Snake Not Venomous, To Be Relocated

11

Residents are assured that the snake found in Horsford Hill is not venomous and is in the process of being relocated.

Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. Tubal Edwards revealed that, “The snake yesterday that which was found in Horsford Hill is basically a boa constrictor – not poisonous, not venomous, basically harmless”.

According to sources, the snake has already been secured and does not pose a threat to residents.

Edwards, however, advised that while the snake found is of a calm nature, if such a snake is spotted the best thing to do is to avoid it.

He informed that while boa constrictors are not poisonous or venomous, they can still pose a threat.

“They can wrap your arm, if they get around your neck they can wrap your neck and choke you and it could prove to be fatal,” Edwards explained.

Although the exact species of the boa constrictor is yet to be discovered, the snake was identified as a female and is said to be too young to have laid any eggs.

“I know that the concerns are that it have laid eggs but no it is too young for that. It is only about a year and a half to two years old, ” said the Chief Veterinary Officer.

Edwards dismissed arguments on social media, in favour of the snake being killed, explaining that the snake may be an endangered species.

According to Dr. Edwards, once a country with similar snakes or a zoo is found the snake will be relocated.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

11 COMMENTS

  1. RARE FIND – SECRET PET – NOT POISONOUS – NOT VENOMOUS – WHAT OF DANGEROUS?

    True, there are some snakes that do not produce ‘…Deadly Toxin,’ but what ‘…Boa Constrictor’ snake is not otherwise ‘Dangerous’ to humans?

    If the snake bites and injects poison, they are venomous.’

    If they wrap around the body, limb or neck, they are ‘…Dangerous.’

    The Boa Constrictor snakes are said to be ‘…heavy-bodied and use constriction to suffocate prey.’

    Then it is a meal that may take weeks to digest.

    These little islands are not known for these kinds of snakes, be they;

    These animals are said to be found in the rainforests of ‘…Belize; …Northern Mexico and Argentina’ [Wikipedia].

    From an investigative perspective, the theory on this find’ is that it is ‘…Somebody’s Secret Pet,’ that possibly through inadvertence, may have slid quietly away from its owner.

    Perhaps, it may have heard of a better pit somewhere on the island.

    The investigation would have been focused along that line.

    The ‘…catcher and custodian’ could possibly be well positioned to provide useful information.

    Even so, it begs the question, ‘…Why should the ‘catcher’ be given custody of a ‘…rare find,’ but ‘…Dangerous animal?’

    (State property until true owner is identified).

    Don’t shoot the inquirer. Just say why.

    • The β€˜β€¦catcher and custodian’ could possibly be well positioned to provide useful information. Truer words have never been said. I see you still have maintained your good sources

      • MIND-BOGGLING – TEN – PECULIARLY INTERESTING

        It boggles the mind Ten.

        A ‘…non-venomous’, yet dangerous snake’ was discovered twirled up in a tree.

        The Police were alerted.

        Not sure how the ‘…Snake catcher’ came into the picture, but police seemingly placed the dangerous animal in the custody of the ‘catcher.’

        From an investigative perspective, it would have been considered with some thought of ‘…knowledge and familiarity with the animal.’

        Isn’t the snake poses a danger to the custodian?

        If it is not, then a ‘…shrewd investigator’ must find it ‘…Peculiarly Interesting.’

        Cannot be said to be ‘…coincidental.’

        Nah! The ‘…contrary’ must prove that.

    • πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ€£πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ’€πŸ’€I’m weak

Comments are closed.