This story hasn't received much attention in most of the United States: There's a lot going on right now over the subject of snake pet-ownership and reptile ownership in general. There has always been a strong stigma against reptiles. I have some saved news searches that I use to keep up on reptile news and the trend I've noticed going back eons is that the general public doesn't like them. The most typical story that I see over and over again is that a reptile pet will get loose, wander down the street looking for food and some neighbor will see it and freak the fuck out; call it a monster, and either 1- try to kill it, 2- call the police in hysterics, 3- run away, 4- some combination thereof. Unfortunately, that rarely ends well for the pet reptile regardless what species it is and [depending on the species] some are so tame from lives as pets that they don't stand a chance against shovel & pitchfork equipped terrified humans.

The species really makes a difference in intelligence, degree of being tame, and even the degree of emotions they can have. There are species of lizards & monitors out there that get to be as big as small dogs yet in captivity actually become emotionally attached to their owners the way parrots do and will go out of their way to get intimacy [I don't mean that in a sexual way] with humans.

Yes, some species have bitten humans causing pain or death. But the key word there is "some." Boas get to a decent size but not one death has ever occurred from one in the United States. They're one of the most well mannered species in their size category. Obviously how you treat them makes all the difference. Reptiles and birds require frequent handling in order to be tame while being handled by humans. If you don't handle them frequently and someone tries to pick one up, they'll think "OMG this giant monster is abducting me" and go into defense mode. Abuse can trigger violent responses. But this goes for most pets. Cats and dogs have been proven to draw blood when they're brought up wrong. Dogs routinely kill people in the United States for this reason [i.e. people in the inner city who buy pit bulls for the status symbol, treat them like crap, and are then surprised when they kill someone].

In the past few years Florida has been taking a hardline stance against reptile ownership, focusing on snakes by saying that non-native snakes kept as pets have invaded the everglades and are eating everything including the gators. There's a really really really crappy B horror/scifi movie out about it that some of you might have heard of by now. Florida has blamed this problem on irresponsible pet owners and has been trying [so far unsuccessfully] to get dozens of reptile species added to the lacy act to criminalize their importation, breeding, and keeping as pets in the entire country. HSUS, PETA, and a few other animal rights groups have supported the idea since they're against all pet ownership and will use anything they're given to take away pet ownership from people. They've been against reptile ownership since long before this news story began, only using different arguments.

The problem is that the whole argument is flawed. Florida has had burmese pythons in the everglades since the 1980s. Back in the day exotic snakes were almost always imported to the US instead of being breed here. These shipments would come in and customs would hold them in storage for a while to make sure they're safe and disease free. They do the same thing still with some animals destined as livestock or pets. Almost any time you see a parrot with a silver band on one of its legs it means it cleared inspection by customs. One of these storage facilities in Florida was leveled by a hurricane a number of years ago and that's what started the "invasion" of the everglades. The government wasn't smart enough to evacuate a quarantine facility of animals during a major hurricane so the building was destroyed and these hungry creatures started going every-which way to get food. No effort was undertaken to recapture any of them at the time.

Coincidentally just before Florida started going public talking about these snakes in the glades, the national everglades park was taken off the UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger sites which meant they started to lose a hell of a lot of tax payer funding. At this point, nearly 15 years after Hurricane Andrew sent a thousand wild-caught burmese pythons into the Florida wilderness, this "problem" was discovered and used as an argument to continue funding and low and behold; it worked.

FL at this point started requiring licenses to have non-native reptiles. Which doesn't sound too radical. Anymore most places require dogs to be licensed with the local government. So no big deal, right? Well no. They used it to compile a list of all the snakes in captivity and then turned around and made the licenses so hard to get that new people could not obtain a license at any cost, and they slowly made it harder and harder for the current license owners to keep their snakes or their licenses. The restrictions were so tough these pets were basically contraband. You could not let your pet reproduce. You could not sell it to someone else even if the buyer is out of the state. If you had to move the state would do everything in their power to euthanize it. Bare in mind depending on the species these pets can live anywhere up to beyond 50 years so they're a major part of their owners' lives. FL then went in Congress to get nonnative reptiles banned altogether. That failed.

To try to get a more convincing argument they took a couple dozen snakes up north to S.C. to do an experiment. I use that word loosely. They put the snakes outside in cages to see what would happen. They died. Froze to death. So they tried it again only this time they dug really deep holes and forced the snakes below the frostline. Some still died but some did not. They then used this "evidence" to say that these "9 large constrictor snakes" could eventually infest the lower half of the United States from California to Washington DC. The entire scientific community laughed at the B-movie science. 4 independent studies shot down the crazy idea. FL responded by giving the guy who created the study a raise. The obama admin gave him an award. For bad science.

Then FL came back to congress seeking to ban only the 9 "large constrictors" and an assortment of lizards & amphibians. That failed. They're trying it again right now. Major cities and states have responded by passing their own laws outlawing these 9 "large constrictors" by local ordinances, and things like that. Ohio's outgoing governor knew he couldn't get the state legislators to criminalize them, so on his way out the door one of his last actions was an "emergency" executive order defining them as "a danger to the public" and criminalizing them. Suddenly every breeder and pet owner of these 9 [and all the subspecies] were criminals for owning a "dangerous exotic animal."

Many pet owners collect snakes. Saying you have a couple dozen snakes sounds like your entire house is clawing with snakes everywhere but what the hobbyists do is build these book-shelf like racks and they then get large plastic tuppleware [sp?] tubs and put air holes in them and keep a snake in each one. You could have 30 snakes in a closet and no one would know. While this sounds cruel the snakes actually prefer this method over glass tanks because they like their privacy [they're not social animals and only encounter other snakes to have sex or to try to eat them]. It also makes keeping the humidity and temperature levels in the right places.

Well a couple weeks ago in Cleveland a hobbyist with 20 snakes was feuding with a snake-phobic neighbor who wanted those "monsters" out of the neighborhood. With Gov. Strickland's emergency "ban" she called the cops again and said "do something, I'm scared to live here!" so they came. And forcefully confiscated every single snake. The police freely stated to reporters that they were all tame and perfectly cared for. No abuse. This was someone who cared about them. The press have tried to play it up by calling them carnivorous but that could just as easily be said about cats & dogs.

Feral cats & dogs both being more dangerous to the environment as feral creatures but since they're "cute" and fury no one is going to ban their ownership anytime soon. They [dogs] also kill people. A lot more people. It's unusual when 2 deaths from snakes occur in the US in a year. With dogs its more than ten times that figure. They can also carry things like rabbis that don't afflict reptiles.

Yes this owner was wrong for not having the right license. But dog owners are given a second chance when they forget to get a license or proof that their dog has had its shots. They usually face a fine, but it's treated as "file the paperwork and we'll call it a day." But because of "AHHHHHH! It's a monster, KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT" these snakes will either go to zoos [that probably don't want them] or be killed.

This is a very cool topic that you brought up Sgath. Being an animal-lover - and living in a house with a herp fancier - sometimes the discussion of "correct" pet ownership pops up, usually when watching some animal seizure on "Animal Cops" or some dumbshit tiger owner getting mauled to death on "Deadly Attractions." My brother has had several species and animals belonging to orders that most people find stigmatic, namely reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods (insects, spiders, millipedes, centipedes, and a crustacean or two), and I must admit, some of the species he has kept probably weren't certified by city ordinance. And some were potentially lethal (like a black widow), or if not really dangerous, some were just not very fun to handle. Speaking of snakes in particular, any snake owner will easily say that even if it's not venomous, it's not very fun to get bit by a snake, since their jaws are designed in such a way that the teeth are curved backwards and it's near impossible - and painful - to remove.

But pet ownership is all about responsibility, like proper caging, handling, and knowing the body signals of certain animals to know when it's okay to handle them. Now the interesting thing about my brother and a few others like him is that he considers all of the animals in his care as "specimens", no pets (and no: he's not dissecting them alive or pumping them full of hormones or things like that) so he doesn't go out of his way to handle most of them, especially the really nasty ones. He claims that this is one reason why a certain type of snake handler is usually the kind that ends up getting bitten - the kind that doesn't regard the animals as wild animals that are still potentially deadly even if born and bred in captivity and finds every opportunity to handle them without reading the signs that the animal might not want to be handle or they’re doing so incorrectly.

This is no different than with a domesticated cat: if your cat isn't purring and its ears are folded back, tail puffed out and erect, then you probably shouldn't be snuggling with Mr. Mistoffelees or else you might get scratched. Alas, some inexperienced cat owners who just jump into buying or adopting a cat without the proper knowledge will say, "this cat's dangerous!" and they give it away, kick it out of the house, or they start mistreating it, which is not the way to go. With snakes and other reptiles, this can also be seen, as inexperienced keepers who didn’t anticipate their animals to get so big so fast and say that they can no longer afford them, so they just release them into the wild and let them eat squirrels, ducks, raccoons, opossums, cats, small kids…. The situation with some keepers is that they really only want the snake in order to see it feed, and will feed their snake a huge rat every week and upgrade it to a chicken then to a rabbit when it get bigger, when in reality, reptiles are cold-blooded and have a lower metabolic rate, meaning they don’t need to be feed every week and can go a few months without eating, so it won’t grow exponentially during that time (some will say that it is cruel, when it’s really not so long as you keep up with other maintenance, like proper watering and heating. That, and it’s easier on the pocket book to limit the feedings, which is probably the reason why these inexperienced owners can “no longer afford to keep their pets.”

Of course, some animals, like some spiders and poison dart frogs, don't show any body language displaying their mood other than the body prints that they were born with that shout, "hey! Don't pick me up altogether!" so you're really taking your chances (but I did hear that poison dark frogs that are bred in captivity lose their toxicity after awhile, since they have no real need for it).

Recently, a woman in our neighborhood was caught housing a tamir and had the animal confiscated from her and was fined. My brother called out the city’s ordinance on this, saying that it's unfair to confiscate an animal that really shows no danger (tamirs are some of the smallest primates and don't show the aggression that comes when most primates reach sexual maturity), and how it sets a double standard with certain animals. Ferrets, which are domesticated, aren't allowed outside in some cities and even statewide, and if it bites someone and if they're overzealous enough to report it, they'll confiscate the animal and euthanize it. Now, ferrets are vicious predators in their own right (like housecats), but like (well-cared for) cats, they probably won't do much damage if you're big enough to stop them (I won't say the same thing for dogs, since breed-wise, dogs can get much bigger than the biggest breed of domesticated cat and can do a bit more damage if you're attacked by one; but I will say that if you're a burglar and you get tackled by an attack dog - which are really trained to bite and hold an assailant until the authorities arrive, not maul and kill - then you shouldn't be playing the victim and demand that the "monster" be put down). That, and ferrets often "play-bite" meaning that they don't do it to hurt you, like kittens that pounce on your feet. Of course, people will much rather give the benefit of the doubt for a more "familiar" pet like a cat rather than a ferret, both of which are domesticated, but the latter being more misunderstood.

People should really read their city ordinances. They say some crazy, non- coherent shit in some that you can argue in court. In one county in the state of Michigan, it’s okay to keep a hyena with the proper permits, but not a wolf (maybe it wasn‘t a wolf, but it was something crazy like that; the thing is that some laws and ordinances are just too vague when describing what you can and can't keep, so who's to say that you aren't allowed to keep a pygmy hippo if it doesn't discreetly say that you aren't allowed to keep hippopotamuses)?

Now, I will only say that I'm against certain pet ownership if a) animal is endangered b) animal is acquired illegally c) animal is potentially detrimental to native wildlife if it escapes (invasive exotic species) d) owner isn't certified and e) "Shit maybe it's just not a good idea." A and B tie together, since its often illegal to keep endangered species as pets in the first place, and also because most illegally acquired endangered animals are obtained by taking young animals away from their families in the wild, often killings the parent(s) in the process, and thus setting back conservation efforts and decreasing the overall wild population. In the case of tigers, there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild, but the problem is that most are not in zoological institutions or big cat sanctuaries aimed at rehabilitating the species, but in private captivity for private use. C can apply to exotic species as well as domesticated animals that have gone feral like cats and dogs (it’s just not a good idea to let your cat roam around outside, especially if it ain’t spayed/neutered or vaccinated). With D, no matter what animal you’re keeping, you should have some training in order to know what the hell you’re dealing with. Maybe not so much for a guinea pig or a gold fish, but bigger animals, exotics animals, then yes (like most farm animals and ostriches). I think with the right kind of training, you can obtain the proper judgment in order to safely house a wild animal that can be dangerous, mainly speaking of cold-blooded animals though. And E - well, I don’t see why people would want to keep an animal that is only a few chromosomes different than a human and is in essence how a human would be like if we were that wild, or maybe I’m just saying this because I have this inherent fear of having my face ripped off by a chimpanzee with its bare hands, but, ya know: maybe it’s just not a good idea.

Yes, but another species of constricting serpent -- a Burmese python, killed a 2-year-old girl in Florida in 2009. It was an extremely rare tragedy, but I'm sure that it was a contributing factor to the anti-snake hysteria.

And I agree with you that feral cats and dogs do a lot more harm -- to both people and the environment. Hell, even pet cats and dogs can be as harmful when their owners allow them to roam at large because they mistakenly believe that their pets require some "freedom."

But I don't think any of that is justification for enacting laws preventing everyone else from keeping whatever pets they wish to keep, provided they can demonstrate that their pets don't pose a danger to others. And keeping wildlife ought to require such demonstration.

In New York City, it's not only illegal to keep tigers as pets, you can't even legally have a ferret. And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that ferrets are actually domesticated animals that pose little to no danger to others.



Yah, I have to admit that story has turned me into a chimpaphobe, too. And of course, I had to make the mistake of hunting down that Oprah interview with the mutilated, faceless woman on YouTube. (But then, I never learned not to look at Rotten dot com, either.) Even Curious George now scares the shit out of me.

I'm pretty sure the news reported at the time mentioned that the owner of that chimp had been gradually losing control of the animal. But if she could still contain the animal on her considerably large parcel of property, then I figure she should be left alone with it. And anyone else would have to be a fool to be friends with her and go visiting there.

It would be kind of like visiting Jurassic Park.

Back on the topic of keeping snakes and other reptiles -- I think there's too much over-reaction against these animals, because of basic human prejudices against reptile species in general.

-- Nephele

I think the government needs to worry more about these creatures.

Proper care and feeding of any animal requires the owner to be responsible. Reptile owners generally are - as its not as easy as keeping a cat or dog. People who have not touched a snake have completly the wrong idea about them (not touching H's suggestion though *shudder*) Eventally we will be so safe from everything we will have nothing.

What?? I was NOT suggesting them as pets!

So I should cancel the priority live animal FedEx package to you then?

What is a pet? I think dogs and cats are, as well as some birds or fishes. Tame rats, ferrets, too. But for some people 'normal' pets aren't good enough. They like snakes, housecats that are bred with feral cats, exotic fishes, or even caymans, tigers or sharks. If an animal comes from the wild and can get very big and very strong, like tigers, chimpansees and many other animals, they don't make good pets. Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to remove animals from the wild to become pets is probably not a good idea in any case.

I don't know what the criteria could be to determine whether an animal is potential 'pet-material' or not, but I would say that being tame or even trained is one. Being small enough for the average human being to constrain it if needed despite being tame (for animals that can have dangerous bites (e.g. big dogs) or constrict someone (e.g. boa constrictor)) might be another. Small and furry should not be criteria, as it would exclude turtles and fishies. People who like a pet, but a non-standard one, should be able to choose one. And people who are allergic for any furry animal should be able to have more choices than a goldfish.

I don't know whether the really big snakes make good pets. If they are small and well cared for, I don't think snakes are bad pets (until they get really, really big). I think it's a bit strange to create such a fuss about them and to consider to outlaw them. Most pet owners take good care of their pets, especially if they are an 'exotic' species that they had to look for to find. I've never seen an ad for baby snakes at the local supermarket or newspapers, where you'd find many ads offering puppies, kittens and baby rabbits so I guess that you'll have to do some work to buy a snake.

I don't know of anyone who wants to be bitten by a snake for fun but the painful & impossible to remove part depends largely on what you're dealing with. A domestic garter snake, a constrictor, that's sold in some pet stores isn't going to be that big of a deal to remove or in terms of pain. Given the option I'd take a garter bite over a cat bite just in terms of the pain. The problem with the teeth on snakes is people who don't know what they're doing try to pull the snake off as an intuitive reaction but that's exactly what you don't want to do since it tares the skin of the human while ripping out the teeth of the snake. Sucks more for everyone. But if you push the head forward to unhook the teeth or pour cold water on a snake, it's not that big of a deal unless you're trying to handle a really big species by yourself.



Yet not only is that accepted in our society, we have all these animal groups running shelters that will take that cat in and adopt it out but won't touch reptiles at all. Most reptile rescues in the United States are undertaken by long-time reptile owners who usually have their names on file with local vets & pet shops so that people in the community know who to call when one is left in an evicted apartment, or a foreclosed building, etc.



Actually that's fairly rare. Most captive reptiles that get into the outdoors do so because of enclosure design flaws or inexperienced owners forgetting to properly secure their cages. I know of no story where a US reptile owner said "I can't handle this thing so I am releasing it" only to have it eat a small kid. I would be interested in seeing any stories where that urban legend actually happened IRL. Every time I know of where a child was hurt or killed it was because of something like an owner forgetting to properly secure the cage at night, or the owner taking a larger species out in the same room as a child without enough supervision of the child. Even the most anti-pet trade conservationists in the country use hands-on experience with large reptiles by letting kids pet them at schools & fairs and so on. The combination of something like a burmese + a small child isn't fundamentally a problem.



Funny you should mention that. I actually researched what it would take to breed domestic bats in captivity [as a guy does out in NJ with success], with white nose syndrome killing off almost all of the ones in the wild near here. Bats are considered primemates and if screened for stuff like rabbis are perfectly safe around humans. I could find no city, suburb, or township in the eastern half of my state that would allow it because of animal ordinances banning captive primemates altogether. The restrictions were all made because of monkeys and apes, but all of these governments flat out refused to amend the law to allow anyone but accredited zoos ownership of safe primemates.



Woah now, A presents a huge problem. Animal enthusiasts all over the world have made huge progress with saving threatened and endangered species by breeding in captivity. There was a documentary on PBS a few years ago about a guy whose name escapes me at the moment who would go around taking in rescued turtles [found by customs for example]. He was so good at keeping them alive and breeding them that he actually had numerous colonies that became totally and completely extinct in the wild. Since he was not an accredited zoo or research facility, and had no means to get that accreditation [it's next to impossible for individuals] the law saw him the same way it would see steve the plumber pet owner.

I am all for saying "ok guys, this animal is endangered or threatened so don't take one out of the wild" but when you already have a massive population of them in captivity it doesn't just make sense to breed that population to provide the ones sold as pets [instead of capturing wild ones], but it creates a diverse captive population that can face no threat of extinction. The parrot species common as pets will never go extinct because even if their natural habitats were completely nuked over [or burned down to make for cheap farm land] there would be so many in peoples' homes that they could be kept around at ease.

The problem with C is the current generation of animal rights groups sees any non-native animal as "evil" in settings outside their range. In San Francisco there's an established colony of conures that escaped a pet shop shipment back in like the 1920s or something around then. They peacefully lived together on Parrot Hill for literally decades posing no threat to humans or local wildlife. Then a few years ago the animal rights people came in and told the local gov to "kill them all since they're not native." [I suppose they intended to stack all the cadavers with the dogs & cats kept frozen at PETA HQ]. They had no science whatsoever to base the demand. In the case of the everglades they've proven that they'll make up bad science as they go in order to provide sources of talking points and funding and even while the rest of the scientific community is literally laughing at the absurdity of their bad-science.

The policymakers; the people who would be deciding what is native in the context of regulations, are often not even elected officials so they have no reason to listen to the citizens they rule over and there is no mechanism under which the citizens can seek appeal of their rulings. If HSUS comes to your state and says "we need you to ban this species since its non-native and COULD do harm, even though we can't really prove it" and they go ahead and ban them: the existing owners are left with animals they suddenly can't sell, breed, or even own even if they've had them incident free for decades. Commercial breeders suddenly end up bankrupt and with a giant building of thousands of animals they can't legally do anything but euthanize.

Even IF they actually got it right for once and found a species kept as pets that would be a big environmental disaster if released in the area, that's not a fatal problem. All the state would have to do is require examples kept in captivity be albino. As soon as they escape, they'd die off. End of the problem.

Well, no doubt a small snake won't be much of a problem to remove, more so with the bigger snake/species (like rock python). Of course, being bitten by anything isn't fun, at least in my opinion it isn't. But a rule of thumb in ownership of larger snakes that brother told me about is that for every three or four feet a snake is you should have two people to help handle it. Maybe I shouldn't have said it's near impossible to remove a large snake once it has bitten you, but it'd be tougher to accomplish with one person (especially if you were unfortunate enough to get bitten on the arm or hand).

You're most likely right with the housing predicament, though I wouldn't be too surprised if there were still people who let snakes and alligators loose because they couldn't care for them properly. I mean, people just abandon their dogs on the road because they can't take care of them, but they could have always surrendered them to a shelter (and to avoid the excuse, "well I don't want them to be put down" there are no-kill shelters that incapable owners can surrender them to). And in places like Florida, there is a vast amounts of reptile sanctuaries that one can give their animals to in an event that they can't take care of them. Heck, there are even some herp sanctuaries in Detroit (I should probably say that it's illegal to keep reptiles in certain areas of Deroit or something). So I can agree with you that most escaped snakes are probably due to flaws in housing, as it would seem that there would be excuse for people to not surrender animals that they can't continue to keep. Unfortunately, some people will always be stupid to not think that option first.

The "don't take breeding animals out of the wild" is what I'm mainly getting at , but I'm okay with the idea of people breeding endangered species in captivity, though I still think the best thing to do would to have some sort of acknowledgment/certification so conservationists can keep statistics on the success rates of breeding projects and potential reintroductions. And if you're keeping such a pet for personal pleasure, it's all well and good that even if Bengal Tigers were to go extinct next year there are still thousands in captivity in private homes (I personally might not ethically approve of it, but whatever). But as far as breeding goes, it could be a problem, since one issues with reabilitating (I'm not sure if I should really be using that word) certain animals species is that their breeding patterns are unpredictable, especially in an unfamiliar environment, which is probably why people make such a big deal when giant panda cubs survive past that critical age in infancy since it's so difficult to breed them in captivity. Even with animals that are of a common status, just because you put a male and female in a pen together doesn't guarantee that they'll breed or it'll end in a pregnancy. So unless these personal owners got some sort of help from zoological institutes, I don't think their success rates in breeding would be any better than even what some zoos do. Of course, on the more optimistic side, it does depend on the species, and the born-in-captivity offspring of successful breeding pairs can pass on those success techniques to their offspring, so then it might not be as difficult to breed these individuals in the future. But I hope it won't get that point yet.

And I agree that just because a certain species is exotic doesn't necessarily mean that it's invasive, as there are some exotic species that have fit into the certain ecosystem without doing much damage (rock pigeons are a good example). There are native species that can be considered invasive in certain areas, one such species being white tailed deer, and of course, the way people solved that problem was either relocation or stepping up on hunting. Like you mentioned earlier, it seems that throughout the history of settlment and colonization, the most destructive invasive species are those that are domesticated: cats, dogs, pigs, etc. But it would seem that people don't equate "domesticated" with "evil and invasive foreigners" so that's another double standard of animals and wildlife.

Snakes have long be considered "evil" because of the negative write up in the bible. Sadly it's had two thousands years to permeate the human psyche and like most cold blooded creatures (like spiders, insects, etc) a lot of people love to hate them as they fall outside the usual cute parameters.

I would love to own a corn snake like this one or the one that is pictured fourth from the top here.

Oh, those are beautiful! We have a reptile guy who comes to my public library from time to time for children's programs, and it's always fun to see the kids get all excited when they're allowed to handle the snakes.

-- Nephele

It's funny how the (Judeo-Christian) West had evidently dictated the perception of snakes, since a lot of other cultures hold serpents in a more positive light (I wrote that post on Gothic animals waaay back when ).

I've already said before that if my kids were more neuro-typical that I'd get one of these! Unfortunately, they are extremely delicate. If one of those fell from just a 12" high it could kill them. Plus, I don't think that the constant noise from kids is very conducive to raising calm spiders.

Wow, she is amazing! I think if I were to bring something like that home, both my Mum and sister would probably rupture my ear drums with their screams of terror! Mum couldn't even watch the movie Arachnophobia... as soon as the tarantula appeared on screen a few minutes into the film, she left the room

-- Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:49 pm --


That sounds very cool... most kids over here have to make do with seeing things like snakes and spiders on tv... and luckily there are many kids shows that show these amazing creatures in a positive light!


The corn snake I had my eye on was a rose corn snake and it was about 6 inches long... it was so cute I don't know how I resisted getting it. It was purely when I learned the cost of the vivarium needed to house the little cutie properly that I suddenly had my "hey guys, look at my beautiful snake" bubble burst