Snakes in Sioux Falls? (Rapid City, Pierre: neighborhood, middle school, live in)

[Jammie]

You're definitely right though about them congregating to specific houses. Not long ago there was an article in the paper where a couple had bought a house. It was out in the country and had an acreage with it. The new owners had found 3 bullhissers in their house during a short amount of time and found them in the yard, too. They were suing the previous owner for not giving full disclosure and wanted him to take the house back since they'd already taken their children and moved. They lost the case because the previous owner said he'd only had one in the house in the ten years he'd lived there.

Many years ago, there was a gal who was water skiing out at Chamberlain and she was attacked by rattlers. She passed away before they got her to shore. I believe it was a very dry year and they figured that's what enraged them so badly.

I'm not saying this to scare your wife (or anyone) because if you live right in Sx. Falls, you shouldn't have any problems. I just don't want to give the impression that there have NEVER been any problems with them.

[leroyleroux]

Are you talking about that court case in Mobridge, Jammie. I used to live out there, and know one of the parties involved.

[rjl78]

As I was out and about this morning I was needing to turn on an irrigation valve. Look down into the valve box to check for creepy crawly critters.

[Jammie]

Originally Posted by leroyleroux

Are you talking about that court case in Mobridge, Jammie. I used to live out there, and know one of the parties involved.

That could be it!!! I don't remember exactly where it was, but it was in a smaller town in So. Dak. It was a case that just hit the papers recently~maybe in the last month or so.

If we're talking about the same story, what's your opinion on it? Do you know the specific house?

[leroyleroux]

Sounds like we are on the same page:

#24895 TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2009 - NO. 2 McCollam et al. V. Cahill

Kelly and Michelle McCollam entered into a contract for deed with Neil Cahill to purchase Cahill’s property. McCollams contend that they should be allowed to rescind the contract because Cahill did not properly disclose an alleged “snake problem” on the property. Cahill counter-sued for specific performance of the contract for deed. The trial court granted Cahill’s request for specific performance. McCollams now appeal.

During the summer of 2005, McCollams purchased a house near Mobridge, South Dakota from Cahill. After taking possession of the property, McCollams alleged that they began to see bull snakes in and around the house. A few days after moving into the house, McCollams testified that they encountered a snake in the hallway on the main level of the house. In addition, McCollams testified that two weeks later another snake was found in the middle of the living room floor. McCollams testified that additional snakes were found in the garage, around the house, and on the property. In July of 2006, McCollams ceased monthly payments on the property and did not remit $100,000, as required by the contract. On October 24, 2006, McCollams commenced an action for rescission of the contract.

As part of the sale of property, South Dakota requires the seller to complete a disclosure statement. The disclosure statement includes several questions about the property including the existence of defects, damage, or termite infestations. The questions include a general inquiry as follows: “Are there any other problems that have not been disclosed above?” McCollams contend that this inquiry required Cahill to disclose snake problems.

After hearing evidence from both parties, the court determined that between 1973 and 2005, Cahill only discovered one bull snake in the house. Other witnesses testified on Cahill’s behalf that Cahill kept the property and the lawn in very good condition and that they saw few snakes on the property. The court determined that McCollams only saw two snakes in the house and that some snakes were seen in the yard in 2006. The court further discounted testimony of one of McCollams’ witnesses who claimed he had seen numerous snakes in the basement when Cahill owned the house.

The trial court concluded that McCollams had failed to prove that Cahill had knowledge of an alleged “snake problem” and that discovering one bull snake in the house during Cahill’s thirty year occupancy was not a disclosure required by law. The court denied McCollams’ request for rescission and granted Cahill’s application for specific performance. McCollams raise two issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court properly denied rescission of the contract for deed.

2. Whether the trial court properly granted specific performance of the contract for deed.

Mr. John W. Burke, Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants, Kelly B. McCollam and Michelle M. McCollam

Mr. Kennith L. Gosch, Ms. Melissa E. Neville, Attorneys for Defendant and Appellee, Neil D. Cahill

I knew of Mr. Cahill when I lived there, but didn't meet him. He lived on the outskirts of town in a nice house up on a hill. There are bullsnakes up there, but are welcomed, because they keep the rattlers away. I don't know how anyone could prove Mr. Cahill wrong if there were snakes, kind of have to take him at his word, I guess. I just know that I could not live in a house like that.

And to the original poster, don't worry about this. It is far from Sioux Falls, and you probably wouldn't find either kind of snake near there.

[heather.kruk]

I grew up in a small town in SW Minnesota not too far from Sioux Falls and the only time I ever saw snakes was in fields and they were just plain old garter snakes which are completely harmless. I'm petrified of snakes, too, but I really do not think you are going to be seeing any in your yard.

[g33kgrl]

yikes.. I shouldn't have read this whole thing .. now I'm going to have nightmares of snakes tonight LOL!

[Jammie]

Just read something pretty horrifying~

Autopsy shows 2-year-old attacked by python died of asphyxiation - St. Petersburg Times

[debey]

Originally Posted by Jammie

Just read something pretty horrifying~

Autopsy shows 2-year-old attacked by python died of asphyxiation - St. Petersburg Times

http://www.city-data.com/forum/other...so-tragic.html

[Camden Northsider]

just a note about snakes- my wife is horrified of snakes and seems to be concerned about my choice of plants/ landscaping as a result of it which caused me to do some research.

The more "urban" of an environment you live in, especially the distance between your home in Sioux Falls and the country, will decrease the chances of you ever seeing or having to deal with snakes. You might (very infrequently) have some very random encounters with garter snakes (small, harmless snakes) while in a park or something but even those are few and far between. When we lived in small towns in eastern SD, we were much more likely to see garter snakes pretty often (and really, 99% of the time seeing any snakes in eastern SD they were garters) in our yard/ neighborhood than at anytime in Sioux Falls- most snakes don't do well in and avoid any urbanized areas.

With that said, there are a few things that I have heard will attract snakes to your house/yard that you may want to avoid.
1) don't have any water features/ ponds in your yard- water tends to attract snakes
2) I'm not sure of the accuracy of this- but supposedly ferns or ferns planted right up next to the house will attract snakes (but maybe any greenery/ grass that's tall next to a house or structure will do this, not sure)- so you may want to avoid creating nice habitats like this and make sure to mow your lawn regularly.

But really, you've got nothing much to worry about at all- I lived in SF for about 12 years or so and I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think I ever saw a snake there, and if I did, it was in a park area or area that was sparsely populated. Good luck-