Pet | The Bull Speaks!

There are some pains in Life that can not be avoided. The passing of a devoted, loyal, and loving pet is one of those Life-pains.

So it is here in The Pasture that we mourn the passing of a beloved and most loyal dog, Buck at 2215 on Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008. He was a sickly abandoned Lab puppy when Lady Beth first saw him some 13+ years ago. Covered in fleas and anemic from the hundreds of ticks bites on his tiny body there was some concern that he would not survive. Yet survive he did. Moreover, Buck thrived!

The Bull did not meet Buck until late in the dog’s life, some four plus years ago. Right away I knew there was something special about him. He seemed to always know when someone needed a little love, especially Lady Beth. She credits him with saving her sanity, (if not her life), when she endured the traumatic break up of her first marriage some years back. Her first ‘dog of her own’, she was 18 when Buck made his entrance into her heart. Here is what Lady Beth had to say on her MySpace page…

For those of you who know me, you know how big a part of my life Buck was.

Tony found him one night while he was delivering pizzas. We were only 18 years old, and he was a tiny, scared, flea covered puppy.

He has been with us through everything life threw at us for the past 13 years. He used to snuggle next to me under the covers in our first house, when we didn’t have any heat. He always came when you called him (well, eventually). He got lost once, but we found him. He could bark at perfectly timed 2 second intervals indefinitely. He never smelled bad, never had fleas and never had accidents in the house. He hated thunderstorms and fireworks, but would be OK if he could snuggle with someone. He loved his collar, car rides, couches, pizza and us.

He was the best dog ever and we will all miss him.

Buck was indeed the finest dog I ever met – and I’ve known a lot of dogs in my lifetime! It is hard to add anything to what Lady Beth had to say, save for a couple of memories and observations of my own.

  • Buck could climb trees, especially when chasing a squirrel. (How many Labs do you know that can do that?)
  • He was the best at catching things in mid-air, especially when it was pizza crust.
  • Buck was the only dog I ever met that would actually get paranoid when he didn’t have his collar on.
  • No matter how long we were gone during the day we knew that Buck could be trusted in the house alone. He wouldn’t get into things and he would never have an ‘accident’. He’d rather explode than to go in the house.
  • Lady Beth was also correct about his scent. He was the only dog I’ve ever met that never once smelled bad. He always had a very pleasant, kinda spicy scent about him. No matter what the weather, or what he had been doing.
  • Buck was the most tolerant of creatures. He had to contend with many various beast being brought into our yard and home, from cats and dogs to snakes and ferrets, and he accepted them all without a fuss.
  • He loved the children – all children – and set the example for our Great Danes in that regard. He would watch of the kids as they played and loved nothing more than being included in their games.

There is only one small point I’d have to disagree on with my beloved wife: Buck’s ‘I want back in’ bark was “not perfectly timed 2 second intervals“. It was high-pitched, chopped-off barks at precisely one second intervals and could make you skin crawl right off your body in less that a minute. I miss that bark already.

Yes, Buck was the best of dogs. He has left a hole in each of our hearts that will never be filled, and with thousands of great memories that will last a lifetime.

Our loyal friend was buried today here at The Pastureoutside of the fence. If you knew Buck then you’d know how important that detail really is…


Buck
Buck, The Loyal
July 15, 1995 – January 30, 2008

Rest now, our faithful friend.

Bull, out.  End of Article

Related posts

If there is one thing that The Bull can not stand it is the existence of thieves in our society. One of the few things worse than your basic thief is one that steals from charitable organizations, and that, Dear Reader, is what we are dealing with today.

As you are aware, my dear wife, Lady Beth, operates one of only two or three IRS 501(c)(3), Tax-Exempt, exotic animal rescues in the entire Nation. The rescue is called Chaos & Critters. This entity operates solely on the donations and adoption fees. To help feed the creatures we house there have been a couple of donation boxes stationed at pet stores here in Mobile, AL. One of these boxes has sat at Mobile’s largest pet store, B & B Pet Stop, (operated by Mobile’s well known Trufant family), for almost a year. Despite the traffic that store garners, and it being the only store where exotic supplies are readily availible, donations have always been rather slim. It was assumed that this lack of production was simply because exotic pets are considered as ‘throw-away’ pets by the majority of society. We were wrong!

Today we learned that the real cause for such lack-luster donations is the specter of rampant thievery in that store.

Just yesterday Lady Beth had stopped by to pick up a couple of other items and had noticed several dollars in the lockbox. She stopped by there this morning to purchase food for several of the creatures and found that the majority of the cash had been removed. Not just ‘removed’, the lock had been compromised and the cash had been stolen! :evil: What makes this so irritating is the fact that this had obviously been done by either an employee of B&B Pet Stop or under the direct observation and backing of said employees.

Now, how in the world can I be so sure?
Quite simple. The lock had been forced by someone inserting a screwdriver, or similar, devices and turning forcibly so as to cause the retaining nut to loosen so the entire lock could spin and the cash box could be removed. Having installed the lock myself, I know it was installed both correctly and tightly. The operation necessary to loosen the lock could not have been done quickly. It took time. Most damning, the donation lockbox has always been located on the check-out island of the store under the direct supervision of at least one – and most often three – clerks.

This all boils down to one inescapable conclusion for The Bull. That conclusion is that the grand ol’ B & B has indeed become a ‘Den of Thieves‘. This , of course, is not the only example of thievery going on at that store. Oh hell no! They are forever finding everything from animals and other stock being stolen, to employees finding their personal items, (ie: wallets, credit cards, coats and such), stolen right out of the break room. For some unknown reason, the Trufant’s simply refuse to address these issues.

The Bull challenges the Trufant Family to clean up their act and bring B & B Pet Stop back to its former glory. Meanwhile, the creatures will be on reduced commons…

Bull, out!  End of Article

Related posts

Today I was asked by a person calling our Reptile Rescue, (Chaos & Critters), why we take such great care in who we allow to adopt potentially giant pythons. The reasons are simple: They get huge, they are amazingly fast when attacking, they are expensive to keep, and can kill you or your kids simply by accident. For those that need more convincing read the following. When you get to the autopsy report you will discover why The Bull always has a razor-sharp knives on my belt and around my neck! This is also just one of the reasons We agree with the Florida law requiring the licensing of keepers of giant reptiles.
Read on.

The Keeping of Large Pythons: Realities and Responsibilities

©1994 Melissa Kaplan. News from the North Bay, January 1994.

Big Burmese Python

(No, this photo has NOT been altered. Burmese pythons really do get that big – and bigger! This photo is from the December 1996 issue of REPTILES Magazine.)

Large pythons were the subject of many a news story last year due to the fact that there were at least two deaths directly attributable to them. Tragically, the deaths would not have happened had the owners of these snakes kept them safely, and responsibly, contained. The following article, by David Chiszar, Hobart M. Smith, Albert Petkus and Joseph Dougherty, was recently published in the Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society, and represents the first clear, and accurate, account of the death that occurred July 1993:

A Fatal Attack on a Teenage Boy by a Captive Burmese Python (Python molurus bivittatus) in Colorado
“The recent Colorado case of a human death caused by a Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus; 20 July 1993) resulted in considerable sensational media coverage as well as widely varying estimates of the snake’s length and weight. In the interest of scientific accuracy, we sought and received the cooperation of the Commerce City Police Department in acquiring detailed information regarding both the victim and the snake so that correct data could be placed on record.

“The victim was a 15-year-old male, 152 cm [5'] tall, weighing 43 kg [95lb]. While in bed, naked except for briefs, he was bitten on the right instep, with maxillary and palatine-pterygoid tooth marks clearly visible on the dorsal surface of the foot and dentary tooth marks clearly visible on the plantar surface. Numerous tooth impressions were present on the fingers of both hands, but only on their palmar surfaces, indicating that the hands had tried to pry open the snake’s jaws from around the instep. The fingers and the foot bled profusely. Autopsy photographs revealed scleral ecchymotic hemorrhage, and venous congestion in the cerebrum (petechial and ecchymotic hemorrhage both present), all being signs of agonal breathing consistent with a diagnosis of suffocation as a cause of death. No attempt was made during autopsy to distinguish between suffocation and circulatory arrest (Hardy, 1993) as causes of death; however, in subsequent correspondence the pathologist hypothesized that circulatory arrest would more likely be the cause of death of smaller prey, whereas suffocation would be more likely with larger victims. Although blood was present on the victim’s face, hands arms and legs, there was no blood present on the neck or on the middle of the torso, suggesting that the snake’s coils had been wrapped around this area. Bruising of the victim’s skin, consistent with this hypothesis, was visible in the photographs. There was no evidence that the snake had attempted to swallow any part of the victim.

“The snake was 336 cm [11'2"] total length, and weighed 24 kg [53lb]. Incidentally, almost all estimates of the snake’s weight presented by the media were above 27 kg and ranged as high as 54 kg. The only accurate weight had been recorded by Officer Steven Paxton soon after the fatality, but few news writers quoted him, preferring to use the larger, exaggerated numbers. Circumference at the thickest part of the body was 38cm [15"]. The snake had not been fed for 10 days prior to taking the measurements reported here (19 September 1993) and the most recent meal had already been digested and passed. Thus, the digestive system was probably empty. We did not probe the snake’s cloaca, but the short tail and diminutive pelvic spurs strongly suggest that it is a female. This animal had been raised since hatching by a close relative of the victim, and at the time of the attack the snake was not confined to a cage, but had freedom to move about the house. The victim was long familiar with the snake.

“…This raises the question of why the snake killed so large a victim. Although any answer that we can put forward would be conjectural, it is known that pythons and certain other constrictors will sometimes attack prey that cannot be ingested (Branch and Hacke, 1980; Fritts et al., 1990), whether through misinterpretation of size or through presence on the victim of chemical or other cues that are associated with normal prey.

“Perhaps the most significant point to emerge from this Colorado case is the fact that a 24kg python, modest in size by comparison with full grown specimens of this and several other species, was able to kill a healthy 43kg adolescent human. This will come as no surprise to experienced herpetologists, but it might be startling to people who have grown unjustifiably complacent with their now mature pythons that have been raised since hatching.”

Through years of meeting people–especially teenage boys and young male adults–who want or have just bought Burmese and reticulated pythons, I have found that they really do not understand just how big their snakes will get, and even if they do, being “cool” tends to override common sense. Many men (and woefully ill-educated pet store owners and employees) recommend Burmese as “good starter snakes” instead of Ball pythons (P. regius) because of their docility and hearty appetite (failing to recognize that the initial nervousness and reticence to feed are traits common in wild-caught Ball pythons, not in captive bred ones).

I recently met two people who have a deep-seated fear of snakes, both due to encounters with large, loose pythons. The first is a woman whose infant niece was killed by the parent’s python which had been kept in an insecure enclosure. The second is a young man who, while sleeping at a friend’s house, was awakened by the friend’s Burmese python which was in the process of wrapping itself around the young man. When he had gone to bed, the snake was on top of the refrigerator, its owner not wanting to “disturb” it by getting it down and putting it safely away.

What must be remembered is that, no matter how tame and friendly the snake, it is and always will be a wild animal, and as such, subject to what appears to the owner to be unpredictable behavior. No matter how many years one has had a snake, no matter how familiar the snake is with its owner-family, hunger, fear, unease and other factors can trigger instinctual behaviors. Good examples of this were published in the February 1994 issue of Reptiles (Pssst…wanna see my pet snake?) and in the general press in 1996 (NY Teen Killed by Pet Burmese).

Another misconception about giant pythons (and giant iguanid and varanid lizards) is that when they get “too” big, they can just be given to zoos and wild animal parks.   NOT! Zoos and wild animal parks have all the giant reptiles that they can handle. Zoos should not, even if they could afford to spare the resources, become a repository of cast-off pets.

The giant pythons are beautiful, awesome animals. There is something breathtaking about seeing a snake with a girth the size of a telephone pole, coiled up contentedly in its basking area. But there are some animals that are not suitable as common pets for some people due to the amount of space and other resources that must be committed to that animal for its entire life, one that may span two or three decades.

If you are sincere in your desire to begin rearing snakes as pets, please, start with a more managable species. The above mentioned Ball pythons (P. regius), for example. Feel free to contact the folks at Chaos & Critters Exotic Animal Rescue for advice.

Bull, out.  End of Article

Related posts

  • Other Causes

    • RightNation.US America's #1 Conservative Community

    • I'm a Friend of Israel
  • The Great Spam War

    • Akismet has nuked since 20 Feb 2006!
  • My Claim...

  • Your Host...

  • Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

    Day By Day

    WebRings