xPixelatedx]

It's not so bad

Unless you're unlucky. I never thought sharks and crocs were a problem, those things are easy enough to avoid as long as you stay in civilization. I am more worried about the things inside civilization, the things you can't entierly avoid. I don't think those things are actively trying to kill you, no, but that's not the point. Landmines aren't malicious either, they need people to step on them in order to be dangerous, but that doesn't mean I would be comfortable living surrounded by landmines. Considering we are talking about animals that can and will kill humans if irritated, I think landmines are a fair comparison. I am very happy living only around things that would give me a nasty bite if I happen to disturb them, not a nasty death :x

And as shy as some of these things may be, you should probably mention one of those nasty shy spiders absolutely adores hiding in shoes.

 

[Lizardon]

Note the precursor to the post: "things in Australia that can rather famously kill you". I never made a claim about statistics.

That said, it's worth noting that fatality statistics are a bit misleading when the qualifier is 'danger'. Don't get me wrong, they're good statistics in and of themselves, but their use in this context is...questionable. Let me try to demonstrate: statistically bee stings account for more deaths than bear attacks (the latter had 28 deaths between 2000 and 2010, the WHO reports almost twice that number (54, to be exact) for the year 2000 in the USA alone). That would imply that bees are more dangerous than bears, right? WRONG. The danger of bees is largely confined to people allergic to their stings. Barring such an allergy, it generally takes upwards of 10 stings per pound of flesh to produce a legitimately dangerous reaction, and most people don't tend to stick around long enough to get stung that many times. The truth of the matter is that for most people an encounter with a bear is far more dangerous than an encounter with a bee hive. Statistics would be similarly misleading if we were to compare the annual number of fatalities for Peanuts and Brown Recluse Spiders (in the USA their respective fatality rates are 160 per year for peanuts and less than 3 per year for Brown Recluses).

With that in mind the question in this context is not "How many deaths can be attributed to these creatures?" but "Are the creatures listed legitimately dangerous?"

Oh I completely agree with you, the numbers I quoted weren't meant to imply that the animals weren't dangerous and deadly. I was just trying to demonstrate that the wildlife isn't out to get you like some people make out. I realise that I probably should have added some context to those numbers. Whoops =P

The bee's were a bit of joke. I just find it amusing that out of all our deadly animals that the rest of the world is terrified of, it's the bee that ends up killing the most people. Obviously you shouldn't try and compare the numbers like that.

 

[Owen Robertson]

North America has deadly venomous Snakes, Bears, Wolves, Cats, Sharks and Killer Whales. Do people from France or Poland think the wildlife is dangerous? No. Australia has always had that reputation due to British opinion permeating the Western consciousness.

There are deadly animals all over the world, but most of them won't attack you without provocation. That's why I'll travel anywhere: I know to not fuck with them.

 

[Owen Robertson]

[so much snip]
I was just trying to demonstrate that the wildlife isn't out to get you like some people make out.

RUN! THE ANIMALS! AAAAHH!

 

[Owen Robertson]

It's exaggeration for humor. Although, I would say that there are more animals and plants that are dangerous in Australia than most other places.

I'll bet that's provably untrue, but I'm too tired to research. Pop Machines kill more people each year than sharks though, if that's an indicator.

 

[Brainwreck]

Where I live, the only wild animal that could kill you is an extremely rare type of viper whose venom might kill someone with pre-existing health conditions. We used to have big-ass wolves and freakin' bears... about a hundred years ago. The worst I can get now is kicked by a deer. So yeah, Australia sounds rather deadly by comparison.

Wait, scratch that all. Boars. I almost forgot what it's like realizing you just walked right into their territory.
I'm gonna wake up sweating again, aren't I.

 

[kortin]

It's exaggeration for humor. Although, I would say that there are more animals and plants that are dangerous in Australia than most other places.

I'll bet that's provably untrue, but I'm too tired to research. Pop Machines kill more people each year than sharks though, if that's an indicator.

Just because they kill more people than sharks does not mean they are more dangerous. You are more likely to get killed by a soda machine than a shark, yes, but you aren't in danger if you walk past any. Whereas there is an inherent danger of being in the water while there are sharks (except maybe for small sharks).

 

[fix-the-spade]

PS. Inb4 drop bears.

Drops bears! Get inside before thWobwobwooOOOBB.

Wrong kind of drop?

Irukandji jellyfish are by far the scariest things in (around the edges of) Australia. At least with all the big stuff you can see it, but the feckers are more or less invisible and you never get stung once.

I had the misfortune of standing on a couple, nothing serious in strict terms but OH THE PAIN!

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip

I'd just like to point out that you don't need to count the number of deaths caused by something to classify it as dangerous. As deadly, sure, but not dangerous. And when you compare all of that to what we have here in good ol' Vermont (where the deadliest thing is the occasional bear or moose and you really only see them if you're really out in the woods), yeah, Australia's wildlife is pretty dangerous.

You know what the largest spider I've ever seen in my life was? Probably about a little over an inch long body-wise, with about another inch for its legspan. Having spiders with six-inch legspans being a common occurrence on my wall when I wake up in the morning? That would creep me the hell out.

Also, context is everything. I don't have to search the bottom of my toilet seat or in my shoe before I put my foot in because there might be a spider sleeping in there. I like that. I don't have a niggling thought in the back of my head while I'm swimming that there might be some poisonous jellyfish or octopus that I can't even see floating around near me. I don't have to worry about stepping on a poisonous fish or snail while I'm at the beach. I don't have to pay mind to, well, hardly any poisonous snakes because the most dangerous snakes we've got are harmless little garter snakes that only regularly grow to be a little over two feet long.

Yes, these things might all be "uncommon" or "shy", and exaggerated for comic effect over the internet, but the fact still remains that they all exist, they're all present in Australia, and they're all going to cause an inordinate amount of pain to a human if they manage to sink their fangs, claws, or spikes into your skin.

 

[Dags90]

Exaggeration for comic effect, but I believe it can be dangerous if you're out by yourself in the wild. Most Australians live in great coast-line cities though, where it's pretty safe, do they not?

Also, as already said; compared to Swedens wildlife you got some really horrible things.
Though, my one and only close encounter with a moose almost killed my whole family.

Being out by yourself in the wild, exposure is probably your biggest emergency concern. To that end, Australia's climate is pretty mild for the most part. You can go much longer in an Australian desert without water than it takes for unprepared people to freeze to death in their cars in parts of the U.S. I imagine the latter happens in Sweden, too.