# DWA Changes



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Simple question  Would be very interested to hear what the forum thinks....*

Do you agree with the proposals to potentially take certain species off the Dangerous Wild Animals Licence this October ?
*


----------



## captaincaveman (Nov 6, 2006)

any species list?? any going on?? hopefully they will do something with centipedes this time and put the evil little beggers on:lol2:


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> Finally some movement on the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, the draft Statutory Instrument has just been laid before Parliament. It contains proposed additions and deletions to those species requiring of a licence under the Act. The draft SI is numbered 1437 and was laid before Parliament on 14 May 2007.
> 
> The SI has been laid in draft form in both Houses and will be looked at by separate committees in both. In the Commons the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will be doing a technical scrutiny of the SI (ie is the SI correctly worded and being taken forward under correct legislation) and in the Lords the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee will be looking at the
> policy issues contained therein. The Instrument cannot be made if disapproved by either House (within 40 days) and Members can introduce a negative resolution or a "prayer" if they are not happy with the content. If a Member does table a motion against the Order this could lead to a debate in the House.
> ...


This is the list that Chris Newman posted on another thread.


----------



## captaincaveman (Nov 6, 2006)

thanks, not really that much(reptile wise)difference really. i seriously think that some of the larger centipedes should be put on it though

I see mangroves finally made it off(though not that excited by it:lol2, but not curviers dwarf caimens, though thats not a bad thing i suppose when you think of the average numpty buying one as their first exotic:lol2:


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

no

i think that most of the mammal species they are proposing removing should stay on.

let me make it totally clear what i think..

i DO NOT think that animals such as primates, racoons, kinks etc should come off the DWA

i have read people saying that a monkey is "not a danger" or a racoon is "not a danger" and i would like to say to that ............ 

"_what a load of total bollocks_"

i do however agree that the DWA is a flawed peice of legislation, and i think THAT is where we should worry...

as i have said before, what the UK needs is a Keepers Licence... and that i would like to see applied to all speices from raptors to reptiles

On the reptile front, there is less coming off, at the moment we are looking at sand snakes, mangrove snakes, brazilian wolf spider. none of which i consider a "danger" in the same way as a pissed off racoon could be. 

however i already know one pratt who is selling mangrove snakes to people without a DWA... as "it will be ok as they are coming off in october"

firstly, although the seller is technically not breaking the law by making the sale, as he does not legally have to see their license, the buyers are. 

_(of course any RESPONSIBLE seller would ask, but not all are huh...)_

IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO OWN A MANGROVE SNAKE (or any other dwa species) WITHOUT A _CURRENT UP TO DATE_ DWA LICENSE. 

a bit like being caught buying **** underage.. you can't say... oh its ok for this 15yr old to buy them because they will be 16 in a few months time. until they come off, you CANNOT keep them, and that IS the bottom line.

anyway....


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

Nerys i completely agree. I've got into very heated debates about the keeping of primates and the larger mammals before, and i think its ridiculous even to propose that they should be allowed to be owned with no kind of liscence.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*Ridiculous Proposals*

Whilst l can speak with no genuine authority on the proposals to remove species from the reptile side and arachnid department, l can speak with a certain amount of enthusiasm on the mammal front.

It could well be agreed and indeed argued safely that certain species should never have been on and indeed they could come off. However, l do not agree with the shape of this proposal in any way shape or form.

Some of the mammals listed to come off will cause the market problems now and also in the future - and yeah l am talking as a seller of DWA species but also a current ex dwa holder.

We need something here, and l do agree with Nerys on this, as do many other keepers still to voice their opinions. That it is not so much a public safety licence required but more of a regulation document, more of a specialised keepers' licence - which could be drafted and issued to keepers from all fields.

This way we would show to those that oppose that we are responsible keepers, we would be easily regulated....failure to have a licencing scheme on board will result very quickly in inexperienced keepers handling, what some indeed many, should not be handling nor ever handle.

Should these proposals go ahead, we are committing this industry [especially mammals] into perilous times.

Rory Matier


----------



## serpentkid100 (Mar 7, 2006)

its only against the law if you get caught....:lol2: on a serious note only people who can prove they are competant should really keep dwa animals: victory:


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

One of the big problems i see happening with taking things like primates and racoons off of the DWA, is that bad press is going to increase massively as soon as some show-off numpty decides to get one without doing his homework and gets mauled, or worse. We already have enough of a problem with public opinion toward exotics keeping, and i just think that its going to get worse with things like this. Of course some people are perfectly capable of keeping those animals, but for the average joe its just not practical.


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

I do not really care much about the reptiles coming off the DWA, but one thing I do feel strongly about is that there is no central body that dictates the terms of actually receiving a DWA. The fact of it is, it's as cheap as £60 and as expensive as £500 in different parts of the country - it can take from a week to 6 months to actually receive it... some councils don't even seem to care, or employ inspectors who know anything about reptiles.

One of my inspectors asked about my evacuation procedure for CRICKETS in case of emergency. She thought they were being sold as pets.

I think it is ridiculous that there is no set of rules that should apply to the whole of the UK. All councils have to adhere to the actual list of DWA animals.. why there is not a central set of rules regarding costs and process of getting a license, and at least some basic training for everyone involved in the inspections.. I just can't understand.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

I would like to know why DEFRA believe that an animal like a racoon poses no danger to the public.

This is taken from an American web site...

*Raccoons as pets* 
Some young raccoons, especially orphans, are responsive to human contact and it is tempting to try to make one into a pet. This is rarely a good idea. Young raccoons are adorable and their antics amusing but they have very specialized needs and their curiosity and stubbornness generally preclude making pets of them.

Raccoons do not recognize the word 'no' and if they decide they want something you'd better not try to take it away. Your priceless collection of Hummel figurines will be destroyed on the first day, your upholstery shredded and your refrigerator emptied of it's contents on a regular basis.

The biggest problem with attempting to make a raccoon into a pet comes when the raccoon gets a little older. Female raccoons reach sexual maturity at one year of age, males at two. At this point in their development or shortly thereafter, they sometimes become ill-tempered and aggressive. If they become unmanageable they must be released to the wild. Since they've lived in captivity all their lives, they cannot simply be taken out to the country and set free. They don't know how to survive in the wild and will probably suffer a slow death by starvation or, more likely, because they have no fear of humans.

Wildlife rehabbers devote countless hours to trying to 'wild up' raccoons who have been kept as pets so that they may survive on their own. Some never become releasable.
There are exceptions to every rule, and in some instances raccoons have been successfully made into pets. If you have a good reason to attempt to make a raccoon into a pet, i.e. the animal has a physical defect that would prevent it from surviving in the wild, do your homework and know what you are getting into. (The desire to have an exotic pet is NOT a good reason.) As my friend Don says, "It takes a special person to live with raccoons." To this I would add, "It takes a special raccoon to live with people."

Another compelling reason not to make a raccoon into a pet is the presence in many wild raccoons of a parasite called baylisascaris procyonis, otherwise known as 'roundworms' or 'brainworms'. The Journal of the American Veterinary Association has estimated rates of infestation to be as high as 80% in some areas. This parasite is harmless to the raccoon but when transmitted to a different host, such as humans (especially children) or domestic canines, it can cause blindness, central nervous system damage and death.


Raccoon facts and information


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

There should be seperate legislation for primates, because I agree they shouldnt be on DWA but they should be protected under some law so not just anyone can get one with no hassle at all.


----------



## leptophis (May 24, 2007)

an interesting debate, lol , but some what mute as its all ready done and dusted, is it a good thing for the mammals, no i dont think so, personally i think they should have a separate license that people have to do some course to get, on animals like racoons and such like, certainly numerous mammal people seem to be against it, and i for one hate the ease which birds of prey are sold in free papers, education is the only answer to better keepers, teaching people better ways of keeping all there animals is the way forward, the dwa has its floors, but taking these animals off in my opinion without anything else in place is just stupid, would have been much better to wait and get something else there and then change the system, however i dont believe as it has been suggested that all this is a ruse by the antis, that kind of thinking always reminds me of the cold war where americans saw communists everywhere, it is much better if everyone worked together rather than seeing them as the enemy, but hey ho the reptile world loves its paranoia, however most of these issues are always over taken by personal agendas and egos, and yet little is actually achieved, changing this bill now, is almost impossible , if there is anything done it should be by people voted for by the keepers, if this was within the reptile world then it should be people voted for by the cubs and organisations which already has happened as far as i am aware, i do not know how much unity and clubs there are within the mammal world, but the same should happen, personally i doubt anything will happen now,


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

i don't believe it is done and dusted no.. not according to the powers that be at defra at least, or that is, the guy who wrote the ammendment... a guy who seemed oddly unfamiliar with some of the "louder" names that i _thought _represented our interests............ [which was an interesting discovery to say the least]

we have till the 26th to argue the toss..

the modification is currently sat in parliement, where it has been since the 14th May and where it stays for 40 working days, waiting to see if it is challenged, again, according to the guy who wrote the modification document itself, it is NOT a done deal as yet. 

out of interest... do you have any idea who it was who sat around the table and decided things like racoons and mangroves should be taken off?

actually, that question to all of you who read this

who was at the discussion, where they decided what was coming off?

i have to say though, i do not agree with the way the battle has been fought so far.. i'm not saying i could have done it better, but *shrugs* there we go... its what i think and at least i will stand up and say so.


----------



## exopet (Apr 20, 2007)

well, in my opinion the whole DWA list is a mess, species are on that shouldn't be, species aren't on that should be.

the main lizards that should be included are the larger monitors and giant snakes species should be included too.

I do agree that some small primates and procyonids should be excluded, but this does not mean I advocate them becoming a common pet species.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

exopet said:


> well, in my opinion the whole DWA list is a mess, species are on that shouldn't be, species aren't on that should be.
> 
> the main lizards that should be included are the larger monitors and giant snakes species should be included too.
> 
> I do agree that some small primates and procyonids should be excluded, but this does not mean I advocate them becoming a common pet species.


large moniters and snakes, thats one to throw in the melting pot:razz:


----------



## Magpye (Jan 26, 2007)

In my opinion.....

It would be nice to believe that the Komodo Dragon will one day be added to the list, or indeed any non Odatrian species (including Bosc if not Odatria) of Varanid. I still find it frustrating that you can buy a Nile Monitor for 50 GBP from many reptile shops, whereas an Ackie will cost you over 100 GBP. There is no doubt which is the more dangerous varanid and more likely to suffer in captivity as a result of inappropriate enclosure.

The dingo should be added to the list, but dingo-hybrids should remain off of the list as with wolf-hybrids.

All primates should remain on the list. I have no problem with people keeping primates, but I do believe that any keeper should be subject to inspection, and sadly unless you buy a dog/cat from the RSPCA or other sanctuary, there is no inspection process for pet animals other than the DWAA. Inspection is the only means of ensuring that the owner is suitable for the animal, and the necessary knowledge and provisions are in place.

Racoons can be destructive and potentially dangerous, however I do not consider them to be any more dangerous than an angry Japanese Akita. And whilst 80% of the population may harbour zoonotic endoparasites, a suitable course of treatment will remove these parasites - in the same way that domestic livestock (ie sheep, cattle) are treated for endoparasites. Whatever the decision regarding racoons, I think the same tratment should be applied to coatis, kinkajou, coatimundi, binturong and olingoes.

What happened to removing the Dwarf Caiman from the list?


----------



## snakelover (Dec 17, 2006)

I think all venomouse reptiles should be on except for the slightly venomous like hognose etc, but evrything that has a chance of killing you with VENOM should be on, other wise all reptiles houldnt be on, like anaconda...i dont think big boids should be on just because there big, as loads of people own them, whatever age and look after them, and may not be able/get a DWA.
I think evrything that is aggressive, or atleast known to be aggressive should be on there, most monkeys, if not all, and big mammals, like big cats, big dogs, pigs(BOAR pigs, not farm pigs) etc should be on also,


----------



## brian (Oct 22, 2005)

The list could be endless what should be on or not on everybody has a different view if you like it or not I don't like iguanas so should they be on it ?? Anything over 8 foot could be very dangerous if not kept in correct conditions but if kept right a 20 footer could be as soft as a dead mouse i LOVE WDR snakes I don't want them on it but to see sence thay have to be on it ............Brian


----------



## spider_mad (Mar 8, 2007)

I voted yes but depending on which species and only being available to well knowledgeable herpetologists and people with experience not to any tom, dick and harry


----------



## spider_mad (Mar 8, 2007)

captaincaveman said:


> thanks, not really that much(reptile wise)difference really. i seriously think that some of the larger centipedes should be put on it though
> 
> I see mangroves finally made it off(though not that excited by it:lol2, but not curviers dwarf caimens, though thats not a bad thing i suppose when you think of the average numpty buying one as their first exotic:lol2:


Nothing wrong with pedes as long as the keepers respect them and care for them properly. They are quick and aggressive and the venom is pretty nasty but the speculatory so are the asian and african baboon spiders so wouldnt worry too much about that. Wish the remove Centruroids, Bark scorpions are not fatally dangerous as once thought.


----------



## LeeH (Jan 26, 2005)

if we put everything on that could serious harm we wouldn't be keeping much these days haha..any into snails or slugs lol but oh woops theres the slipping hazard 
IMO if people use their head before getting them..good adequate enclosure and can give it what it deserves like adequate diets i welcome the things coming off ..only dangers in wrong hands and people that like to cut corners


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

The DWA is an act to PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS ANIMALS. 

Not to protect the animals from dangerous keepers. 

Primates, racoons and alike are about as dangerous as an angry cat. Capybara and porcupines etc are like a small dog, in terms of the damage they can do to a human. 

If the act is to protect us from all dangerous animals, Hognose’s, bees, and all spiders/scorpions/ centipedes should be added, since people can be allergic, all dogs over 10kg should be added all Boidae over 8foot. 

The FACT is that all animals can damage a human in some way. Whilst the majority of people may not be allergic, there is still a risk, similar to that or the risk associated with a mangrove snake etc.

Nerys, you have a (lovely) pair of skunks. Slightly smaller, but very similar to a racoon. Should Snuff be DWA? 

There should be a separate piece of legislation to protect "not-deadly" animals from keepers...THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT. 

The recent update to the bill means that any "substandard" keeping can and will be penalised. Pet shops now HAVE to keep a list of buyers (with name and address/contact number) MINIMUM. When Monkeys and other specialist animals are sold, the local authority knows where it is. They can inspect. 

Reptiles are very specialised. The amount of fine tuning, and expense that goes into a (proper) vivarium for even the simplest of reptiles is immense. But should they be added to DWA, because they get abused. 

Domestic animals such as our cats, dogs, small rodents, and farm animals can do a lot of damage, yet you see no need for them to be DWA. Zebra are covered, yet the domestic horse isn’t. Alsatians and Akitas are legal, while a wolf is covered. 

There needs to be a DWA, which covers only animals with the capacity to kill, such as cats from the family *Pantherinae (and some **Felinae)**, Snakes from the families Elpidae, Viperidae, and the genus Dispholidus (and a few others). All animals with an average adult weight of over 1000kg. (And many more species)*
*
And there needs to be a "pet license" that works like a TV license (minus the cost). When you buy an animal, a slip of paper is given. This must be sent off, registered online, or over the phone. 

Then, whenever animals are sold, given veterinary treatment, (with the exception of emergency treatment), showed, or competes, or upon request of an official, the license must be produced or the number given (which can be checked on a database, like the DVLA) *

_*Should a person not have a license, then they would be fined on the spot with a fixed penalty notice, (i.e. when dog walking, or when a police/RSPCA/official visits a residence). Along with the "receipt" (for the fine) an application will be given, and this will need to be registered, of further action taken. *_

_*If I was setting it up, each person would get a registration number (like a car) that cover's their animals. If requested, they could give this number, or produce their license. Simple.*_*

Then when Monkey's and sloth’s turn up, they can be checked. And under the AWA they will need to have "adequate and safe" housing. *


----------



## Magpye (Jan 26, 2007)

Valid points raised.

Another concern with exotic animals is their invasive potential if they are released or escape into the wild. And whilst it may not be the context of the DWAA to prevent such instances, it does deter people from keeping some animals that could be potentially very invasive and pose great threat to native wildlife. However, it does not prevent such incidents as the Alpine newt that is clearly never going to be covered by the DWAA.

DWAA is designed to protect the public, but it can and should also be used to protect native flora and fauna. By allowing unrestricted access to invasive non-native species that are not considered life threatening escapes will happen and the ecological impacts could be very serious if breeding populations become established. The American Mink and Grey Squirrels are good examples of what happens when "introduced species go bad".

CITES only regulates endangered species, and whilst legislation does account for the introduction of non-native species - there is no regulatory legislation or body that restricts pet ownership other than the DWAA.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

ratboy said:


> I would like to know why DEFRA believe that an animal like a racoon poses no danger to the public.
> 
> This is taken from an American web site...
> 
> ...


 
I would like to know why DEFRA believe that an animal like a Large Snake poses no danger to the public.

*Large Pythons as pets* 
Some young pythons, especially babies, are responsive to human contact and it is tempting to try to make one into a pet. This is rarely a good idea. Young snakes are adorable and are relativly easy to manage, but their huge size, specilist needs make them,difficult.

Snakes do not recognize Any words' and if they decide they want something you'd better not try (you'd fail anyway) to take it away. Your arm may look appetising, then you have a potentially deadly situation. A small mistake, such as letting a rat sit on ones shoulder, hours before handling, Even after washing hands can lead to a deadly situation. 

The biggest problem with attempting to make a Snake into a pet comes when the snake gets a little older. Female snakes reach maturity at one/two years of age. At this point in their development or shortly thereafter, they are of gargantuan proportions. They have the potential to break any wooden, or plastic enclosure with their strength, and weight. Some can be bad tempered and aggressive. If they become unmanageable they must be released to the wild. Since they've lived in captivity all their lives, they cannot simply be taken out to the country and set free. Although they may fend for themselves, the devistating effect on the local fauna, and the incorrect tempratures can lead to an untimly death of the snake. (look at the impact on florida for example)

Wildlife rescurers devote countless hours to trying to care for the vast number of pets that have became too big, too agressive, or where the owwners are simply bored. Some never become tame, some never recover. 

There are exceptions to every rule, and in some instances snakes have been successfully made into pets. There are some very skilled and enthusiastic keepers that prepare, and learn properly the responsibilities that they are about to take on.As a result of this there are some very happy snakes. There are also a lot of unhappy snakes, relesed snakes, and dead snakes. 

Another compelling reason not to make a Snake into a pet is the presence in many wild snakes of a parasite called *Ophionyssus natricis *, otherwise known as snake mites. An infested family had to have weeks of antibiotics, and as a result of the lesions and infection some permanant scars remain. Reptiles are also carriers of Salmonella bacteri. Many people have lost thier lives to this, and tens of thousends of people are hospitalised, or even die yearly. 

:lol2:I could right one on dogs, cats, rat snakes....You name it.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

The fact is, that any animal can be looked upon in either a good or bad light. I think it is clear that the animal with the biggest negative impact on the world is the human...Lets DWA children


----------

