Meet my wife…
According to the top 10 at this site it’s the squirrel. I had never realized what a threat to mankind the squirrel is. Thank God for the internet.
Thank you, Jack Handey.
All that posters are doing here is naming effective predators.
Yawn.
I mean, is that all it takes to be regarded as vicious? An ability to subdue prey or defeat threatening predators effectively?
I think not.
In all seriousness, I think that No. 4 on your list is the greatest contender. Cats are not merely great at predating and defending (like every other nominee) but they are the only nominee so far that will torture and kill things, even as an adult, just for a laugh.
The Tigator without a doubt. This is a little known animal with a Tiger’s head at one end and an Alligator’s head at the other end.
[sup]Someone may allege that this is impossible, since such an animal could not defecate. However :eek: that is exactly what makes it so mean.[/sup]
I’m going to nominate bulls of the Holstein variety. Just because they’re extremely unpredictable. There’s nothing like having a docile animal suddenly turn around, mash you into a wall or barbed wire fence, then walk off like nothing just happened.
Not to nit-pick, but doesn’t this thread belong in IMHO? It’s not, as Tamerlane pointed out, an answerable question. How would one even define viciousness in another species? Is it the mother bear defending her cubs at all costs? Is it the male lion who kills all the cubs of a new pride to ensure that only his genes are passed on? Is it the lethality and stealth of certain viruses?
I would argue that while these behaviors are all violent, they cannot be truly regarded as viciousness, since they are carried out in the interests of self-preservation: safeguarding one’s offspring, one’s life, or the simple quest for food.
In order to warrant a morally-charged label such as vicious, the creature in question would have to be shown to have some understanding of a moral concept analogous to the that of the creature alleging viciousness. And this, in terms of other species, makes no sense. But, for the sake of argument, we’ll try to define viciousness as a broader concept. Here goes: it must, I think, be argued that the creature in question behave violently towards another living being for its own end, or for the sake of the violence or destruction caused, and for no other reason. It would also have to be demonstrated that the creature in question habitually uses violence as a means to an end even when not called for, and responds with an escalation of force out of all proportion to the situation. Habitually using violence without any benefit, as it were. (For example: a fox killing all the chickens in a henhouse is not being vicious; it’s responding to a glut of food by trying to secure as much as possible in anticipation of future need. But a fox who habitually tracked down and killed every chicken in a given area without consuming any for food, and even to the neglect of finding other food, could be considered vicious. I guess.)
Using the term ‘vicious’ in this manner, I guess it would be safe to say that any individual of any species may behave in a ‘vicious’ manner from time to time, for whatever reason. But to consistently behave in this fashion, and to meet all the criteria I outlined above, there is only one creature who can be said to be vicious, and that is man. Only the human species habitually behaves in this manner, using violence for its own sake, even to its own detriment, and having a grasp on morality as we so define it.
IMHO, only man can be said to be truly vicious.
As a side note to whomever nominated snakes: snakes are in fact very shy and retiring creatures who want nothing more than to be left alone. A warm spot to curl up in, a meal every few weeks or months, as the case may be. They much prefer to retreat in the face of danger; it has been said that the snake is “a coward first, and then a bluff, and a fighter last of all.” Trouble occurs when the snake feels threatened and has no means of escape, such as when it’s stepped on suddenly, or grabbed by some would-be ‘Crocodile Hunter’-type.
Are we discounting extinct animals? If not, then my vote goes for the Utahraptor.
I like river fish, and have paid some attention to them over the years. By far the most aggressive fish I have ever encountered in the wild is the mighty… rock bass, also known by the fearsome monicker of “red eye,” which they do indeed have. They vigilantly guard their three-to-five foot radius territory by attacking anything, living or dead, which comes into it.
Once, while wading out into the New River with a couple of buddies, I was savaged by one when I strayed into his princely domain. I then impressed my friends when I caught it by dipping my fishing rod into the hole while my jig was still reeled up to the rod-tip. After I dropped the little bastard back into his hole, he attacked me again. That’s a mean fish.
Fortunately they’re only eight inches long, tops. Grow one of those things into the size of a grouper, and you’ll put an end to the wading catch-and-release fisherman problem, right quick. For now, please throw them back. They are becoming increasingly rare, probably because of their hyper-aggressive behavior.
My ex-wife meets all the criteria. For an added bonus, she is spiteful and vindicative.
Well how about some insects… they don’t break the “non-microscopic” rule. Something like army ants or killer bees would rank up there as being pretty nasty. Really bugs, is it necessary to attack and/or kill everything that gets in your way or happens to wander too close in your opinions even though nothing in it’s right mind would even want to attack you?
It’s also the most viscous.
I’m surprised nobody has done the Monty Python/rabbit quote yet…
The most vicious is undoubtedly the Honey Badger. Cute name, one extremely mean and vicious critter if threatened.
They are enormously powerful for their size and specialize in attacking anything they consider prey or a threat **in the groin **.
My money is on the above mentioned candidate–Humans.
Other animals kill with a purpose. We kill, often without one.
Well well well…It appears some of you think this question is unanswerable. I don’t think so, I think there are varying degree’s of validity to an animal being most vicious. I don’t think premeditated, violence for fun can be included however. I believe that to be a human trait. I know some people think their cats are having fun when they tear the heads off chipmunks and play with it’s carcass, but fun would not be the descriptor I’d use for that behavior. Well I guess that could be argued as a cat having fun, our cat does it all the time and appears to be having a blast. Mrs.Phlosphr is trying to change my mind about that one though, she can’t stand it when ‘archimedes’ our cat, plays with dead animals. I guess we’d have to define what characterizes having fun before we could argue if the cat is infact enjoying what he’s doing.
I would not consider the cat vicious though.
Vicious from whose point of view?
A worm would consider a lion to be a very peaceful animal and would consider a chicken probably the most vicious animal on earth.
Yes so let’s all join that extintion society. :rolleyes:
We’re just more efficient at it than anything else. You think a group of bipedal cats with opposable thumbs would be any less vicious?
I can’t believe nobody has said hyena yet. Those little buggers are fast and fierce, and they eat bone, clothes, shoes, everything. I saw something on the Discovery channel once that talked about some draught in Africa which left the hyenas hungry so they decided to take out a village. Something like 40 people completely devoured. I thought that was pretty cool. 
I don’t believe they’re particularly vicious, but I seem to recall that cape buffalo are extremely dangerous. They’re huge, dumb as a box of rocks, have very poor eyesight, and difficult to kill.
I believe the prevailing wisdom is that if you are hunting them and you wound one without killing it outright you just let it go - they’re particularly nasty when hurt. As someone else has so eloquently pointed out, that sounds a whole lot like my ex-wife.