I'm all about preserving nature and the live and let live concept for snakes/animals, but with that said, I will get rid of venomous snakes on my land, just to reduce their numbers and the possibility of future bites for my family climbing around on it (rocky elevation changes w/creeks on 35 acres of heavy timber).
Statistics can be massaged to make any case but I would hypothesize that the reported numbers aren't broken down by folks who actually spend time in snake habitats and that bites are much more common to those folks. I.E. India/Asia farmers. By comparison, there's only a small part of the population in US that are in densely-wooded/swampy, non-urban/suburban areas on a daily basis. Out of my 100 closest friends in Midwest, there are maybe 10 of them that have wooded land access, most of which have open farm/pasture land making up 75% or more of it.
As far as the dog bites, makes perfect sense they're higher, cause nearly all of the population owns dogs or is around them in neighborhoods in some capacity. Not so with venomous snakes. I don't even know anyone who owns snakes as pets
. If folks are walking around in venomous snake habitats daily, their odds have to go way up for bites, versus those in population who do not.
I think venomous snakes are fascinating and beautiful, but I have a realistic respect for them too, especially on my leaf-covered timberland ground with south-facing rock banks, creeks, and scattered wood piles throughout. Pretty much the perfect habitat for Copperheads and the two types of Rattlers in my part of MO. Once spring warm weather hits, I pretty much avoid walking through my rocky creek areas, cause I know they are warming themselves somewhere nearby, so why risk it.
Just my two cents worth on this interesting topic...