Homeowners Wake Up at 2 A.M. to Discover Snake Slipping into Sewage Pipes — and Have to Force the Reptile Through Their Toilet

Yahoo! News - May 3rd, 2025

In an unusual incident in South East Queensland, Australia, a carpet python was discovered stuck in a sewage pipe beneath a toilet in the early hours of Tuesday, April 29. The snake, humorously nicknamed 'Pooey,' was successfully extracted by professional snake catcher Tim Hudson in a delicate operation. The extraction, which took place at 2:00 a.m., involved carefully maneuvering the snake through the toilet without causing it any harm. Hudson documented the extraction process on Facebook, sharing both footage and photos of the incident. The snake was later seen slithering across the bathroom floor, unharmed and presumably relieved.

The incident highlights the unique challenges of living in areas where wildlife often intersects with human habitation. Carpet pythons, although non-venomous, are common in Queensland and can occasionally find themselves in unusual situations, as evidenced by this encounter. The story underscores the importance of professional wildlife handling in maintaining safety and harmony between humans and local fauna. It also serves as a reminder of the surprises that can arise in everyday life, particularly in regions known for their diverse wildlife. Hudson's successful extraction of the python not only ensured the snake's well-being but also provided a fascinating glimpse into the unexpected interactions between humans and nature.

Australia Queensland Carpet Python Tim Hudson Snake Extraction Wildlife Rescue Human Wildlife Interaction

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides an intriguing account of a snake encounter in a residential area, supported by credible details and a clear narrative. Its strengths lie in the accuracy of the reported facts and the engaging subject matter, which captures readers' attention. However, the story could benefit from a broader range of perspectives and greater transparency in sourcing. While it holds some public interest, particularly in regions prone to similar incidents, its impact is limited by the lack of depth and context. Overall, the article is a well-written piece that informs readers about an unusual event but falls short of driving significant public discourse or policy change.

Accuracy

The story appears to be largely accurate, with several verifiable elements. The location and date of the incident are specified as South East Queensland, Australia, on April 29. The type of snake is identified as a carpet python, and the involvement of a professional snake catcher, Tim Hudson, is clearly stated. These details are consistent with typical practices in the region, where snakes are common and often handled by professionals. However, the article does not provide independent verification of these claims, such as external confirmation from local authorities or additional witnesses. The lack of such corroboration slightly detracts from the overall verifiability.

Balance

The article maintains a neutral tone, focusing on reporting the facts of the incident without apparent bias. However, it predominantly presents the perspective of the snake catcher, Tim Hudson, without including viewpoints from the family involved or other potential stakeholders, such as wildlife experts. This singular perspective limits the scope of the narrative and might omit other relevant insights or experiences related to the incident.

Clarity

The article is well-written, with clear and concise language that effectively conveys the story. The structure is logical, beginning with the incident's details and following with the extraction process. The tone remains neutral and factual, enhancing comprehension. However, the inclusion of unrelated promotional content for the PEOPLE App disrupts the narrative flow and could confuse readers.

Source quality

The primary source of information is Tim Hudson, a professional snake catcher, whose expertise lends credibility to the story. However, the article lacks a diversity of sources, such as comments from the homeowners or wildlife authorities, which could enhance the story's reliability. The reliance on a single source raises questions about potential bias and the completeness of the information presented.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its information-gathering process. It does not disclose how the information was obtained or whether any attempts were made to verify the claims independently. Additionally, there is no discussion of potential conflicts of interest or the context in which the snake catcher operates, which could affect readers' understanding of the story's impartiality.