Snakes: 50,000.
Seems fair game to me. How would you feel if you had lost a loved one to a viper, even if they engaged in rock climbing or another dangerous activity? Convictions crumble before personal adversity.
https://digg.com/data-viz/link/deadly-animals-kill-most-huma...
And, as above, mosquitoes are largely eco-irrelevant. Snakes are not. Anti-venom seems like the better solution.
"The World Health Organization estimates that 138,000 people are killed by venomous snakes annually."
While that may be irrelevant to you (even in the face of personal affliction), the cost of surviving this interaction is also high:
"During that time, he was administered 28 vials of antivenom intravenously at a cost of $3,400 per vial... They are also species-specific, meaning selecting proper antivenom requires knowing which type of snake bit you... As a result, survivors of rattlesnake bites in Southern California, for instance, get a second painful surprise when presented with hospital bills totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars."
I applaud you for your willingness to undertake this burden for yourself, but I am afraid that I am not.
The issue of medical debt is a problem that should be addressed head on, not indirectly by exterminating snakes which only rarely kill anybody.
How would you feel if you had lost a loved one to a car, even if they engaged in walking around at night or another dangerous activity ?
I don't see any one rushing to eradicate cars...
Your comparison is lazy and ridiculous. Nonetheless, there are people trying to get cars out of cities (and I wish them luck).
I mean, it would be cooler if you did.