# What Do You DWA Keepers Think Of This Then?



## The Python Kid (Jun 1, 2009)

As you've probably seen there is talk on the forums of large snakes being added onto a DWA lost due to a recent incident involving an unaccompanied burmese python attacking a local domestic cat.
Most people really don't want this to happen.
Because not all burm, retic and conda keepers are irresponsible - in the UK anyway! :lol2:



So, please help and sign the petition to keep these lovley animals off the DWA and also - your views please.

Many thanks.
Josh




*Here we are:*
*http://www.gopetition.com/online/30076.html*


----------



## Incubuss (Dec 19, 2006)

I have already signed it : victory:

As for my thoughts. . .I think it's silly, and the chances of it happening are very little. The amount of people who already keep these snakes is going to make it very hard, or even impossible to inforce.

All it is, is one guy who is still pee'd off about his cat being eaten. after a bit of time, it will all be shoved under the carpet (not the python, lol).

Also, he has asked for all pythons and boas to be on the dwa list. This is silly, and proves he has done no research what so ever. After all, how many cats do think the average childrens python has consumed?


----------



## The Python Kid (Jun 1, 2009)

Yeah
But what he dosn't understand is just because his neigbourh is an irrisponsible snake owner - it dosn't mean everyone else is
:devil:


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

I think large boids are, in many ways, *more* dangerous than venomous snakes. I say this only because.. if you are bitten by a venomous snake in this country you _usually_ have ample time to seek medical attention and survive the bite (regardless of how many missing digits you may obtain in the process...) however should a large constrictor latch on.. thats it.. your buggered.

I personally think its only a matter of time before some chav (sorry to be steriotypical) who thinks hes 'cool' to have a large boid and become complacent and voila... someone in the UK dies... 

I dont really agree with DWA licencing in this country as it is so flawed and in many cases (such as my own) its just not practical for me to have a licence seen as i am in rented accommodation. However i would love to keep many species that fall into the DWA category and (without blowing my own horn) i feel i could keep them safely and for the right reasons. 

But yeah.. this is a very long way of saying i think large boids should be restricted but not necessarily added to DWA...

:whistling2:


----------



## excession (Apr 11, 2009)

I think the fact that just _ANYONE_ can walk into a pet shop and walk out 5 mins later with a foot long Burmese is just plan wrong.

I think there should be some guidance in place regarding the sale of the massive pythons and indeed the larger boas, but I dont feel they should be full DWA. I think there is some middle ground somewhere for this.


----------



## The Python Kid (Jun 1, 2009)

I agree that pet shops should have some sense and authority with who can buy what - but - yeah - a full DWA :censor:


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

chondro13 said:


> I think large boids are, in many ways, *more* dangerous than venomous snakes. I say this only because.. if you are bitten by a venomous snake in this country you _usually_ have ample time to seek medical attention and survive the bite (regardless of how many missing digits you may obtain in the process...) however should a large constrictor latch on.. thats it.. your buggered.
> 
> I personally think its only a matter of time before some chav (sorry to be steriotypical) who thinks hes 'cool' to have a large boid and become complacent and voila... someone in the UK dies...
> 
> ...


out of interest what makes you believe you usually have "ample time" to seek medial attention? and what makes you think a large constrictor having latched on makes you buggered?

yes large constrictors are dangerous - and therefore need respect, and certain practices to prevent a potential accident - but not nearly as dangerous as venomous snakes and whats more they require (in my opinion) less protocols to keep you safe


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

carpy said:


> out of interest what makes you believe you usually have "ample time" to seek medial attention? and what makes you think a large constrictor having latched on makes you buggered?
> 
> yes large constrictors are dangerous - and therefore need respect, and certain practices to prevent a potential accident - but not nearly as dangerous as venomous snakes and whats more they require (in my opinion) less protocols to keep you safe



I agree that large constrictors require less protocols to keep you safe. 

There are few venomous snakes in peoples collections that have venom that works fast enough to stop you calling the emergency services and to cause death (in normal, healthy people) before help arrives should a bite occur. If your alone dealing with a pissy boid and it constricts you, there is no getting out of this. 

I agree venomous snakes should be restricted in the way they currently are. Also i think if you want to keep large constrictors you should be vetted in a similar way to DWA but perhaps the requirements should be less extreme than DWA as - as you say - they require less protocols in order for the keeper and the public to be kept safe. Just my 2p.


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

maybe you would be amazed to see the availability of for example Bitis gabonica, dendroaspis etc then. i would consider their venom to be really rather "fast acting" to put it bluntly - high toxicity combined with a potentially very large amount of injected venom certainly would make it "fast acting"!


----------



## herpfreakuk (Jun 29, 2009)

i think they should NOT be on dwa, i just think that the person going to buy a large snake should be heavily questioned before hand


----------



## leptophis (May 24, 2007)

I dont know why you put this question to dwa keepers, if a dwa person needs to get them added it would be much easier, than someone who has to start from scratch, this is not a new argument and has been going on longer than 10 years, it is almost unenforceable, trying to get criteria for venomous is hard enough let alone boids, personally i do think theres an argument for it but i also believe it will never happen due to the complexities and enforcement problems, also the question of what happens to the snakes caught in the net if it did become this way.


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

carpy said:


> maybe you would be amazed to see the availability of for example Bitis gabonica, dendroaspis etc then. i would consider their venom to be really rather "fast acting" to put it bluntly - high toxicity combined with a potentially very large amount of injected venom certainly would make it "fast acting"!


I thought gaboons had (relatively) low toxicity in comparison to most commonly kept species? (Do please correct me here if i am mistaken) However the fact that they inject best part of a tablespoon full is probably going to do you no favors regardless of venom potency :whistling2: 

I stand by what i said - if your tagged by one, yes your going to be in an intense amount of pain and will be in real trouble, however you DO have time to alert the emergency services and have a better chance of surviving this than you do should a boid constrict you if your on your own (which is what we are discussing here.)


----------



## WW** (Jan 20, 2008)

If you get bitten by most venomous snakes, you have several hours for something to be done about it. If you find yourself in the coils of a very large python, you are dead in a minute or two. 

The likelihood of getting bitten by a venomous snake is obviously much greater than that of being constricted by a python or anaconda, which is why they aren't on the DWA whereas venomous are. 

As always, the trouble with the DWA is its "one size fits all" approach, where the same rules apply irrespective of whether you want to keep an adder or a black mamba. There would be a good case for some kind of "DWA-Lite" set of regulations for large constrictors as well as perhaps some lesser venomous species - basically the kinds of animals that don't threaten the entire neighbourhood, but that you don't want kids to mess with either - that does not carry with it the extremely onerous requirements of a current DWA licence.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I guess there are situations where a venomous snake could down you in a couple of minutes, but as a general rule you are going to have some amount of time to get sorted and call an ambulance, I remember Ray Hunter getting bitten by that big EDB last year and he was unconcious in about 15mins.


----------



## Sid.lola (Jan 10, 2008)

chondro13 said:


> But yeah.. this is a very long way of saying i think large boids should be restricted but not necessarily added to DWA...
> 
> :whistling2:


That's what I think. They should have an seperate license, just a form you have to fill in to register as a big boid keeper and show that you're aware of their needs and capabilities before you can get one.


----------



## Declan123 (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't think large constrictors should be on DWAL,

But.

I feel that there should be some kind of lisence, or "test" just to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry getting one,

But..

You can get pretty much anything when you know the right people, and for how many large constrictors are about in the UK, getting one, would be pretty simple, even if lisences were needed.


Therefore, 

I can't personally see them ever going on a lisence.


----------



## metallica fish (May 5, 2009)

excession said:


> I think the fact that just _ANYONE_ can walk into a pet shop and walk out 5 mins later with a foot long Burmese is just plan wrong.
> 
> I think there should be some guidance in place regarding the sale of the massive pythons and indeed the larger boas, but I dont feel they should be full DWA. I think there is some middle ground somewhere for this.


the pet shop round the corner from me would let anyone walk out with a snake like that. you have to know what your talking about and you get asked loads of questions. im sure this accident will make more pet shops like that too.


----------



## bignosesmum (Feb 29, 2008)

The DWA is primarily there for public safety, i am amazed that VERY LARGE snakes are not already listed as they could potentially kill a human if they got loose. There are many species listed that would be far less dangerous so it surely makes sense to include these??

As for it causing problems for current keepers, if the enclosure and security is sufficient and the owner is responsible they shouldnt have any problems aquiring one.

The one remaining factor is obviously the cost of licence, insurance and vet inspection.


----------



## cordylidae (Nov 2, 2008)

there should be as said like a dwa 'lite' for these and rearfanged venomous snakes


----------



## exotic_girl (Dec 11, 2008)

i think that they SHOULD be on DWA, but before you all go mental at me, wait.... lol 

not necassirly a full DWA, just restricitions. If you walk into a pet shop and see a snake, want to buy it then hear you need a DWAL, most people think, oh shit, cannot be bothered with that. However, if they hear they are just restricted, it doesnt usually stop them. 

End of day, if you are a responsible keeper and keen enthusuast, a little thing like a license shouldnt bother people. 

Its not about the fact that they shouldnt be kept as pets or nothing like that, its just i dont beleive that just ANYONE should have them. If idiots buy boa constrictors then abandon them coz they get too big, what about Burms? 

I think if they are licensed then there will be alot less abandoned or neglected snakes and less accidents like the ones we hear off. 

If a neighbours snake ate my cat (not that i have one) i would go mental too. i think the owners of this cat that was eaten are fully justified in what they were doing. I know alot of people dont like cats, but it was still soemones pet, and if the snake was being properly cared for, instead of being left alone in the back garden, it would ever have happened, which brings me back to the fact that anyone can buy them. 

I dont think something as simple as filling in a form is good enough, i could fill out a form and say im a responsible dog owner, then go home and beat my dog around the head with a metal pole.


----------



## Piraya1 (Feb 26, 2007)

I feel safer being chased by my gabby than holding a large boid.


----------



## darren81 (Aug 13, 2009)

Not all pet shops are so bad, when i went tp get common boa she asked me as lot of questions about size of viv and care.

She made me explain to her ratyher just tell me give me the snake and go.

She had a burmese herself but would never have one in the shop, but im sure for the right person she would soon get one.


----------



## Richcymru (Nov 21, 2008)

I agree that the sale of large constrictors needs to be restricted. But one problem I see, is that if they are licensed, will the law distinguish between a dwarf retic/burm and the larger forms? If not it would be equatable to putting domestic cats on the dwa with lions!


----------



## Josh-sama (Sep 26, 2008)

Well, BEKS has aims regarding this situation. Hopefully to be able to recruit the support of shops and breeders to utilise a code of conduct when selling these larger boids.

BEKS - Educating Britain About Everything Exotic

Sorting Aims out as it is lol.


----------



## MilkMan (Aug 1, 2009)

I'm not native to the UK, although I will be living in the UK so my experience is based on, what is happening in the US.

I feel as though their should be restrictions in keeping larger boids, because many people get them as a status symbol, or think "They are cute now..." and many other excuses that they can think of.

However look around at rescues, look around here, or there surely you can see a problem with them being sold as freely as they are, and would hopefully want some sort of protection on 1.) the species, we are talking about. and 2.) Your hobby in general.

You guys have it lucky now, but would you rather not have requirements now, or would you rather just wait until things go to hell, and face what those in the US are?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Perhaps we could put some perspective to this argument. Today it is estimated there are more reptiles kept as pets, than dogs. Each year in excess of 60,000 people are treated in hospital for dog bites, of these 1,000 will be classified as serious. Over 100 people will be permanently disfigured and 3-7 will die, 60% of these incidents happen to children – this is each and every year. There has not be a single death or serious injury caused by a non-native reptile in the passed 100 years – these are the facts. 

Well over 300,000 pythons and boas kept in the UK today, and we have never had an incident [ever] demonstrates very clearly just how safe these animals are. The addition of large constrictors to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act was considered in 1976 and rejected, it was considered again in 1984 and rejected, and again it was rejected in the most recent review, 2007. 

The Dangerous Wild Animals Act is there to protect the public from ‘dangerous wild animals’. The evidence that these animals pose a threat to the general public is negligible, therefore it is highly unlikely that government will reconsider this issue again simply because of a single irresponsible cat owner! 

The keeping of any animal as a pet, including cats, is a reasonability. The Animal Welfare Act, 2006, introduced a duty of care, again this applies to cat owners as much as python owners. Is it a responsible action for a cat owner to allow there animal to roam!


----------

