# Dwa ancondas



## bEnNy THE BeArDeD (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi just a quick question does anyone no if ancondas are on the dwa list becouse they are very aggresive but not venmous so im not sure


----------



## Hopeinthedark (Aug 16, 2008)

Nope they're not


----------



## bbav (Oct 17, 2007)

No none of the large snakes are on DWA.


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

bbav said:


> No none of the large snakes are on DWA.


 
in my personal opinion they should be? It may make some begnners think twice although they should anyways.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

they dont need to be on dwa, it jus takes shops and breeders to be more responsible about who they sell to, any1 buying 1 should be able to prove they have done their homework and have experience with large snakes


----------



## bbav (Oct 17, 2007)

I agree large snakes don't need to be on DWA but breeders/rep shops should be more careful about who they sell to.I think this has been discussed on here before but can't find the thread at the mo.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

seen this sorta topic a few times, its more the likes of burmese and retics that need regulating as u dnt see anacondas available as much


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

Ooooh, I can feel a "discussion" coming here............I agree that shops should be more careful with who they sell any of the "big 4" to, but when shops are in the business to make money, there's always going to be the one down the road that'll quite happily take the money from the person who's just been refused an Anaconda or suchlike because he/she hasn't a clue


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

stuartdouglas said:


> Ooooh, I can feel a "discussion" coming here............I agree that shops should be more careful with who they sell any of the "big 4" to, but when shops are in the business to make money, there's always going to be the one down the road that'll quite happily take the money from the person who's just been refused an Anaconda or suchlike because he/she hasn't a clue


ahh but what do you classify as the big 4?

im guessing its going to be afrock, burm, tic and conda. but what about scrubs, or yellow conda's, or even potentially boa's


----------



## Fangio (Jun 2, 2007)

bEnNy THE BeArDeD said:


> Hi just a quick question does anyone no if ancondas are on the dwa list becouse they are very aggresive but not venmous so im not sure


No constrictor is on the DWAA


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

I was confused, were there four or five? Now I think about it, it should be "the big 5" Afrock, Burm, Annie, Retic' and Scrubbie. Anything with the potential to reach 20' or more is realistically a very dangerous animal if you aren't careful. I'd sooner take my chances with getting a bite from a hot than having one of those give me a kiss and a squeeze in anger


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

yea most people say the big 4 but i have always thought the scrub should be a part of it. 

boa's are a difficult one, they have the potential to get big enough to pose a risk to humans occasionally, but not in most cases. 

the problem is there needs to be some way of regulating the keepers without such stringent measures such as the dwa. a week doesnt pass without me getting offered a rescue burm, tic, afrock, boa or annie


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

tbh, I'm surprised that the big constrictors weren't included in the review of the DWA act last year. Although methinks that they thought it'd be waaaay too much of a headache to track down all the owners of big snakes and make them get a license or get rid of their animal(s)
Let's face it, there have been more deaths from large constrictors (not in the UK) than there have been from captive venomous in recent years. OK, so these were in the US of A, so I guess you could say that it was a bit of a flush through of the gene pool (no offence Habu!!):lol2:


----------



## DavidR (Mar 19, 2008)

Although large constrictors don't appear to pose a major public health problem in this country (judging by the 0 fatalities) I feel there should be some kind of regulation. As Stuart said previously I think I would choose envenomation over constriction (although if the option was there, I'd choose niether!). If you are contricted you are potentially dead in a matter of minutes - there is no antivenom for constriction. 

David.


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

at the same time it could be argued that large constrictors are easy to tame down to the point of them being accustomed to individuals and hapyp to be handled. many regard them as pets (which obviously could result in complacency, something which is very dangerous with animals such as this)

stuart are you sure more people died from captive large constrictors than venomous? that doesnt seem right


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

the prob is with the constrictors they only become potentially lethal after a few years, maybe restricting the sale of them to registered dealers who are monitored? it is a tricky 1


----------



## 118-118 (Dec 16, 2008)

DRACONODON said:


> in my personal opinion they should be? It may make some begnners think twice although they should anyways.


mant has anacondas and their babies not dangerous at all, only dangerous if the person keeping them doesnt know what their doing


----------



## DavidR (Mar 19, 2008)

carpy said:


> at the same time it could be argued that large constrictors are easy to tame down to the point of them being accustomed to individuals and hapyp to be handled. many regard them as pets (which obviously could result in complacency, something which is very dangerous with animals such as this)
> 
> stuart are you sure more people died from captive large constrictors than venomous? that doesnt seem right


'Tameness' isn't an issue from a DWA perspective. The majority of large contrictor 'incidents' involve a feeding reaction. A snake will only constrict if it is planning to eat you, an aggressive snake will just bite. A tame snake is just as likely (if not more) be involved in a feeding accident. 
In an ideal world no regulation would be necessary as owners would have some common sense - unfortunately that is often not the case.

David.


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

DavidR said:


> 'Tameness' isn't an issue from a DWA perspective. The majority of large contrictor 'incidents' involve a feeding reaction. A snake will only constrict if it is planning to eat you, an aggressive snake will just bite. A tame snake is just as likely (if not more) be involved in a feeding accident.
> In an ideal world no regulation would be necessary as owners would have some common sense - unfortunately that is often not the case.
> 
> David.


i don't know i think a major issue with big constrictors is viv defensiveness. if a large constrictor bites its reaction is in my experience then also to constrict in some cases which can cause problems clearly.

i take your ponit though, it is the feeding process that is most dangerous.


----------



## LewisH (Sep 13, 2008)

a 2m long caiman cant kill you. ok technically it could damage a main artery and you could end up bleeding to death, but thats unheard of.

whereas Burms / Retics / and Anacondas can and have killed people.

Personally i think the big 4 should be listed as DWA as they are exactly that. Dangerous Wild Animals.


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

118-118 said:


> mant has anacondas and their babies not dangerous at all, only dangerous if the person keeping them doesnt know what their doing


 
This is true all I meant was that you get a beginner who has had a corn snake for a matter of 6 weeks and then they think they are ready for a burmese or african rock python....

especially children I have seen it many times on this forum and one person put a mathematical certainty like this and I cant remember who it was but it was true


beginner + 1 corn = a beginner + burmese python = catastrophie

now im not saying im expirienced but I have had a few burms and retics come to me as a rscue, but they are rehomed to a new home as soon as possible to someone who has had great expirience starting from square1 .... Because I know I cant handle a fully grown burmese or reticulated python by myself... or any big snake for that matter but I am not prepared to see one be dumped on the streets...
..

All I am saying is there should be some rules and regulations and even a different list for large constrictor snakes. some kind of licence


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

Ive always thought there should be some kind of middle ground - the prob is the legislation is the same for everything - either there is some (dwa) or there isnt.

The biggies are not the same as venemous, but doesnt mean they are safe and I think there does need to be some legislation/licencing but not the same as for a venomous snake.

I agree with Alex a defensive bite from a Boa is very different from a feeding bite and the potential outcomes a whole world apart.

Im not saying that people shouldnt have them, im not saying it should be overly restrictive, I just think it shouldnt be quite so easy.


----------



## AZUK (Jul 9, 2007)

How long is a piece of string ?

If large constrictors were put on the DWAL list then surely we should consider other animals such as powerful Dogs (Rotties, staffs etc).
and while we are at it there are lots of other things that are potentially Dangerous out there ! why not introduce a licence for Ladders ? Irons ? Cars............. the list goes on ...................and on !

We live in a Nanny state as it is.

Animals on the current DWAL list are there for a reason granted but to actively court legislation for non DWAL animals is only asking for a complete Ban or at least restriction on All exotics now commonly kept as Pets !


----------



## SWMorelia (May 15, 2007)

I hate this argument, Should they shouldn't they..... I can see both sides of the coin and they are both valid.....
After thinking long and hard about it, the middle ground has got to be the way forward...
I really would like to see all the big 5 certificated and chipped.... (like a KC sort of thing).

Then the breeders and dealers made accountable for after sales problems......
It's not the best solution I know, but if the buyer and the seller were accountable it may make people think twice about buying them.....


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

i personally dont think anything will change unless there is a serious incident involving a large snake like wev seen in the states, hopefully this wont happen but the growing popularity of keeping exotic pets plus the more frequent stories of large pythons being dumped is making it more likely


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

LewisH said:


> a 2m long caiman cant kill you. ok technically it could damage a main artery and you could end up bleeding to death, but thats unheard of.
> 
> whereas Burms / Retics / and Anacondas can and have killed people.
> 
> Personally i think the big 4 should be listed as DWA as they are exactly that. Dangerous Wild Animals.


A lot of what the DWA act is about is welfare of the animal as well as public protection. Caimans need specialised, often expensive accommodation. There have been cases of caimans being found in bathtubs and paddling pools in unlicensed owners' homes


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

paulrimmer69 said:


> i personally dont think anything will change unless there is a serious incident involving a large snake like wev seen in the states, hopefully this wont happen but the growing popularity of keeping exotic pets plus the more frequent stories of *large pythons being dumped* is making it more likely


There is the key phrase. Maybe they aren't directly as dangerous as hots, but how many times have we seen large constrictors up for rehoming? Only recently on here was a person extolling how he would get a large constrictor then just get rid of it when it got too big. We need to consider the protection of the animal more than that of the cretin that can't handle it..............natural selection anyone?


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

The DWA is so hilariously flawed that I don't think it benefits anyone apart from Council pen pushers pockets. They need adress the DWA problems before adding any more animals onto it, make it less about profit and more about safety and experience. They also need to implement a hierarchy system, adding maybe 3 or 4 levels depending on how dangerous an animal is deemed, you shouldn't be allowed to automatically house anything after purchasing a few scorpions. 

The problem with any licensing is that it is so hard to police, take a look at the very strict gun laws in this country, it has just made the situation far worse because they pointlessly targetted the responsible. And if a ban is in place where are all of these animals going to live? It's hard enough to rehome animals during a recession without this crap. The people who create these laws don't know anything about reptiles (nor care) and this is dangerous for the hobby, they'd sooner destroy them all. 

Mistakes will happen, people are flawed, heck yesterday my 11ft boa bit me on my leg and it was completely my fault. I say lets allow people to stand up and take responsibility rather than allowing more regulation by a government that that would love to put us all on a DNA datebase and use terrorist technology to spy on you putting your bins out.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

stuartdouglas said:


> A lot of what the DWA act is about is welfare of the animal as well as public protection. Caimans need specialised, often expensive accommodation. There have been cases of caimans being found in bathtubs and paddling pools in unlicensed owners' homes


correct but the enclosure needed to house an adult burm or retic isnt cheap either and needs to be well made


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

paulrimmer69 said:


> correct but the enclosure needed to house an adult burm or retic isnt cheap either and needs to be well made


 
my argument is though, you can get a person who has only had a corn snake for 6 weeks and then go out and buy a large constrictor...

thinking they know everything and have had GREAT expirience with a snake


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

DRACONODON said:


> my argument is though, you can get a person who has only had a corn snake for 6 weeks and then go out and buy a large constrictor...
> 
> thinking they know everything and have had GREAT expirience with a snake


 
And so what? Someone who has just passed their test can go out and buy huge and powerful car if they want, cars kill so many from irresponsible drivers it's unbelieveable, lets ban rush hour traffic to limit the number of deaths and ensure young drivers can't go over 40 MPH??? I'll tell you why they will not - money. How can we live in a free society with so many laws governing us in an already modelled out environment?


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

steveyruss said:


> And so what? Someone who has just passed their test can go out and buy huge and powerful car if they want, cars kill so many from irresponsible drivers it's unbelieveable, lets ban rush hour traffic to limit the number of deaths???


 
I am not saying ban them, I am simply saying pet shops should be more careful who they sell the large constrictors too, at least go through what needs to be done in the event of an accident.: victory:


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

which is why i think the sale should be restricted to licensed breeders who can properly vet people who want 1, the better rep shops probably already do but for every good 1 there are probably 10 bad 1s who will sell to any1


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

DRACONODON said:


> I am not saying ban them, I am simply saying pet shops should be more careful who they sell the large constrictors too, at least go through what needs to be done in the event of an accident.: victory:


Oh ok, fair enough, banning them really is pointless, there are literally thousands of them already owned by people so its silly. I'm not giving in my animals because of some Whitehall pen pusher telling me how many snakes I can own or how I should brush my teeth.


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

steveyruss said:


> Oh ok, fair enough, banning them really is pointless, there are literally thousands of them already owned by people so its silly. I'm not giving in my animals because of some Whitehall pen pusher telling me how many snakes I can own or how I should brush my teeth.


 
:lol2:


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

paulrimmer69 said:


> which is why i think the sale should be restricted to licensed breeders who can properly vet people who want 1, the better rep shops probably already do but for every good 1 there are probably 10 bad 1s who will sell to any1


And with that it would be assumed that the breeders would take full responsibility? And that the breeders are responsible themselves despite the business being all about money? Anyone can digest a caresheet, it just doesn't seem to work to me, anyone with more than one snake can breed them how can you stop this.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

steveyruss said:


> Oh ok, fair enough, banning them really is pointless, there are literally thousands of them already owned by people so its silly. I'm not giving in my animals because of some Whitehall pen pusher telling me how many snakes I can own or how I should brush my teeth.


ur right they defo shouldnt be banned as a properly housed and looked after burm or retic is an awesome spectacle, some sort of regulation is needed tho for the welfare of the animals if nothing else


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

LewisH said:


> whereas Burms / Retics / and Anacondas can and have killed people.
> 
> Personally i think the big 4 should be listed as DWA as they are exactly that. Dangerous Wild Animals.


How would you make the legislation differentiate between dwarf retics (which are still _Python reticulatus_) and dwarf burmese (again, still _Python molurus bivittatus_) and their full-sized counterparts? Same species, but localities/morphs that are significantly smaller and probably safer to be around than their mainland siblings.


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

paulrimmer69 said:


> ur right they defo shouldnt be banned as a properly housed and looked after burm or retic is an awesome spectacle, some sort of regulation is needed tho for the welfare of the animals if nothing else


There will be a ban eventually I think, it will only take one death and we'll get a knee-jerk reaction with a hint of bad publicity, there are too many people who have an irrational fear of snakes. 

Constrictors for the most part are not in the same league as venomous and they shouldn't be regulated in the same manner. I've ****ed up endless amount of times with constrictors and come away with bites from big snakes but I've never come close to being fatally injured, for the most part large constrictors are quite safe with common sense, you just really need to be careful with feeding. With venomous you only need to make one mistake with the nearest antivenom somewhere in Africa .... and that is it. Also it is worth pointing out that there is no guarantee what size even a 'big 5' is going to get, Anaconda's could take frigging years to go to a decent size and most male constrictors are managable and clearly incapable of killing an adult even if they wanted. I know it sounds as if I'm playing down the dangers here but there have been ZERO deaths so far inside the UK and some complete tools purchasing animals that they are incapable of looking after.


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> How would you make the legislation differentiate between dwarf retics (which are still _Python reticulatus_) and dwarf burmese (again, still _Python molurus bivittatus_) and their full-sized counterparts? Same species, but localities/morphs that are significantly smaller and probably safer to be around than their mainland siblings.


They wouldn't differentiate at all, these types of laws are created by people who know nothing about them.


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

steveyruss said:


> There will be a ban eventually I think, it will only take one death and we'll get a knee-jerk reaction with a hint of bad publicity, there are too many people who have an irrational fear of snakes.
> 
> Constrictors for the most part are not in the same league as venomous and they shouldn't be regulated in the same manner. I've ****ed up endless amount of times with constrictors and come away with bites from big snakes but I've never come close to being fatally injured, for the most part large constrictors are quite safe with common sense, you just really need to be careful with feeding. With venomous you only need to make one mistake with the nearest antivenom somewhere in Africa .... and that is it. Also it is worth pointing out that there is no guarantee what size even a 'big 5' is going to get, Anaconda's could take frigging years to go to a decent size and most male constrictors are managable and clearly incapable of killing an adult even if they wanted. I know it sounds as if I'm playing down the dangers here but there have been ZERO deaths so far inside the UK and some complete tools purchasing animals that they are incapable of looking after.


 
yeh but there are too many reptile keepers and we are constantly growing every day... we would only need to protest or sign a form saying it shouldnt happen though....


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

paulrimmer69 said:


> which is why i think the sale should be restricted to licensed breeders who can properly vet people who want 1, the better rep shops probably already do but for every good 1 there are probably 10 bad 1s who will sell to any1


 
There is no such thing as a licenced breeder.
Certificates and microchips will also achieve nothing other than being able to prove where the animal came from. The seller or breeder will never be held accountable for any death or injury caused so this idea is pointless.

Personally, I feel that keepers need to be very careful about the seemingly constant demand for these snakes to be put onto the DWA. It would be all too easy to legislate the keeping of all exotics. Would you want to have to fill out loads of forms and pay huge fees just to keep a corn snake?

The big problem is what would happen to the thousands of large constrictors currently kept in the UK if they were covered by the DWA. The costs and restrictions are substantial. Only a very small handful of keepers would get a licence, so, what happens to the rest? They would have to be rehoused, but private licenced keepers would not be able to take many. Zoos would take a few, but again, space is limited. So, there are then only 3 options, all of which will ultimately lead to the same result - the unnessecary death of a healthy animal. The first is to keep them anyway. But how long will you be able to keep a 15 foot snake without anyone knowing? You will get caught out, the snake will be seized, you get a huge fine, and the snake gets destroyed. The next option is to release it. Clearly, it won't survive long, so will die. Or will be found, and then destroyed. And you get a criminal record due to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The final option is to have the animal destroyed.

So you can see, it will never happen. There are too many problems. You only need to look at the big cat issue, caused as a direct result of the DWA being introduced in 1976, keepers of big cats could not afford the fees and cost of housing, so released them, hence the regular sightings in various parts of the country.


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

LewisH said:


> a 2m long caiman cant kill you. ok technically it could damage a main artery and you could end up bleeding to death, but thats unheard of.
> 
> whereas Burms / Retics / and Anacondas can and have killed people.
> 
> Personally i think the big 4 should be listed as DWA as they are exactly that. Dangerous Wild Animals.


if i were to put you in an enclosure with a 2M caiman im pretty sure if the mood took it the ability is there for it to kill or seriously injure you. a fair few dwa listed venomous snakes are not as dangerous as a 2M long caiman.

by contrast, and having worked with a number of large constrictors, the only danger is with an aggressive animal, viv defensiveness, and as Stuart pointed out feeding mistakes. these can be dealt with by people with moderate experience, in contrast with a 2m aggressive caiman which requires alot of experience.


----------



## itubagus (Sep 2, 2007)

DRACONODON said:


> ...we would only need to protest or sign a form saying it shouldnt happen though....



haha, your joking right?


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

itubagus said:


> haha, your joking right?


 
I was being sarcastic:whistling2:


----------



## itubagus (Sep 2, 2007)

DRACONODON said:


> I was being sarcastic:whistling2:


thank .... for that.:thumb:


----------



## bEnNy THE BeArDeD (Sep 15, 2008)

I think they should be really becouse there are one of the largest snake and not really a pet snake that you would want if you was in the right mind!!


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

bEnNy THE BeArDeD said:


> I think they should be really becouse there are one of the largest snake and not really a pet snake that you would want if you was in the right mind!!


forgive me from for asking the question, but do you have any experience with large snakes?


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

bEnNy THE BeArDeD said:


> I think they should be really becouse there are one of the largest snake and not really a pet snake that you would want if you was in the right mind!!


I'm sorry, but what the ****?


----------



## 118-118 (Dec 16, 2008)

bEnNy THE BeArDeD said:


> I think they should be really becouse there are one of the largest snake and not really a pet snake that you would want if you *was* in the right mind!!


????

sums it up really.


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

hmmm....


----------



## DRACONODON (Apr 28, 2008)

there is nothing wrong with big snakes being in the correct hands... I disagree with a ban on them altogether, there should however be some more care into who the snakes are sold too.

The snakes are dangerouse and at the end of the day respect is the main key... you need to be aware of what such a snake can do and what it will do if given the chance... always be prepared and know what to do in a case of a tragety .


----------



## Alex27 (Jul 26, 2008)

LewisH said:


> a 2m long caiman cant kill you. ok technically it could damage a main artery and you could end up bleeding to death, but thats unheard of.
> 
> whereas Burms / Retics / and Anacondas can and have killed people.
> 
> Personally i think the big 4 should be listed as DWA as they are exactly that. Dangerous Wild Animals.


if they are put on dwa and it is compulsary for keepers to get a license then they need to make a dwa room get all protocalls sorted ect and it allows them to obtain venemous snakes ect


----------



## sage999 (Sep 21, 2008)

The problem is where the line would be drawn. The DWA list is a mess right now. I guarentee that if large constricors were put on there then the list would not stop at the big four and many snakes that we would consider safe would be added. I'm in favour of a simple registration system to help discourage very young keepers from owning these snakes and to ban pet shops from selling to under 18s.


----------



## Jade01 (Feb 21, 2007)

sage999 said:


> The problem is where the line would be drawn. The DWA list is a mess right now. I guarentee that if large constricors were put on there then the list would not stop at the big four and many snakes that we would consider safe would be added. I'm in favour of a simple registration system to help discourage very young keepers from owning these snakes and to ban pet shops from selling to under 18s.


 
Yeah I agree with that one, having a ban or DWA put on them would be impracticle and far to much hassle for everyone, and i'm talking about the people who would have to enforce the liscences. Imagine the upraw!


----------



## bEnNy THE BeArDeD (Sep 15, 2008)

yh sorry that was my view but then again i dont have big snakes so sorry if i upset anyone forgive me


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

I don't think you upset anyone. It's true the whole system is a complete mess. It would be far more practicable to have a "tiered" system for DWA's with standard requirements in terms of housing, security, age and experience for each tier.
Big constrictors should be regulated, but that is something that responsible shop owners and breeders *should* be doing anyway, unfortunately the only way to prevent irresponsible folks from selling them to unsuitable people would necessitate regulating the whole thing to the point of ruining it for everyone...and you still wouldn't stop unscrupulous breeders and sellers, you'd only punish the law abiding, much the same as every legislation this country brings into play


----------



## Mason (Jan 21, 2008)

bEnNy THE BeArDeD said:


> I think they should be really becouse there are one of the largest snake and not really a pet snake that you would want if you was in the right mind!!


Get out of the pool muppet.


----------



## Mwoxy (Sep 22, 2008)

I couldn't bring myself to read all of this thread, as it really does not need discussing endlessly again.

The FBH and others fought long and hard to get some common sense applied to the DWAA.

They also fought the likes of the RSPCA who wanted constrictors put onto the list.

Please remember the DWAA is not to protect keepers, it is to protect the general public should an animal escape. 

Correct practices and the current legislation are more than adequate. 

It is quite likely that any large constrictor species would have either died or been disposed of by the vast majority of "unsuitable keepers", well before they reached a size to be of concern!!

It's about time exotic keepers pulled together rather than trying to destroy the hobby from within!!

Peace and love: victory:


----------



## chimpy666 (Jan 2, 2007)

Mason said:


> Get out of the pool muppet.



Seconded Mason, nice opinion by Benny but wrong :bash: !


----------



## paraman (Oct 27, 2007)

chimpy666 said:


> Seconded Mason, nice opinion by Benny but wrong :bash: !


I'm more worried that a reptile shop owner had to ask in the first place!


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

off topic but paraman - why the name. are you in the para's or do you justl ike paragliding/ parachuting


----------



## paraman (Oct 27, 2007)

carpy said:


> off topic but paraman - why the name. are you in the para's or do you justl ike paragliding/ parachuting


Ex para ( 2 squadron RAF Regiment), still into paragliding when the weather allows


----------



## fritz (Dec 20, 2008)

a friend of mine who bought a burm as his first snake by the time the snake was one my mate was actually going to dump the snake in a forest... i took it off him and homed it but the thing a lot of people dont realise is yes they are small and cute as hatchlings but these snakes grow into huge and possibly dangerous animals... its all about poeple doing reshearch into what they are buying!! ( sorry about the spelling )


----------



## benzss (Dec 19, 2008)

I'm not sure how changing the current rules would do much except penalise legitimate keepers of large constrictors. Furthermore, if statistics are to be believed pet snakes in this country are less dangerous than a pet dog; on the flip side, all it takes is one irresponsible owner of a large python and a death of an infant or teenager for the government to come crashing down on reptile keeping in general in the same way they did to gun owners in the late 90s.

So while I don't think changing the rules would help much, something more clear and rigid would perhaps shift the fallout from hysteria about dangerous snakes to the problem of the owners themselves being stupid.

There's not enough individual responsibility in this country as it is to be honest. But most of the plebs would rather the government tells them everything they can and can't do, so let's give them something more concrete so that if there IS a serious incident we can't be blamed, and hopefully we will be left to look after these wonderful animals.


----------



## gear21 (Dec 19, 2008)

no they are not but i think people should think twice ihave a yellow wich is 100 times
more agressive than say 1 of my bitis gabonica,s


----------



## steveyruss (Feb 19, 2008)

fritz said:


> a friend of mine who bought a burm as his first snake by the time the snake was one my mate was actually going to dump the snake in a forest... i took it off him and homed it but the thing a lot of people dont realise is yes they are small and cute as hatchlings but these snakes grow into huge and possibly dangerous animals... its all about poeple doing reshearch into what they are buying!! ( sorry about the spelling )


Anyone who sells such a large snake should force the person to deal with an adult female of that specimen. I bet half of them wouldn't deserve to into get into the same viv as it. Problem solved. :lol2:


----------



## wallyreptiles (Nov 17, 2008)

anacondas r sick


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

paraman said:


> Ex para ( 2 squadron RAF Regiment), still into paragliding when the weather allows


rock ape - pffft hahaha


----------

