# Posting on open forums



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

As one keeper has just discovered posting stuff about your critters comes with a risk.

A keeper in the north east of England had a visit from his local council, police and a "specialist" from Animal Reception Centre (ARC) at Heathrow Airport.

As this is now subject to legal proceedings its inappropriate to say more than that. However, it is important to realise that big brother does exist and that this forum and many others are monitored daily by people other than enthusiasts.

So if you are keeping something you are not supposed to have (and I must stress I am not condoning it) posting images and details on theses open forums is going to get your collar felt!

If found guilty under the DWA act you are likely to get a ban, possibly prison, a big fine and sh*t loads of costs!


----------



## fangsy (Sep 17, 2007)

True , very true :

Police get crocodile shock in Middlesbrough - Local News - News - Gazette Live

Was this someone on here ?


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

fangsy said:


> True , very true :
> 
> Police get crocodile shock in Middlesbrough - Local News - News - Gazette Live
> 
> Was this someone on here ?


Yes he is on this forum and I believe this forum is monitored by a number of Councils!


----------



## ljkenny (Mar 5, 2007)

I have a 3ft extraterrestrial life-form living in my basement - I call him Boris.

Oh and several Dodo.


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

ljkenny said:


> I have a 3ft extraterrestrial life-form living in my basement - I call him Boris.
> 
> Oh and several Dodo.


Yes I know and your council is fully aware of them.

Expect a knock on your door as they need the overtime!:devil:


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

So I guess young ViperLover is being watched carefully..... :whistling2:


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

PDR said:


> So I guess young ViperLover is being watched carefully..... :whistling2:


I think it is fair to say that out their "they" know who we all are!

Scary thought!


----------



## SnakeBreeder (Mar 11, 2007)

If you keep something you do not have a license for then you should expect to be caught up with at some point.
If you want to keep DWA then get the license first : victory:
At the end of the day the keeper involved just makes the rest of us in the hobby look very irresponsable.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

*That government is best which governs least... Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.*


----------



## MDV1 (Nov 27, 2010)

There are two types of illegal keepers: Those that have Local Authorities that make it impossible for them to get a licence, and those that just don't care/can't be bothered to go about thing's the right way. We should not judge untill we know for sure if this person is the former, or the latter. If it's the latter, then I have no sympathy, however if it's the former, then I can quite understand why, and it should be an interesting Court case.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

slippery42 said:


> Yes he is on this forum and I believe this forum is monitored by a number of Councils!


I expect this forum is monitored by many vested interests, governmental and non-governmental - people would be well advised to conceder what they post!

Whilst I clearly do not condone people keeping DWAA scheduled species without the prerequisite licence this case does pose some questions:-

1. have Middlesbrough Council issue DWAA Licences previously?
2. how long had the animal been kept?
3. how did the council/police gain entry to make the seizure?


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> I expect this forum is monitored by many vested interests, governmental and non-governmental - people would be well advised to conceder what they post!
> 
> Whilst I clearly do not condone people keeping DWAA scheduled species without the prerequisite licence this case does pose some questions:-
> 
> ...


Chris,

I cant answer 2 or 3 but They have never issued a DWAL for private keepers. I understand they are one of the LA's asking for a huge fee up front

Graeme


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

slippery42 said:


> Chris,
> 
> I cant answer 2 or 3 but They have never issued a DWAL for private keepers. I understand they are one of the LA's asking for a huge fee up front
> 
> Graeme


If the LA have never issued a DWAA and it can be proved they have/are either obstructive, i.e set punitive fees or set unreasonable conditions, or have a policy of not issuing them – then this in unlawful and appropriate action should be taken against them by the person concerned, certainly if a prosecution by the LA is forthcoming. 

Point 3 is very important, there is no provision for either the police or the LA to acquire a Warrant in respect of ‘alleged’ unlicensed keepers! If they executed a Warrant this needs to be looked at carefully as it may not be legal!


----------



## chase pets n reps (Sep 29, 2008)

how did he obtain the animal in the first place without a licence


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

chase pets n reps said:


> how did he obtain the animal in the first place without a licence


I understand it was "rescued"


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> If the LA have never issued a DWAA and it can be proved they have/are either obstructive, i.e set punitive fees or set unreasonable conditions, or have a policy of not issuing them – then this in unlawful and appropriate action should be taken against them by the person concerned, certainly if a prosecution by the LA is forthcoming.
> 
> Point 3 is very important, there is no provision for either the police or the LA to acquire a Warrant in respect of ‘alleged’ unlicensed keepers! If they executed a Warrant this needs to be looked at carefully as it may not be legal!


Very interesting! Im sure very little can be said on the forum if this is going to court, but i do hope we can be informed of what happens? 



chase pets n reps said:


> how did he obtain the animal in the first place without a licence


Anyone who goes to Hamm or Houten will tell you none of the EU breeders ask for a UK DWAL...


----------



## chase pets n reps (Sep 29, 2008)

yes i know i go out their quite often 
that is where the majority of my dwa comes from


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

chase pets n reps said:


> yes i know i go out their quite often
> that is where the majority of my dwa comes from


Seems strange why you asked your earlier question then?


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

slippery42 said:


> Seems strange why you asked your earlier question then?


I dont think there was anything strange in the question.


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> I dont think there was anything strange in the question.


I think Graeme means it was strange that this person asked 'how is it possible someone without a DWAL obtained a DWA snake' to which i replied 'you can get them from the EU without having to show a copy of a DWAL' to which he then replied 'yeah i know i get my DWA snakes from there'.... well if thats the case then why did you ask the question.... :lol2:


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

chondro13 said:


> I think Graeme means it was strange that this person asked 'how is it possible someone without a DWAL obtained a DWA snake' to which i replied 'you can get them from the EU without having to show a copy of a DWAL' to which he then replied 'yeah i know i get my DWA snakes from there'.... well if thats the case then why did you ask the question.... :lol2:


Because it didnt have to have come from Europe?
I think he was stating that he knew about europeane shows 
its specilation it came from europe not fact. Perhaps he was curiouse in where or whom it came from thats all


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> Because it didnt have to have come from Europe?
> its specilation it came from europe not fact.


Yes... but that was just an example. Its not exactly hard to get DWA animals in the UK either. There are a LOT of unlicensed keepers, who cant sell/swap to shops or most DWAL holders for obvious reasons.... so sell/swap to other non licenced keepers. 

Not every person who keeps DWA without a licence is a 'bad' person - as has been discussed in this thread there are some obstacles which make it damn near impossible to keep them with a licence - the bit of paper doesnt make you a 'good keeper' it just makes you a legal keeper.. (not that i am even for a minute saying its a good idea!) as such, there are lots of ways to obtain a DWA animal in the UK without the bit of paper. 

Or as Graeme said... the snake could have been 'rescued'...


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

they pay people to read forums at the taxpayers expense...

what happened to austerity measures?

i thought they were cutting government expenses there?

how is having government employees reading forums all day on the slight chance they'll discover some kid doing something illegal?

who could defend that these days with the cuts and taxes being put into place?

some guy all day on a computer reading posts and eating donuts...

people are hurting and the authorities are worried about a lizard or something... jeez!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

chondro13 said:


> Yes... but that was just an example. Its not exactly hard to get DWA animals in the UK either. There are a LOT of unlicensed keepers, who cant sell/swap to shops or most DWAL holders for obvious reasons.... so sell/swap to other non licenced keepers.
> 
> Not every person who keeps DWA without a licence is a 'bad' person - as has been discussed in this thread there are some obstacles which make it damn near impossible to keep them with a licence - the bit of paper doesnt make you a 'good keeper' it just makes you a legal keeper.. (not that i am even for a minute saying its a good idea!) as such, there are lots of ways to obtain a DWA animal in the UK without the bit of paper.
> 
> Or as Graeme said... the snake could have been 'rescued'...


 i'm a yank here across the pond... ask me about DWA...

hahaha!!


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

the specamin belongs to me and allthough i cant say too much on here i am going to try my best to get him back and make things easier for the rest of you if i can ill hopefully be speeking to chris and trying to see where that leeds


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

It isnt a snake chondro13 it was a caimen.....come on keep up:lol2:


----------



## MDV1 (Nov 27, 2010)

Best of luck with the case Jacko. I hope everything works out good...!


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

as i said to graham i think all you dwa snake keepers need your head looking at lol 

i dont mind the loss of a finger for my love of reps but i aint got the balls for venomous:rotfl:


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

jacko1 said:


> the specamin belongs to me and allthough i cant say too much on here i am going to try my best to get him back and make things easier for the rest of you if i can ill hopefully be speeking to chris and trying to see where that leeds
> 
> and so you all know middlesbrough council have never issued a dwa and dont want to ether i first applied for a dwal 8 years ago and my mums house got raided for the trouble
> they know that little that the guy i had to speek to was the dog warden and he asked me what type of dog a caiman was
> ...



Be very careful on your posting, you may make things worse!

Speak with Chris Newman.


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> I dont think there was anything strange in the question.


Lee 

What I was saying was if that particular poster gets his stuff from Hamm etc. why ask how someone unlicenced can get a DWA species? It aint rocket science and if he is a genuine dealer it is in my opinion a dumb question to which he already knew the answer.

Regards

Graeme


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

eddited mate 

i am so angry over this i have no clue what to do with me self

because people dont understand our hobby they dont realise this is the same as having your pet dog taken away from you


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

jacko1 said:


> eddited mate
> 
> i am so angry over this i have no clue what to do with me self
> 
> because people dont understand our hobby they dont realise this is the same as having your pet dog taken away from you


were you ever intending to get a licence for the caiman? or were you happy to go on keeping it without one? Its all well and good you keeping it and I'm sure you keep it as well as any legit keeper, the problem is keeping without the relevent papers will just have a negative effect on current keepers and up and coming keepers like myself. I am aiming to get my DWAL in within the next two years to allow me to keep a few species of arboreal vipers and when people like yourself do that I feel it makes things a hell of alot harder for people like me.


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> It isnt a snake chondro13 it was a caimen.....come on keep up:lol2:


... blast.... ill get me coat 



STReptiles said:


> were you ever intending to get a licence for the caiman? or were you happy to go on keeping it without one? Its all well and good you keeping it and I'm sure you keep it as well as any legit keeper, the problem is keeping without the relevent papers will just have a negative effect on current keepers and up and coming keepers like myself. I am aiming to get my DWAL in within the next two years to allow me to keep a few species of arboreal vipers and when people like yourself do that I feel it makes things a hell of alot harder for people like me.


Dont start an argument hun, this case is unlikely to make it any MORE difficult for people to get a licence. If anything it may change the laws for the better! 

Jacko1 needs to keep his nose clean and not say anything which may make his situation more difficult - as such he doesnt need to be provoked : victory:

This thread is very interesting however, and i would be very interested to see what happens! Lets keep it a friendly conversation and empathize with the poor sod whos had his animal taken away simply because he owned said animal without the bit of paper eh? : victory:


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

chondro13 said:


> ... blast.... ill get me coat
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

chondro13 said:


> ... blast.... ill get me coat
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not trying to argue at all Helen, like you said some people go underground to keep DWAA and are no worse a keeper than the ones with papers in many cases. I just wanted to know if he ever intended on getting one, if he did intend on getting it then fair enough but if he didnt then he did all this knowing he could get cuaght and make things difficult for the rest. It's just frustrating to me that some one that says they are all for the hooby but then does this and makes life difficult for up comers into the DWAA game.: victory:

PS sorry if that comes across nasty at all, it isnt meant to be:2thumb:

EDIT: I just re-read your post Helen, I get you lol


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

slippery42 said:


> Well said!


 
LOL you beat me to that


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

what has DWA laws done besides cost the public with regulations and enforcement?

what doesn't happen today that used to happen that made it necessary to have laws and criminalize people?

if DWA laws went away tomorrow how would life in the uk drastically change? besides some fat bureaucrats having to get a real job?


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

HABU said:


> what has DWA laws done besides cost the public with regulations and enforcement?
> 
> what doesn't happen today that used to happen that made it necessary to have laws and criminalize people?
> 
> if DWA laws went away tomorrow how would life in the uk drastically change? besides some fat bureaucrats having to get a real job?


17 year old chavs would die......

And the ball ache of getting a DWAL sorts the man from the boys so to speak. Anyone who is willing to adapt there house and change there life style for there hobby and buzzing interest in venomous snakes etc and pay the fees too is very likely to be a very good responsible keeper but the others who are not willing to go through the hassle of getting the DWAL will also put that attitude into there keeping.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

STReptiles said:


> were you ever intending to get a licence for the caiman? or were you happy to go on keeping it without one? Its all well and good you keeping it and I'm sure you keep it as well as any legit keeper, the problem is keeping without the relevent papers will just have a negative effect on current keepers and up and coming keepers like myself. I am aiming to get my DWAL in within the next two years to allow me to keep a few species of arboreal vipers and when people like yourself do that I feel it makes things a hell of alot harder for people like me.


He isnt the first one there have been people getting cought for years and years mate you obviously havent been in the hobby that long otherwise you would know this. It will have no ill effect on people wanting to apply for a DWAL just as it hasnt in the past. And i agree with Chondro that it might even do some good in the long run if Jacko can get some good representation and fight the oppresive rules set by his council. There are many councils that flat out refuse or make it almost impossible to gain licence, if someone was to fight it and win then this could be good for those who have "difficult" LA's. I wish the guy the best of luck and perhaps the hobby in someway help weather support os monetry as it could benefit everyone in the hobby.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

HABU said:


> what has DWA laws done besides cost the public with regulations and enforcement?
> 
> what doesn't happen today that used to happen that made it necessary to have laws and criminalize people?
> 
> if DWA laws went away tomorrow how would life in the uk drastically change? besides some fat bureaucrats having to get a real job?


 
The undesirables who now have large dogs which are used to harm and intimidate people may just turn to even more dangerous animals


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

STReptiles said:


> 17 year old chavs would die......


 
Thats called natural selection:whistling2:


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

HABU said:


> what has DWA laws done besides cost the public with regulations and enforcement?
> 
> what doesn't happen today that used to happen that made it necessary to have laws and criminalize people?
> 
> if DWA laws went away tomorrow how would life in the uk drastically change? besides some fat bureaucrats having to get a real job?


Nothing really 'happened' to bring the DWAL into play, it was bought in to 'protect' the public because people started keeping the big cats as pets, it was more for the cats than it was for venomous snakes at that point....

If it was taken away tomorrow - well... either everything would be brilliant for DWA keepers, or (more likely) a load of idiots keeping them for the 'im so awesome, i keep venomous snakes' factor would end up entering the Darwin awards...


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

leecb0 said:


> He isnt the first one there have been people getting cought for years and years mate you obviously havent been in the hobby that long otherwise you would know this. It will have no ill effect on people wanting to apply for a DWAL just as it hasnt in the past. And i agree with Chondro that it might even do some good in the long run if Jacko can get some good representation and fight the oppresive rules set by his council. There are many councils that flat out refuse or make it almost impossible to gain licence, if someone was to fight it and win then this could be good for those who have "difficult" LA's. I wish the guy the best of luck and perhaps the hobby in someway help weather support os monetry as it could benefit everyone in the hobby.


How would my time in the hobby effect my knowlede of people that have been busted for not having DWAL's? Or the other way round?

Thats not what I'm in the hobby for, if it was I'd be a hair dresser. I'm into snakes not the gossip.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

chondro13 said:


> Nothing really 'happened' to bring the DWAL into play, it was bought in to 'protect' the public because people started keeping the big cats as pets, it was more for the cats than it was for venomous snakes at that point....
> 
> If it was taken away tomorrow - well... either everything would be brilliant for DWA keepers, or (more likely) a load of idiots keeping them for the 'im so awesome, i keep venomous snakes' factor would end up entering the Darwin awards...


 
Or because they dont have the correct safety protocols the snake escapes and a member of the public gets tagged


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

chondro13 said:


> Nothing really 'happened' to bring the DWAL into play, it was bought in to 'protect' the public because people started keeping the big cats as pets, it was more for the cats than it was for venomous snakes at that point....
> 
> If it was taken away tomorrow - well... either everything would be brilliant for DWA keepers, or (more likely) a load of idiots keeping them for the 'im so awesome, i keep venomous snakes' factor would end up entering the Darwin awards...


:notworthy:


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

STReptiles said:


> How would my time in the hobby effect my knowlede of people that have been busted for not having DWAL's? Or the other way round?
> 
> Thats not what I'm in the hobby for, if it was I'd be a hair dresser. I'm into snakes not the gossip.


What i was trying to point out that there have been plenty of "raids" and this has never harmed the lagit keeper or those who want to apply for a licence. In fact there are more now than ever, so therefore people getting cought keeping without a licence have zero effect as you in your post implied. That is what i am getting at. And as i said if you had been around the hobby for any length of time you would realise that it doesnt have any effect. It isnt about "gossip" its just a plain fact, even before the scurge of the the hobby "the internet" lol it didnt take long for the word to get around about who, what and when. Please dont take it personally : victory:


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

leecb0 said:


> What i was trying to point out that there have been plenty of "raids" and this has never harmed the lagit keeper or those who want to apply for a licence. In fact there are more now than ever, so therefore people getting cought keeping without a licence have zero effect as you in your post implied. That is what i am getting at. And as i said if you had been around the hobby for any length of time you would realise that it doesnt have any effect. It isnt about "gossip" its just a plain fact, even before the scurge of the the hobby "the internet" lol it didnt take long for the word to get around about who, what and when. Please dont take it personally : victory:


 I see what your saying Lee.: victory:


----------



## SnakeBreeder (Mar 11, 2007)

MDV1 said:


> There are two types of illegal keepers: Those that have Local Authorities that make it impossible for them to get a licence, and those that just don't care/can't be bothered to go about thing's the right way. We should not judge untill we know for sure if this person is the former, or the latter. If it's the latter, then I have no sympathy, however if it's the former, then I can quite understand why, and it should be an interesting Court case.


It realy does not matter either way.
He had DWA pet without a license.
Under the law it does not matter if he is a fool or the loacal authority just wont give them out.
No license is no license = breaking the law.


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

all i can say after the chat iv just had is


chris newman is the orricle of all things dwa:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::no1:


----------



## MDV1 (Nov 27, 2010)

Post removed


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

and yes i was wanting a licence


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

jacko1 said:


> and yes i was wanting a licence


Fair do's - i know your council isnt the easiest to obtain a licence from!

Out of interest, how did the council or the police (or whoever!) go about seizing the animal? Feel free to PM me if you dont want it public. 

Was it effectively a 'bust' (in which case they are 100% certain you were keeping illegally and had a warrant etc - in which case you must ask how did they get this information!?) or did they ask to come in etc?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

chondro13 said:


> Was it effectively a 'bust' (in which case they are 100% certain you were keeping illegally and had a warrant etc - in which case you must ask how did they get this information!?) or did they ask to come in etc?


There is no provision under the DWAA for the Local Authority or police to acquire a Warrant under the Act even if they are a 100% certain unlicensed animals are on the premises. This often means the enforcement agencies ‘abuse’ other legislation to acquire a Warrant, such abuse of the judicial system is unacceptable and must be challenged.


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> There is no provision under the DWAA for the Local Authority or police to acquire a Warrant under the Act even if they are a 100% certain unlicensed animals are on the premises. This often means the enforcement agencies ‘abuse’ other legislation to acquire a Warrant, such abuse of the judicial system is unacceptable and must be challenged.


Interesting! How on earth do they expect to inforce the law regarding DWA animals if they arent 'allowed' to come in and prove that your keeping illegally and/or seize said animals? Crazy! I didnt think it was possible to find more flaws in the DWAA...


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

chondro13 said:


> Interesting! How on earth do they expect to inforce the law regarding DWA animals if they arent 'allowed' to come in and prove that your keeping illegally and/or seize said animals? Crazy! I didnt think it was possible to find more flaws in the DWAA...


It is curious I concede, I can only assume that parliament didn’t consider the offence of ‘keeping without a licence’ sufficiently serious enough to grant the right to invade someone’s private dwelling! Considering that their has never been a death or serious injury to a member of the public by a species scheduled on the DWAA for a hundred years prior to the implementation of the DWWA or in the thirty plus years since its implementation perhaps they were right?


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> It is curious I concede, I can only assume that parliament didn’t consider the offence of ‘keeping without a licence’ sufficiently serious enough to grant the right to invade someone’s private dwelling! Considering that their has never been a death or serious injury to a member of the public by a species scheduled on the DWAA for a hundred years prior to the implementation of the DWWA or in the thirty plus years since its implementation perhaps they were right?


 
Maybe the licence was introduced at the right time with easier globalisation which made getting the exotics easier for the every day man, joe bloggs down the street. Where as before it was only the true wealthy enthusiat that kept them who took the approprate measures like them that are now mandatory under the licencing of the DWA?

As to the entry of the premises being it private or not, if the animal which they have and are keeping is unlicenced? For them to have more rights than the DWA keepers as to access to their premises by the governing bodies and offical inspectors is that right? and should that be challenged as well by the oposition?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> There is no provision under the DWAA for the Local Authority or police to acquire a Warrant under the Act even if they are a 100% certain unlicensed animals are on the premises. This often means the enforcement agencies ‘abuse’ other legislation to acquire a Warrant, such abuse of the judicial system is unacceptable and must be challenged.


To corroborate this, there is no provision under the DWAA for a warrant. There are, however, provisions for entering premises where applications have been made previously, and also a power of seizure for illegally kept animals. It is for the owner to prove that the seizure was unlawful. It is a rather ambiguous position as there is no specific warrant for this act, but there is a power of entry. If the person in this case has previously applied for a licence (as appears to be the case), then this could, at a very long stretch, be applied. But as s4 makes it clear, it is for the owner to prove that seizure was unlawful. If there was no licence, it was lawful. The sticking point will be the power to enter. Was this done with consent? Or under a warrant issued under a different Act, such as the Animal Welfare Act? A warrant can be issued where it is believed that animals are suffering, if the magistrates could be persuaded that this is the case, then the warrant will be issued, hence a lawful power of entry, and then seizure under s4 of the DWAA.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

ian14 said:


> To corroborate this, there is no provision under the DWAA for a warrant. There are, however, provisions for entering premises where applications have been made previously, and also a power of seizure for illegally kept animals. It is for the owner to prove that the seizure was unlawful. It is a rather ambiguous position as there is no specific warrant for this act, but there is a power of entry. If the person in this case has previously applied for a licence (as appears to be the case), then this could, at a very long stretch, be applied. But as s4 makes it clear, it is for the owner to prove that seizure was unlawful. If there was no licence, it was lawful. The sticking point will be the power to enter. Was this done with consent? Or under a warrant issued under a different Act, such as the Animal Welfare Act? A warrant can be issued where it is believed that animals are suffering, if the magistrates could be persuaded that this is the case, then the warrant will be issued, hence a lawful power of entry, and then seizure under s4 of the DWAA.


As far as I am aware there is no provision for entry in to private premises unless a licence has been granted? I don’t believe that simply making an application empowers impromptu inspection? I also don’t think there are any powers in the case of a lapsed licence – as far as I am aware?

I concede this is curious, it is indeed curios that there were no powers granted in respect of acquiring Warrant at the inception of the Act. This matter was considered during the recent review of the Act. However, such changes would require amending primary legislation and this was not an option. Historically enforcement authorities have abused other legislation to acquire Warrants, typically COTES. 

There are lawful means to gain entry should a LA believe an offence is being committed, I am not going to go into this here. However, what enforcement bodies have to conceder is action taken ‘reasonable & proportionate’!! If we look at the matter in hand as I understand it the animal concerned was a two and a half foot caiman, is such an animal a significant threat to the public? 

The answer is of course no, a two and a half foot caiman has similar dentition to that of a Jack Russell and posses about the same level of threat to the public. That fact you don’t need a licence to keep a Jack Russell and you can take them to public places is irrelevant. However, one might have to ask the question in this case is the actions taken reasonable or proportionate?


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

as this is in my region I will follow the forthcoming court case with interest.

I'm assuming (correct me if wrong Chris) this is the first instance for some time?

Is there a printed guidance from FBH (chris newman?) for all cased where RSPCA/LA's/Police) wish to enter to look at your critters?

Although this is primarily a DWA thread there are implications across the entire hobby.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Jaggers said:


> Maybe the licence was introduced at the right time with easier globalisation which made getting the exotics easier for the every day man, joe bloggs down the street. Where as before it was only the true wealthy enthusiat that kept them who took the approprate measures like them that are now mandatory under the licencing of the DWA?
> 
> As to the entry of the premises being it private or not, if the animal which they have and are keeping is unlicenced? For them to have more rights than the DWA keepers as to access to their premises by the governing bodies and offical inspectors is that right? and should that be challenged as well by the oposition?


Sorry I am not entirely certain I understand the points you were trying to make? Probably just me being a bit thick!

My personal position in respect of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is this – I am in principle very supportive of the Act. However, I have to balance that statement by lodging my disappointment at the exceedingly poor administration of the Act by central and local government.

The tenant of the Act is to protect the public, and rightly so. The Act is an enabling Act, in other words it is there to permit you to do something, not prohibit you. The fundamental problem is the Act should be administered by central government and not local authorities. The evidence that local authorities are not capable of administering the Act is overwhelming, irrefutable. 

This is not entirely the fault of the local authorities, indeed there are some very competent local authorities in this respect, although they are few and far between. The problem is central government has consistently failed to provide robust guidance to local authorities on how to implement the Act.

It is thought that non-compliance with the Act could be as high as 90%, the responsibility for such a high level of non-compliance rest squarely on the shoulder of government. Until we abandon this post code lottery and implement a professional and consistent approach to licensing the Act will continue to fail, fail keepers and the public.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> The answer is of course no, a two and a half foot caiman has similar dentition to that of a Jack Russell and posses about the same level of threat to the public. That fact you don’t need a licence to keep a Jack Russell and you can take them to public places is irrelevant. However, one might have to ask the question in this case is the actions taken reasonable or proportionate?


 
A Jack Russel is not like a Caiman at all;



















The only simaler thing is they both have some pointed teeth, if you want to compare chalk with cheese then be my guest, a Jack Russell doesnt have the natural instinct that a caiman does to bite anything it can incase it is food which inherently does make it more dangerous than a adult Jack Russel. You can not compare a animal that has been domecticated to a wild prehistoric reptile which has not eveloved in millions of years.


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

Jaggers said:


> A Jack Russel is not like a Caiman at all;
> 
> image
> 
> ...


I think you are taking CN's last post to literal


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

slippery42 said:


> as this is in my region I will follow the forthcoming court case with interest.
> 
> I'm assuming (correct me if wrong Chris) this is the first instance for some time?
> 
> ...


This the first case of seizure under the DWA that I am aware of for quite some time, there may well have been others but I am not aware of them.

There is guidance issue what to do in respect of pet shops, we haven’t done one specifically for the DWAA. We are pushing to get guidance issued by government in this respect, it is desperately needed. It is in hand but proving to be painfully slow in forthcoming.

Once government has issued the guidance then it will be for us to underpin that with more specific guidance on husbandry, transportation, protocols etc.


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

Jaggers said:


> A Jack Russel is not like a Caiman at all;
> 
> image
> 
> ...


Well I wish someone could explain this to Bruce, my Boarder / Jack Russell cross..... I have more scars, and scratches from were he has bitten or clawed me than any other animal I have ever worked with or owned.... and once out in the avenue, he wants to chase and kill everything he sees be it human, another dog, cat or a squirrel.....:gasp:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Jaggers said:


> A Jack Russel is not like a Caiman at all;
> 
> image
> 
> ...


You raise some very valid and interesting points – we agree both have sharp pointed teeth and if the bit you it will hurt!

Caiman have evolved over millennia to be ambush predators, they hunt in water and are reasonably ineffectual on land - they don’t rundown pray, they sit in ambush. Jack Russell are man made animals bred to hunt, they run down pray, they also don’t have inherent fear of man as do caiman. So I really would suggest that a Jack Russell is more of a threat to the public. Personally I would much rather catch a two and a half foot escaped caiman than I would catch an agitated Jack Russell – the point I was endeavouring to make is both would be capable of inflicting similar injuries should they bit a person!


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

PDR said:


> Well I wish someone could explain this to Bruce, my Boarder / Jack Russell cross..... I have more scars, and scratches from were he has bitten or clawed me than any other animal I have ever worked with or owned.... and once out in the avenue, he wants to chase and kill everything he sees be it human, another dog, cat or a squirrel.....:gasp:


 
LOL sounds like you have a monster not a dog, but I know some of the other animals you handle you will use PPE with them which you wont with a pet dog


----------



## MDV1 (Nov 27, 2010)

I agree with Chris Newman in regards to his comparison with Jack Russell's and a small Caiman. Let's narrow this down more clearly. If we are talking actual risk to the Public, a Dog poses far greater risk than a Caiman, or, any Crocodilian, in fact. Crocodilians are often kept in enclosures that are virtually escape-proof, so any suspecting member of the public who ignores the danger signs, or the advice of the owner and enters the enclosure, does so at their own risk. I see Dog walkers on a daily basis in public places, I am yet to see somebody walking their 'pet' Crocodilian in a public place.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

MDV1 said:


> I agree with Chris Newman in regards to his comparison with Jack Russell's and a small Caiman. Let's narrow this down more clearly. If we are talking actual risk to the Public, a Dog poses far greater risk than a Caiman, or, any Crocodilian, in fact. Crocodilians are often kept in enclosures that are virtually escape-proof, so any suspecting member of the public who ignores the danger signs, or the advice of the owner and enters the enclosure, does so at their own risk. I see Dog walkers on a daily basis in public places, I am yet to see somebody walking their 'pet' Crocodilian in a public place.


All us reptile lovers will see it that way but I am also trying to see it from the general publics point of view like the ones who think tarantulas will kill you with one bite the uneducated ones on the subject.

Joe Bloggs and Fanny McAdams wont know and wont want to know about the protocols in place all they will see if some one was keeping a croc which was not inspected by the governing body to ensure its safe. 

Personally I dont think this is the right time or place now to be discussing what will be going to court as it may harm Jackos defence.


----------



## MDV1 (Nov 27, 2010)

I am in agreement with you there on all points made, however, I was pointing out the actual risks involved. I am by no means condoning the illegal keeping of an animal, no matter where in the world one resides. Perhaps this thread has now taken it's course, and should be closed to avoid complications in Court.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

MDV1 said:


> I am in agreement with you there on all points made, however, I was pointing out the actual risks involved. I am by no means condoning the illegal keeping of an animal, no matter where in the world one resides. Perhaps this thread has now taken it's course, and should be closed to avoid complications in Court.


 
The risks are completely different if you ask me one is something we deal with every day but how many people have seen a croc in real life, the shock of seeing one would be worse than the bite in many instances.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Jaggers said:


> All us reptile lovers will see it that way but I am also trying to see it from the general publics point of view like the ones who think tarantulas will kill you with one bite the uneducated ones on the subject.
> 
> Joe Bloggs and Fanny McAdams wont know and wont want to know about the protocols in place all they will see if some one was keeping a croc which was not inspected by the governing body to ensure its safe.
> 
> Personally I dont think this is the right time or place now to be discussing what will be going to court as it may harm Jackos defence.


Agreed discussions on a specific case would not be helpful. However, I think we are more talking here about ‘principles’ rather then specific cases, even if the precursor to the discussion related to a specific incident. The one thing that I think we can all agree on is the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is a mess, a shambles, and that it is in our best interest to try and address some of the issues with this archaic legislation. The underlying principles of the Act are sound, is the shambolic implementation that is the issue. Informed discussion is surely the first step in moving forwards!


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> Agreed discussions on a specific case would not be helpful. However, I think we are more talking here about ‘principles’ rather then specific cases, even if the precursor to the discussion related to a specific incident. The one thing that I think we can all agree on is the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is a mess, a shambles, and that it is in our best interest to try and address some of the issues with this archaic legislation. The underlying principles of the Act are sound, is the shambolic implementation that is the issue. Informed discussion is surely the first step in moving forwards!


 
Is it the act that are archaic or the people who issue the DWA the archaic ones? I prob shouldn't say this but are they in the same catagory as Fred Bloggs and Fanny McAdams?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Jaggers said:


> Is it the act that are archaic or the people who issue the DWA the archaic ones? I prob shouldn't say this but are they in the same catagory as Fred Bloggs and Fanny McAdams?


A fair point, the Act is probably a little behind the times, certainly there are questions as to its compliance in some areas with the Human Rights Act – seizures and disposals for example. However, you are right the fundamental problem is those who administer the Act at Local Authority levels – their competence/qualifications to administer this Act are what?????????? It is one of these situations where the licensee is required to demonstrate competence, but there licenser is not! Something of an anomaly surely?


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> A fair point, the Act is probably a little behind the times, certainly there are questions as to its compliance in some areas with the Human Rights Act – seizures and disposals for example. However, you are right the fundamental problem is those who administer the Act at Local Authority levels – their competence/qualifications to administer this Act are what?????????? It is one of these situations where the licensee is required to demonstrate competence, but there licenser is not! Something of an anomaly surely?


 
I wouldn't be suprised if some of the people in the LA's are not used to and feel uncomfortable around these type of animals and have had their positions for 20-30 years well before any of the "modern" exotics came in to the hobby.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

my state (ohio) recently imposed an exotic animal ban by executive order of the outgoing governor... the new govenor has chosen to not enforce it...

so even though exotics, dangerous animals are now banned to new keepers... no one cares...

haha!!... well at least the new governor did something right...

Exotic animal ban not being enforced for now | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

Ohio's GOP Governor Ignores Exotic Pet Regulations | Change.org News


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

HABU said:


> my state (ohio) recently imposed an exotic animal ban by executive order of the outgoing governor... the new govenor has chosen to not enforce it...
> 
> so even though exotics, dangerous animals are now banned to new keepers... no one cares...
> 
> ...


 
Doesnt even things like a bearded dragon come under these laws in some states?


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

when you read the article you will realise how they are trying to portray him as something from lake placid
Police get crocodile shock in Middlesbrough - Local News - News - Gazette Live

in actual fact the animal pictured is my animal in my open un hindering hand they are no more forocious than a puppy 
all he ever wanted to do is hide and be left allone 

due to his size id actualy aquait his bite to a small jack russel not even a fully grown one 

i handled this animal allmost everyday and he only drew blood once and it wasnt even a bite he was warning me with his mouth open and cought my finger tip and it was verry verry minimal 

when i first got him i was pretty scared of what would happen if i came into contact with his teeth and to be fare i was actualy pretty surprised with what he would and wouldnt do in a sutuation 

i have a rather large rock python that has larger teeth and allso has the abbillity to crush you that i would lay my life on being more dangerous to a human than even a fully grown caiman . Fully grown caiman are around 8 feet in length witch means its head will be arround 12 to 13" long basicly the same as an average dog but one thing is for sure a dog that feels threttened will run towards you and i can garontee that in the same sutuation the caiman will do the opposite

i could go get a crocodile monitor which could inflict serious damage at even an early age and has real aggility and i can do so leagaly without dwal and i could allso get a reticulated python witch grows to extreme size to the point it could actualy kill and digest a man allso without a dwal 

infact the average wood saw does have more and sharper teeth and injures more people every year than caiman so why aint they on dwa .One thing i understand is the riscs posed by owning preditory animals as iv been doing it since i was 7 years old .i am under no impression i can keep copper heads or puff adders and handle them without extreem danger to my self and allso knowing how easily snakes can escape that even with a dwal im not willing at any point to own one 
The one problem iv got is the way people think when they hear i have a crocodile they donot understand the difference between a caiman and a nile

now excuse my spelling on all this as im dislexic


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

Jaggers said:


> Doesnt even things like a bearded dragon come under these laws in some states?


they have funky laws all around here... what one can or can't have just depends on where you live...

every locale can do as it wishes... if yu don't like the law somewhere here you just move to where the laws are as you like...

things are banned in one place but perfectly legal in other places...


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

Thats the thing, the large snakes like the constrictors should be on the DWA or a seperate licence.

To be fair a lot of people do think of the largest croc when you say a caiman a lot of people are suprised when i tell them the one i want will grow to around 5-6 foot and not the 20 they was expecting. It is a lot of it down to what the TV protrays across to the viewers which scares them, a 20+ foot croc taking down a 1/2 tonne buffao for example.

The wood saw I would of left out as its a different subject, like why is a computer not on DWA as it could give you a leathal electric shock.


----------



## fangsy (Sep 17, 2007)

I think the one thing we are forgetting is the rules are the rules, you cannot own one of these animals without the proper rules and provisions in place.

Anyone in the right area can go and get a automatic weapon for £100 or so , but you dont because the rules say you cant have one, if you know the right people you can get a shotgun, but if you dont want to get arrested you apply for a licence and show you have the proper precations and measurements and background in place to own one.

The same with the animals, I also believe that some of the animals that are on it should not be on it, but they are and thats the rules we have to live by.

Some LA's havnt got a clue and dont know the difference between a IGGY and a CAIMAN but we have to live with that, maybe they should have proper training to be in their position, this was not the case for me, it took 6 months + to get my DWA , this included approx 10 - 12 visits by my DWA officer and after him cutting his arm getting into a 2 inch gap in the lid of my first enclosure and having to make a new one and showing him that the garage was being converted I then got the license.

But if things were too difficult and I could see what they were asking for was unrealistic, then maybe I would have sent them some documentation from surrounding authorities to say this is what they require.

It dosnt mean that if what they are asking for is too much you just get the animal anyway, in this case it seems the animal was well looked after, but say anyone follows this rule and just gets them , how many animals will there be out there in very very poor conditions ?

I do believe the LA's need to be trained more on the requirements (depending where you live) but the rules are the rules !

Sorry , just my tuppence eipney !

Steve


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

jacko1 said:


> when you read the article you will realise how they are trying to portray him as something from lake placid
> Police get crocodile shock in Middlesbrough - Local News - News - Gazette Live
> 
> in actual fact the animal pictured is my animal in my open un hindering hand they are no more forocious than a puppy
> ...


 there shouldn't be laws about things unless there is a problem...

banning cotton balls might be good... but only if there is a problem with cotton balls...

it's bad to ban cotton balls just because there is a potential for a problem... or if the problem is so rare it really makes no matter...

every law banning something takes away a little bit of one's freedoms... pretty soon you don't feel so free... when everything is banned or regulated...

once a law is in place, the bureaucrats take over... and have the need to enforce the laws somehow to validate their existence...

just can't sit around in your office all day... you have to justify your government paycheck... so you go out an look for lawbreakers to keep your job... that's how it works...

ban something and they hire people to enforce the ban and regulations... even if there isn't really a problem...


----------



## jacko1 (Jul 4, 2009)

il send you a pm steve to explain a bit more as i dont want to post on here

and when talking about the wood saw think of it this way you can use a saw without injury by just being carefull same as you can interact with allmost any animal with the same regard for your own safety first on your mind


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

fangsy said:


> I think the one thing we are forgetting is the rules are the rules, you cannot own one of these animals without the proper rules and provisions in place.
> Steve


Actually this is not entirely correct, you can own an animal on the DWAA scheduled without the need for a licence, but you cannot keep it! One of the anomalies of the Act is it ‘appears’ to suggest that you can own, posses and presumably ‘keep’ prior to applying for a licences under the aforementioned Act????? 

*Section 1 (4) *

_A local authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless the application for it is made by a person who both owns and possesses, or proposes both to own and to possess, any animal concerned, except where the circumstances are in the authority’s opinion exceptional._

This introduces significant ambiguities, many vets will not inspect under the DWAA unless the animal is in suite, the Act quite clearly states you can own and posses prior to a licence being granted? Now one might argue that “_the application for it is made by a person who both owns and possesses_” only applies in the case of relicensing – BUT they Act does not make that clear? Therefore, arguably you can keep an animal scheduled on the Act prior to applying for your licence. Indeed some Local Authorities have stated that in writing!!

These are some of the problems that need to be resolved, government needs to make it explicitly clear what the requirements are. Personally I think it’s ludicrous to suggest you have the animals in place prior to applying for the licence, but that is precisely what the legislation appears to say!!!!!


----------



## fangsy (Sep 17, 2007)

lol, your playing with my words, VERY CLEVER !

But you and everybody else understands what I mean, Im not saying you own one but a zoo looks after it, here on the forum us as DWA keepers mean own as in in our own home.

Hope that clears it up !

Steve



Chris Newman said:


> Actually this is not entirely correct, you can own an animal on the DWAA scheduled without the need for a licence, but you cannot keep it! One of the anomalies of the Act is it ‘appears’ to suggest that you can own, posses and presumably ‘keep’ prior to applying for a licences under the aforementioned Act?????
> 
> *Section 1 (4) *
> 
> ...


----------



## BenjaminBoaz (Jan 6, 2006)

Chris is there a time limit (written or unwritten) between getting a dwaa animal and applying for the licence? Also how do you buy a dwa animal without a licence as your suppose to show it when purchasing. 
Or can you be given one? I believe I'm right in saying they can be transported without a dwa but have to be housed at a place that is covered.


----------



## BenjaminBoaz (Jan 6, 2006)

Chris is there a time limit (written or unwritten) between getting a dwaa animal and applying for the licence? Also how do you buy a dwa animal without a licence as your suppose to show it when purchasing. 
Or can you be given one? I believe I'm right in saying they can be transported without a dwa but have to be housed at a place that is covered. 
Also if police are told someone has a dwa animal and they haven't applied or have been turned down then im guessing they have the right to knock on the door. ?


----------



## MagicSqueak (Apr 9, 2010)

animalstorey said:


> Chris is there a time limit (written or unwritten) between getting a dwaa animal and applying for the licence? Also how do you buy a dwa animal without a licence as your suppose to show it when purchasing.
> Or can you be given one? I believe I'm right in saying they can be transported without a dwa but have to be housed at a place that is covered.
> Also if police are told someone has a dwa animal and they haven't applied or have been turned down then im guessing they have the right to knock on the door. ?


I suppose, if I have been informed correctly, you have 72 hours from possessing a DWA animal to get a license (impossible, given all the red tape I would think?) as they *can *be classed as 'in transit'...however if you were raided in those 72 hours i'm sure it wouldn't stand up in court if the animal was _in situ _so to speak....don't quote me on this though.


----------



## BenjaminBoaz (Jan 6, 2006)

Long as you have sent the licence off I gather your covered till the inspection? It has taken 3'months for the vet and council to come out to inspect me for a paal licence however the council have said I can do display and public work in that time. If this were a dwal I was applying for I wonder if it would be the same!


----------



## BenjaminBoaz (Jan 6, 2006)

MagicSqueak said:


> I suppose, if I have been informed correctly, you have 72 hours from possessing a DWA animal to get a license (impossible, given all the red tape I would think?) as they *can *be classed as 'in transit'...however if you were raided in those 72 hours i'm sure it wouldn't stand up in court if the animal was _in situ _so to speak....don't quote me on this though.


In transit is when it's being moved though not when it in someone home. If it was classed as in transit for 72 hours then the transporter would need a transport licence due to the length of said time surely not?


----------



## BenjaminBoaz (Jan 6, 2006)

At the end of the day if the police hear of someone keeping a dwa animal and know they haven't got a licence they going to use some method of entry aren't they. Most likely through the welfare route, (even if welfare is perfect). Once in they going to take said animal if it's there.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

animalstorey said:


> Chris is there a time limit (written or unwritten) between getting a dwaa animal and applying for the licence? Also how do you buy a dwa animal without a licence as your suppose to show it when purchasing.
> Or can you be given one? I believe I'm right in saying they can be transported without a dwa but have to be housed at a place that is covered.
> Also if police are told someone has a dwa animal and they haven't applied or have been turned down then im guessing they have the right to knock on the door. ?


The generally accepted principle is you should have a licence *before* you have any animals. However, there are many instances where veterinary inspectors and /or Local Authorities have insisted animals are in-situ prior to a licence being issued. Therefore there is no time limit as such. But today retrospective licensing under the DWAA is considered to be unlawful! Therefore this would preclude you from applying if you already keep the animal at the establishment to be licensed!! 

No offence is committed if you either sell or buy a DWAA scheduled species without a DWAA licensee – the Act is only concerned with “keeping”

Transportation is a gray area, the Act states:

(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, for the purposes of this Act a person is a keeper of an animal if he has it in his possession; and if at any time an animal ceases to be in the possession of a person, any person who immediately before that time was a keeper thereof by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection continues to be a keeper of the animal until another person becomes a keeper thereof by virtue of those provisions. ​ 
(2) Where an animal is in the possession of any person for the purpose of— ​ 

(a)
preventing it from causing damage, ​ 

(b)
restoring it to its owner, ​ 

(c)
undergoing veterinary treatment, or ​ 

(d)
being transported on behalf of another person, ​ 
the person having such possession shall not by virtue only of that possession be treated for the purposes of this Act as a keeper of the animal. ​ 


Therefore I think it reasonable to conclude you can transport an animal on behalf of another person, for how long or how far the Act is silent?


----------



## BenjaminBoaz (Jan 6, 2006)

Many thanks.


----------

