Family, Humane Society at odds over found snake

An unusual snake found nearly four months ago has yet to return home, even though the owners have been identified.

Jo Miller knew the lavender albino king snake picked up by a Sedalia patrolman belonged to her 8-year-old grandson, Hayden, when she saw a story and photograph about the reptile’s discovery in The Democrat. A couple days later Hayden and his grandfather brought a photo into the shelter to claim the snake.

“They told them it wasn’t their snake and they wanted proof. ... What kind of proof would you have for a snake?,” Miller said. “Everybody saw the picture and said, ‘That’s Hayden’s snake.’”

Several months later, a digital copy of the same photo was used by Mid-Missouri Humane Society personnel to determine that the snake belonged to the Millers. Now, the Millers must come up with more than $130 to get the snake back.

Marilyn Huntsman, president of the Humane Society Board, has kept and cared for the snake at her home, as she has other snakes of her own. The photos provided by the Millers don’t exactly serve as proof since the person holding the snake is not identifiable, but “we offered to let them have it,” Huntsman said.

Several other people tried to claim the snake using photos that were clearly printed from the Internet, Huntsman said.

“We had to be very careful with this. ... We tried very hard to be fair about this,” she said.

The Millers adopted the snake about a year ago for free, after it was advertised on I-Land. A teenager, who had two snakes, had lost interest in the animals and was giving them away, so there was no receipt of the transaction.

The family tried to find evidence of the advertisement or the identity of the family through I-Land, but had no such luck.

Hayden’s mother, Jody Miller, said one of her children forgot to secure the lid on the snake’s container close to the time when the patrolman picked up the snake in an alley near Miller’s home.

The reason it took nearly three months to identify the snake was because shelter workers were unable to view photos sent via e-mail, Huntsman said.

However, Jo Miller sent the photos in mid-June. After shelter workers responded that they were unable to view the attached photos, Miller immediately sent a second e-mail containing the photos. She never received a reply to the second e-mail.

It wasn’t until mid-July that Jody Miller was able to obtain an answer about the shelter’s decision regarding ownership of the snake. She called the shelter at least once every day after the e-mails were sent. The Millers said the shelter staff failed to return phone calls after the first week of communicating about the snake.

“From then on out they wouldn’t return our phone calls, after it became apparent that we weren’t going to go away,” she said.

Both of the women say they don’t care for snakes, but became determined to reclaim the snake after the shelter was uncooperative.

“It’s the principal of the thing,” Jo Miller said. “The longer this thing went on, the more determined we were to do it. We felt like, ‘This isn’t right. Let’s do something about it.’”

Huntsman denies that the Millers never received returned calls or e-mails. The former shelter director also contacted the Millers when the bill was figured, Huntsman said.

“We responded to them when they finally got a picture to us,” she said.

The Millers got the impression that the shelter didn’t want to return the snake.

“If they are indeed trying to find the owner of this snake, why wouldn’t they be willing to cooperate? ... You would think if it was somebody that persists, you would know that it was their snake,” Jo Miller said. “Why not cooperate and get that snake back so these people don’t have to take care of it. ... If I was going to keep it, that would be different.”

“It was never that they didn’t believe us, but that they were giving us the runaround,” Jody Miller said.

Huntsman said the Millers are wrong.

“If we have an animal, we want to return it to its owner; that’s what we are there for is to put animals back with their owners regardless of what kind of animal they are,” she said. “... We never did aim to keep the snake.

Whenever an animal comes in, that is our main hope, that an owner comes in and claims it.”

As time went on, the bill to care for the snake has increased. The bill of $131, which continues to rise since it was first figured in mid-July, is based on the cost of food, care and a terrarium.

“The longer they take to pick it up, the more it will be,” Huntsman said.

The shelter already had a tank, but it was cracked on the bottom and unsafe for the snake, Huntsman said.

“The majority of the cost is for food and care. We would charge that to anybody,” Huntsman said.

The bill wouldn’t be so high if the snake was returned when the Millers first went to claim it days after it was found.

“It should have never gone that long,” Jo Miller said.

Jody Miller said she can’t afford the more than $130 to bail the snake out, and is trying to find a way to come up with the money. When it comes to the needs of her children, or paying to get the snake back, Miller said she would rather provide for the children.