Okay, with all the dissention among the masses, it would appear Christine Moffat’s original question was disregarded. Her initial question was A) does Australia have the largest *number *of deadly creatures and B) is it the most lethal place to live. Everyone (Cicil included) seems so caught up in answering question B, they have forgotten question A; which should be easily answerable in our world of “lies, damned lies and statistics.” But it is the part of the question that is most interesting to me; so again: Does Australia have the largest number of deadly creatures compared to other countries? Or should we compare it to other continents? Or other islands? Oh, Bother…:smack:
Wouldn’t that limit it to toddlers & younger?
[/QUOTE]
Would it?
What’s a “snip”? The version I learned said snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.
[/COLOR]
:dubious:
[COLOR=black]
[/COLOR]
I was going to say this sounds familiar:
However,
So, hmmmm.
I never heard that version. Google gives it 74,000 hits compared to 102,000 for snips.
Yes but so what? A roiling mass of sea snakes may be interesting but colonial’s mention of it here is inapt. Sea snakes are very poisonous but they basically never bite anyone. There has never been an Australian fatality.
How much did the Australian tourist Bureau pay to say that, Sheila?
Moving back to dry land, another member has pointed out that as far as deserts go the Outback is a piece of cake compared to the Sahara, and compared to much of the US West. Australia also possesses numerous aquifers, including the world’s largest. So where are Australia’s great interior cities? Why is there no Australian Phoenix, Salt Lake City or Las Vegas?
The sad truth is that Australia is the only country in history to have been defeated repeatedly in war by a wild animal, namely the Emu.
The Master Himself was written about one episode of the Australo-Emu War:
Here is the most provocative sentence in the article: “The (Emu) enemy proved to be fast, smart, and capable of surviving multiple bullet wounds”.
The Emu population has exploded in the last 150-200 years because of the introduction of rabbits, easy prey for the speedy and maneuverable omnivorous bird.
Emu may reach well over six feet in height and 130 pounds in weight. They possess formidable weapons in their claw-toed feet and pointed bills, all capable of inflicting wounds immediately disabling to fatal. They are highly intelligent, well adapted to using cover and darkness, and of attacking with a low Sun behind them.
Only one other wild animal (also an Austrlain bird, more on that later) harbors such extreme animosity and aggression toward human beings.
Tactically Emu prefer ambush and twilight to night attack by groups of a few dozen. but they have been known to assemble in armies of at least 10,000 for daylight mass attack, overrunning and annihilating human units of several 100. Picture sort of a larger-scale Custer’s Last Stand, with thousands of Emu “Indians” charging straight in, each “Indian” requiring 5-10 penetrating shots to be taken out.
Unfortunately, The Master got a sanitized version from corrupt sources in cahoots with the conspiracy I have been detailing in this thread. These dissemblers claimed that the 1932 campaign was the first and only and that after that some initial setbacks to the Australian Army, it petered out with the Emu in retreat. The fact is that the war has been going on for over 100 years, the Emu are so far triumphant, and no end is in sight despite Australian Army casualties far exceeding Gallipoli.
Ecotourism prospers in the Outback despite the Emu because the birds’ migration patterns are highly predictable, and Australia actually has a large demographic of Dundee types skilled enough in shepherding tourists to avoid losing more than a handful a year to Emu attack.
I dunno but I’m guessing not much because I’ve never heard the Australian Tourist Bureau say it.
As to your emu nonsense, frankly you’ve gone too far. You’ve been pushing the limits but the thin elastic of your credibility has snapped. Everyone knows that the hoop snakes, drop bears, and bunyips teamed up together with the min min lights and attacked the emus at night - when the emus were least expecting it - and wiped them off the face of the continent in '86. The yowies supported the emus (as you’d expect, given what happened in '48) but it was never going to have any outcome other than a massacre. We all know what happens when you get attacked by a hoop snake and a drop bear at the same time, eh Charlene?
The cassowary has been mentioned, but I don’t think people realise how incredibly dangerous they are. “The flightless birds—some 6 feet tall, 150 pounds, and armed with fearsome talons—are considered the most dangerous birds in the world, reports UPI.
They eat fruit, but if they feel threatened they’re capable of killing a dog or even a horse with a single powerful kick”
In the wake of Cyclone Yasi a lot of their habitat was destroyed and they were commonly seen prowling into backyards in search of food.
Fortunately they only live around the Daintree area of far north queensland, which is also one of our most popular tourist areas… 
Well, the Bureau’s tentacles may be traced to whoever you did hear say it, and that is a fact!
My credibility will be fully established once all the facts are out.
Oh I see.
I wonder why the International Union for Conservation of Nature ranks the Emu’s conservation status as “least concern”.
And you have not yet explained why the US has a Phoenix (metro pop. over 4 million) right smack in the middle of a desert,
whereas the biggest Outback city is what?- the miserable Alice Springs? (pop. 27,481)
No, the only answer could be that something is keeping human beings out of the Outback, and that reason is the great warrior-beast the Emu,
who will not tolerate our presence, and is capable of enforcing its claim to its land.
Yowies? Is this an Australian inside joke of some kind? The product of the country’s notorious habit of getting drunk by 3pm and staying drunk until 3am?
Stop usurping my prerogative!
(from post #47)
This is my story!
(And BTW there is a lot more to it than that “newser” article. A lot.)
Well, the Drop Bear Bureau’s long razor sharp tentacle-like claws may be traced to whoever covers up what they did to the Emus, and that is a fact!
Drop Bears are unattested by science.
Emus are known down to their DNA. So are the other deadly zoological perils I have been warning about.
PS: I doubt there is a real Drop Bear Bureau. There is an Australian tourist bureau, whose the exact name probably changed several times
Yes they are. There are scientific papers full of descriptions of every aspect of their DNA and lifecycle. Reams of it. Learned universities have tenured staff that study little else.
This site appears to be an unimpeachable authority on Drop Bears:
I am not longer skeptical about Drop Bear existence, even though the link
reports that as of 2008 Drop Bear DNA has not yest been distinguished from
that of other Koalas. Since you live in Australia perhaps you have more
up to date information.
How the Australian Tourist Bureau let the news get out is a minor miracle,
and may be a major advance in unravelling their conspiracy.
Interesting. Still don’t know what a “snip” is. Maybe that’s why there are so many variants. Nobody else does, either.
Southey’s version is not the original, but the original word does appear to have been either “snips” or “snigs”, an old word for “young eels”. Both on intrinsic grounds and by Theobald’s rule that the least likely reading is most likely to be correct, I suspect it may have been “snigs”, but if it is “snips”, then it would probably be in that word’s early sense of “shreds”.
I always hear the poem using “snips” and I always assumed it meant, basically, “worthless, left-over scraps”.
“Snips” in the sense of “worthless scraps” is in reasonably common use - as in "snips of information were released by the Ministry today concerning the accident … ".
<---------- glad Princhester finally figured out that colonial had his fingers planted firmly in his cheek… 
As for the column, I, too, would like to point out that the number of intelligent, first world people dying from a large number of highly venomous species compared to the number of people dying in what often does double duty as a third world nation with substantial amounts of poverty from such critters is hardly a conclusive discussion, unless the only point is, “where do more people die from animal bites/stings than anywhere else?” I grok that the question being asked was: “What area has more really venomous and or otherwise dangerous animals than any other?” In which case, it seems to me nothing Una brought up was particularly impressive. :dubious:
Comparing the amount of deaths does not answer the question at hand. The question wasn’t which country has the stupidest people, it was which has the most dangerous fauna. Just because someone does not die from a particular spider, does not mean it is not dangerous. It just means people are smart enough to avoid it.
Cecil has already addressed the myth that more people are killed by falling coconuts than by sharks, and while the jury is still out on actual numbers, no-one would ever argue that coconuts are more dangerous than sharks.
A better comparison for the fauna question would be how many types of animal could cause death as opposed to how many do.