Florida man will trade pizza for pythons 9%

By Andrew Paul22%

7/15/2026, 1:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and False Dilemma, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 13% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 459 faulty-reasoning hits from 376 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.7% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,980 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.30% of the article peer group.

We are almost halfway through the 2026 Florida Python Challenge , which means plenty of snakes have likely already been dispatched by this year’s hunters. 
But what do you do with the body of a recently disposed, 15-foot-long Burmese python ( Python bivitattus ), let alone multiple snake carcasses? 
There are plenty of options, but only one place is accepting pythons as payment for pizza. 
In Everglades City, about 75 miles west of Miami, a restaurant called Wildman’s Pizza, Pasta, and Python will take customers’ recently (and humanely) killed snakes in exchange for menu items. 
According to the establishment’s owner, Dustin Crum, it’s a fair deal for both parties—visitors get fed, and Crum gets supplies for his business. 
“We do python toppings, python pizza, iguana, you know, whatever,” he recently told NBC Miami . 
“The fat I use to make the snake oils for the skin, creams, soap,” Crum said. 
“The bones we make jewelry, everything gets used.” 
Burmese pythons have increasingly strained the region’s native ecosystem since their introduction into the Everglades during the 1970s. 
Conservationists estimate 100,000–300,000 snakes currently live in Florida, where they are essentially apex predators against local wildlife populations. 
Pregnant females routinely lay around 70 eggs at a time, while adult pythons regularly reach around 13-feet-long. 
The Florida Python Challenge debuted in 2013 and intermittently returned over the next few years before becoming an annual event in 2020. 
More than 900 participants signed up for last year’s Python Challenge, and potentially as many are currently scouring for snakes amid the 2026 competition. 
A $10,000 prize will be awarded to the person who nabs the most snakes, with another $15,000 doled out across other categories. 
But whether or not you deliver a python to Crum’s doorstep, don’t expect to try paying for a python pizza in cash. 
Florida health regulations prevent the actual sale of snake-topped slices. 
“Yeah, I can’t sell that stuff, I just gotta give it away for free,” Crum explained. 
Aspiring hunters can still sign up for the Florida Python Challenge after completing an online training course. 
The event ends at 5 p.m. 
EDT on July 19. 
The post Florida man will trade pizza for pythons appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Andrew Paul: 3.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 3.2%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Andrew Paul: 6.7%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias8.8%This article: 5.9%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias5.9%This article: 11.2%Andrew Paul: 4.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias11.2%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Andrew Paul: 1.6%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.3%Andrew Paul: 5.5%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority9.3%This article: 10.6%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma10.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.0%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization13.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.8%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.3%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading4.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.3%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice4.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

376 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers33%attributed speech252writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWildman’s Pizza, Pasta, and Python • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDustin Crum • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDustin Crum • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDustin Crum • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDustin Crum • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDustin Crum • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coveragePopular Science • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dustin Crum

80%flagged-word coverage
79 attributed words64% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+20.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dustin Crum: 20.3%20.3%Attempt to Sell a Product +20.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dustin Crum: 20.3%20.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.