# Illegally kept DWA's



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Why would somebody keep these illegally? When applying for a licence, what does the authority look for? Obviously correct set up and adequate knowledge, that is obviously the standard.

Apart from the two I mentioned above if you pass that stage do the council check CRB?you mental health with your doctor? as they do with other licences.

I just wondering how there are so many illegal keepers about, when in all fairness if you have the first two how can you go wrong? 

I understand it can be expensive to own your own home and to convert a room to the requirements needed, mean the snakes are the cheapest to buy?? 

I don't know, I just can't see money being the problem, I think the most expensive council is a couple of grand, that is not exactly out of reach for anyone, especially with the risk of being banned and fined for keeping them illegally.

My question is what stops these keepers from getting a licence?


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

nitro said:


> Why would somebody keep these illegally? When applying for a licence, what does the authority look for? Obviously correct set up and adequate knowledge, that is obviously the standard.
> 
> Apart from the two I mentioned above if you pass that stage do the council check CRB?you mental health with your doctor? as they do with other licences.
> 
> ...


You could just as well ask why do people take illegal drugs!

Or why do people speed in cars and so on?

Sorry but is a irritating question asked and answered time after time.

CRB and mental health Qs are not normally asked and how many illegal keepers are there? Do you know? The government do not!


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

So why answer then?


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

If you consider what has happened just up the road from me in Aldershot today it may put things into perspective.
A guy has shot his wife and daughter then himself. The four year old daughter died , his wife is critical and the guy himself died.

When we consider the fact that a shotgun license can be obtained for £50 and that guns are CLEARLY much more of a public liability than someone privately keeping venomous snakes in locked secure vivs and secure rooms or outbuildings it puts things into perspective.
Some of the fees charged by councils is ludicrous and only encourage underground keeping.
When I lived in Chobham I was told I would have to pay a £350 application fee (Non refundable if my application was denied) , then an extra £1000 per annum for the license and £50 per animal after that, oh and, let's not forget the fee for liability insurance

So, no license = Roughly £2200 better off , no inspections, no limitations as to what is kept.

By the way, We moved house to a more understanding council and I have a DWA


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

So it's a monetary issue then?

Are DWA snakes more expensive on the black market?

Obviously there is a risk going to Europe or wherever to buy a snake, like getting caught, when crossing to and from Europe if you buy a snake do you have to prove to customs and excise you have a licence?

I can not see how the licence being the price it is would cause a problem, it's not that much money.


----------



## Jade01 (Feb 21, 2007)

nitro said:


> So it's a monetary issue then?
> 
> Are DWA snakes more expensive on the black market?
> 
> ...


Oh yeah I have a spare £2200 floating around aswel...

Of course its a lot of money, especially when you consider the average salary and bills, cars, houses, family costs etc. It's an awful lot of money!

Edit: I don't at all have that much money spare.. use of sarcasm!


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

No, not just a monetary issue.

It's weighing up all the the pros and cons


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

£2200, I spend more than that on cigarettes in a year, so yeah it's just floating around, the money is not an excuse.


----------



## carpy (Nov 13, 2007)

nitro said:


> So it's a monetary issue then?
> 
> Are DWA snakes more expensive on the black market?
> 
> ...


ignoring the other holes in this arguement, how is £2200 per annum not alot of money. To the vast majority of people in the UK £2200 is alot of money. when faced with the prospect of saving £2200 a year i would say it is enough to make anyone think twice.

you must live in some sort of dream world, do us a favour and pop your head out of the fluffy bubble you are in and take a peek in the real world would you


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

Its a lot of money to some.. But I guess if someone does keep them illegally, they're not really thinking about the consequences of getting caught? Im sure most people who commit a crime intentionally arent intending to get caught.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Well I have just narrowed down the work for the government then.

All the illegal keepers are in areas where the fee is the highest.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

nitro said:


> £2200, I spend more than that on cigarettes in a year, so yeah it's just floating around, the money is not an excuse.


Well, some of us don't *have* £2200 "floating around" like that nor do we necessarily have "disposable" habits like smoking that could pick up the slack. 

Heck, that's two months+ of my wage, and I need THAT for paying a mortgage in those two months. 

I am fortunate to live in a council that has reasonable fees for DWA (no, I do not believe 2K+ is reasonable) so when and if we do choose to go down that route, the cost will not be an issue like it would be were we to live in a punishingly expensive council area.

However, I can see Al's point that if you're licenced you're subject to inspections and restrictions and so forth; if you chose to keep without a licence, as long as you're willing to accept the risk of being caught, you could keep whatever and however you chose. Not MY personal choice - but I could see how SOME people might make it.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

I keep getting £2200, how many councils are that price? Very few.

The majority are under £1000, a lot under £1000.


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> Not MY personal choice - but I could see how SOME people might make it.


Not my choice either, that's why we moved house. My bitis study means an aweful lot to me.


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

nitro said:


> I keep getting £2200, how many councils are that price? Very few.
> 
> The majority are under £1000, a lot under £1000.


But then it's not always about money. Some councils impose ridiculous restrictions in an attempt to deter the keeping of DWA species. This often just pushes people underground also


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

A council can not refuse a licence if you have met the standards set by defra, it is illegal


----------



## kelboy (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro said:


> A council can not refuse a licence if you have met the standards set by defra, it is illegal


Try telling the councils that.


----------



## wildlifewarrior (Jun 26, 2008)

nitro said:


> if you pass that stage do the council check CRB?


yep, if you have a record for armed robbery then you cant get a DWA....dont you remember the guy who robbed the HSBC bank with his Agkistrodon 47


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

nitro said:


> A council can not refuse a licence if you have met the standards set by defra, it is illegal


 Indeed but, I kid you not here's one example. Chobham stated that I must have a full protective suit stored outside my garage incase someone else had to enter the building. 

Eh?:crazy: Maybe batman will have one in the batcave or in his utility belt.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

nitro said:


> A council can not refuse a licence if you have met the standards set by defra, it is illegal


What standards are these - do you have a citation explaining what country-wide standards there are that people need to meet? 

I was of the understanding that local councils wrote their own standards, which is why the licence fee and exact requirements can be wildly different between councils.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Half the council workers are like the police, they don't know the law.

If you're refused a licence and you have the correct set up you take it further.
Governments police and councils use laws and rules to get out of all kinds of troubles and hassles so why can't average Joe do the same when it's the other way around?

Regarding the question on mental health, I thought the council might have checked into your background to see whether the aspiring keeper was sane enough to be responsible for his/her collection.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Hilary Benn I think is the head of Defra, her team would make the rules, not the council.

The council can enforce the rules but not make them, that's why you have licencing officers, to enforce the laws. Maybe i'm wrong but that's how it works on other licences


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Regarding the shotgun licence as previously mentioned, someone whom owns a gun without a licence clearly has murder in mind, regarding the price of a shotgun licence, that price is nothing to do with the council that is a police matter.

Councils are accountable to the public they serve, you vote for your council, you pay your council tax, you have the right through the freedom of information act to see and find out where your money has gone.

If people have a problem with the price their council sets they should take it up with the council, not keep hots illegally.
Just because the council says no, doesn't mean it is right. We all have MP's use them, that's what you pay all your taxes for. 

Who's fault is it the council charge so much?? The people who live it that area. It is up to you to challenge it, that's your part, not moan on about it being too expensive.


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

some councils just make it harder for people to get a license.


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

nitro said:


> Regarding the shotgun licence as previously mentioned,* someone whom owns a gun without a licence clearly has murder in mind,* regarding the price of a shotgun licence, that price is nothing to do with the council that is a police matter.


Im sorry, but how can you think thats true?


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

before i was granted my DWAL the council asked me for all kinds of information that they didnt require as it wasnt anything to do with the DWA in the end i did suppy it just to get them off my back plus i have spent lots of time and wanted this so much that i wasnt going to give up.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

rogersspider2007 said:


> before i was granted my DWAL the council asked me for all kinds of information that they didnt require as it wasnt anything to do with the DWA in the end i did suppy it just to get them off my back plus i have spent lots of time and wanted this so much that i wasnt going to give up.


Exactly you were willing to fight for what you wanted no matter what, because you wanted it.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

becky89 said:


> Im sorry, but how can you think thats true?


Ok, how can you not? Your going to go shooting rabbits and clay pigeons with an unlicenced gun and risk going to jail for five years or more???

There is only one reason somebody has a unlicenced gun, and it ain't for rabbit stew


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

of course as i did everything to make sure everything was right the first time round so they couldnt pick on anything but they do find something, so if you want it hard enough fight for it as i did and it is rewarding and from help from friends you get through it and then the council cant say nothing, yes it is a problem if the money is an issue as no one has loads of spare cash that they can use.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

rogersspider2007 said:


> of course as i did everything to make sure everything was right the first time round so they couldnt pick on anything but they do find something, so if you want it hard enough fight for it as i did and it is rewarding and from help from friends you get through it and then the council cant say nothing, yes it is a problem if the money is an issue as no one has loads of spare cash that they can use.


Thank you for your humane response :2thumb:


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

nitro said:


> Ok, how can you not? Your going to go shooting rabbits and clay pigeons with an unlicenced gun and risk going to jail for five years or more???
> 
> There is only one reason somebody has a unlicenced gun, and it ain't for rabbit stew


Yeh but murder? You're probably right in that people do go out to murder with an unlicensed gun, but suggesting *everyone* has that intention is just a bit far. I think you've been watching too much CSI..


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

becky89 said:


> Yeh but murder? You're probably right in that people do go out to murder with an unlicensed gun, but suggesting *everyone* has that intention is just a bit far. I think you've been watching too much CSI..


Hmmmmmmm ok.

What reason would somebody have an unlicenced gun for?


----------



## wildlifewarrior (Jun 26, 2008)

nitro said:


> Ok, how can you not? Your going to go shooting rabbits and clay pigeons with an unlicenced gun and risk going to jail for five years or more???
> 
> There is only one reason somebody has a unlicenced gun, and it ain't for rabbit stew


Not really at all, when my neighbour passed away as the house was being cleaned out over 20 workable guns were found in his attic on the walls. they were mostly world war 2 guns with a few other army type guns....he was a big admirer of war films and to him it completed his need i guess by owning the real things.....just like movie fans keep fantasy weapons...they arent going to kill anyone but owning them giving them enjoyment


----------



## DRD (Nov 12, 2008)

Al Hyde said:


> *If you consider what has happened just up the road from me in Aldershot today it may put things into perspective.*
> *A guy has shot his wife and daughter then himself. The four year old daughter died , his wife is critical and the guy himself died.*


This is very true, they live a few roads away from me and the whole place has been shut down.

News crews and all the like around.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

wildlifewarrior said:


> Not really at all, when my neighbour passed away as the house was being cleaned out over 20 workable guns were found in his attic on the walls. they were mostly world war 2 guns with a few other army type guns....he was a big admirer of war films and to him it completed his need i guess by owning the real things.....just like movie fans keep fantasy weapons...they arent going to kill anyone but owning them giving them enjoyment


Ok, you see my point though surely?


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

nitro said:


> Hmmmmmmm ok.
> 
> What reason would somebody have an unlicenced gun for?


Tbh I dont really know, or particularly care, Im not saying that everyone getting an unlicensed gun is going to be careful about it, just put it away in a cupboard, and not go doing something stupid, but my point its stupid saying theyre all out for murder.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

I feel deeply for the families of that family and for the mother and little girl that was murdered, I hope the bloke rots in hell.

I don't understand people that do that, fair enough, if you want to do it to yourself, but don't take your family with you.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

becky89 said:


> Tbh I dont really know, or particularly care, Im not saying that everyone getting an unlicensed gun is going to be careful about it, just put it away in a cupboard, and not go doing something stupid, but my point its stupid saying theyre all out for murder.


Yeah ok, and back to the real world.

I'm going to buy a gun, and put it in my cupboard.


----------



## wildlifewarrior (Jun 26, 2008)

nitro said:


> Ok, you see my point though surely?


not really.....you said there was only one reason....thats simply not true....i have a few friends that have a cricket bat in there bedroom... there not going to use it on someone but it makes them feel safe. Guns can make people feel safe, not that they should keep them but its true. some people have a fasination of keeping them. Some guns cant be kept over here but to a collector they still need them in there collection.

its the same reason why a kid buys a catapult even though there not going to fire it at anyone.....different things to different people are cool/enjoyable


----------



## wildlifewarrior (Jun 26, 2008)

nitro said:


> Yeah ok, and back to the real world.
> 
> I'm going to buy a gun, and put it in my cupboard.


your just being very childish

i cant stand guns actually and think think its terriable that people do...but it still happens


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

nitro said:


> Yeah ok, and back to the real world.
> 
> I'm going to buy a gun, and put it in my cupboard.


:roll: "Im going to go and buy an unlicensed gun, just so I can go murder someone.." Yeh cos im sure theres so many people who go round thinking that.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Regardless of your opinion the reason people buy unlicenced guns is to harm other people, end of discussion.


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

WLW gave you reasons as to why people might have them, did you not consider these at all?


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

just goinbg off subject here isnt this thread suppose to be about unlicensed DWA? sorry but its just going round and round with regards getting guns. in my opinion which everyone is entitled to, getting an unlicensed gun is probably cheaper but people do get them because when you are licensed that gun is registered to you so there is a purpose unless like mentioned earlier that someone is collecting, sorry thats just my opinion.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

You cannot legally keep an activated gun without a licence, those are the laws.

Those breaking the law, can expect to receive five years in prison. So your telling me somebody is going to risk at least five years in prison to have it on the wall?

Look people do not have guns without the intention of using them, kids go out with knives, if they feel threatened will they use them, of course they will.

People who own loaded guns do so because they are in fear of losing there life and its a me or him attitude, doesn't matter if you don't agree, that is how it works.

People even use guns to get money or to take someone out who is muscling in on there business.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Ok agreed people collect them, we all collect our own things, aside from collectors then, genuine collectors. Those guns are not aloud to fire a live round without a licence though.

Hell yeah it's way off topic now.


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

which was my point but serious collectors of guns or DWA have their reasons which is totally wrong as there is quite a few of us out there that have gone through the trouble of gong legal but there are gangs use them to intimidate or to kill. thats my say in it all.


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

Ok Ok, Perhaps I shouldn't have compared the DWA licence to Firearms. I just feel that the whole system is totaly f****d up .
The point I was making is that Venomous snake keepers suffer again and again due to ignorance, fear and a misunderstanding of the animals we love and admire. The same rules do not apply to those that love firearms, aggressive dogs etc etc.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

rogersspider2007 said:


> which was my point but serious collectors of guns or DWA have their reasons which is totally wrong as there is quite a few of us out there that have gone through the trouble of gong legal but there are gangs use them to intimidate or to kill. thats my say in it all.


Yet again, the voice of reason.

Thank God


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Al Hyde said:


> The same rules do not apply to those that love firearms, aggressive dogs etc etc.


I'm not going to go into the dangerous dogs act :lol2:


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

you quite right Al as it just takes 1 to abuse the system and then it spoils it for all of us.


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

ive had my fair share of problems off my council and i did serious think about chucking the towel in and it would of been so easy to go underground so to speak but with all the help and advise i was able to to fight it out and win and now im licensed and have got nothing to worry about. the other thing to think about is what if, could you live with that or a case of losing your own life.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Al Hyde said:


> Indeed but, I kid you not here's one example. Chobham stated that I must have a full protective suit stored outside my garage incase someone else had to enter the building.
> 
> Eh?:crazy: Maybe batman will have one in the batcave or in his utility belt.


I knew i had herd that somewhere but couldnt remember who it was:bash:

Getting back to the issue, making all keepers compliant is such a simple thing to achieve

1. make the fee standard accross the country
2. make the fee realistic say around £200 or so a year this seems to be
about average
3. make a set criteria which all councils and applicants adhere to 
_ ie_ security of animals and room, protocols, equipment etc
4. ensure that no LA's can refuse point blank at will like Birmingham do
because the issuing officer "doesnt like snakes"


I have also had an idea would it be possible for there to be inspectors sactioned by DEFRA to inspect those wanting DWAL's so then these inspectors can put the recomendation to the council weather to issue the applicant with a licence. Contrary to popular beleve there are not dozens upon dozens of people in every area looking to keep DWA my council is a good one and has no problem issuing them to suitable applicants my area has over 1/4 of a million people in it and there are only 2 people with DWAL's. my inspection was done by one of the countrys top vets and was ultra thorough and looked at everything not just if the vivs were at the right temp for Sp, ie security of room cages even what disinfectant to use and helped me with adjusting my protocol. if people like that did all inspections then im sure those who are non compliant would be willing to do it legaly as they would be treated equally and would only be denied a licence if they did not meet the criteria which all the guys on here adhere to.
but in the end you will always have the odd one or two who will keep them ilegaly


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

rogersspider2007 said:


> ive had my fair share of problems off my council and i did serious think about chucking the towel in and it would of been so easy to go underground so to speak but with all the help and advise i was able to to fight it out and win and now im licensed and have got nothing to worry about. the other thing to think about is what if, could you live with that or a case of losing your own life.


That is my sentiment exactly. If your unlicenced, surely your room is not going to be council spec is it? Your not going to spend thousands when you think it's adequate as it is.

However, to my knowledge, no one has died from a bite from a hot in this country from an illegal keeper.

If you get bitten does that go on your licence? Could this restrict your renewal the following year?


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

nitro said:


> That is my sentiment exactly. If your unlicenced, surely your room is not going to be council spec is it? Your not going to spend thousands when you think it's adequate as it is.
> 
> However, to my knowledge, no one has died from a bite from a hot in this country from an illegal keeper.
> 
> If you get bitten does that go on your licence? Could this restrict your renewal the following year?


you would be supprised i would bet a lot of the ileagle keepers keep them in a similar way to licenced ones.

as for being bitten this is between you and the hospital and the council will only know if you inform them


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

from what my council told me they would want to know why i got bitten just incase it was because i was drunk and showing off in front of friends or a feeding response, you have to give these 110% all the time and everytime there is no room for error. it all down to if you a capable. if you keep getting bitten then there is a problem.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

I thought there might have been a condition on your licence where you would have to declare certain events.

Yeah I totally see your point concerning being on the ball 110% of the time.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

nitro said:


> I thought there might have been a condition on your licence where you would have to declare certain events.
> 
> Yeah I totally see your point concerning being on the ball 110% of the time.


do you tell the licencing authority every time someone you sell beer to gets pissed and kicks the s:censor:t out of someone or gets done for drink drivin:lol2:


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

:lol2: Fair point.


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

Sorry to hear about that shooting, it is a real tragedy.
I am a licensed firearms and shotgun owner myself and while it may only cost £60 every 5 years, if both certificates are applied for at the same time(There is a £26 fee each time I want to change one of my rifles or handguns), there are stringent police checks, medical background checks, security checks and interviews with Police Firearms Licensing Officers. 
A rifle, shotgun or pistol is an inanimate object, it cannot hurt anyone on its own... venomous snakes are a little different, they have a will of their own and will often bite given the chance.
The Shooting sports are growing rapidly and seems to be gaining in acceptance. While not everyone is in favour of private gun ownership, it is seen as a safe, disciplined and well organised legitimate sport. 
Unfortunately keeping venomous snakes in the family is going to be seen as a crazy and dangerous thing to want to do....... and it might be hard to justify rationally.


----------



## physeptone (May 5, 2008)

Nitro, you are clearly trolling to me...
...whipping up pointless arguments.

oh btw, Hilary Benn is a bloke- he always has been
Home


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

How am I trolling?


----------



## kenneally1 (Feb 17, 2009)

Can i ask a question? If you have any convictions will you be denied a DWA?



Also to PDR, my stepson shoots for Devon ( D.T.L ) and i know he had to jump through many hoops to recieve his license ( being under 16 ) and finnally had to have his O and U's stored at the grandparents.


----------



## kenneally1 (Feb 17, 2009)

Also PDR, just noticed you said "change rifle or handgun," are handguns legal again now?


----------



## Jade01 (Feb 21, 2007)

kenneally1 said:


> *Can i ask a question? If you have any convictions will you be denied a DWA?
> *
> 
> 
> Also to PDR, my stepson shoots for Devon ( D.T.L ) and i know he had to jump through many hoops to recieve his license ( being under 16 ) and finnally had to have his O and U's stored at the grandparents.




I always wondered that..


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

nitro said:


> £2200, I spend more than that on cigarettes in a year, so yeah it's just floating around, the money is not an excuse.


but i'm guessing you didn't buy them all at the same time and the council don't take a fiver a day over the year for the license.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nitro said:


> A council can not refuse a licence if you have met the standards set by defra, it is illegal


Unfortunately this is not correct. DEFRA do not set any standards, neither can they force a local authority to issue a DWA licence.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nitro said:


> Hilary Benn I think is the head of Defra, her team would make the rules, not the council.
> 
> The council can enforce the rules but not make them, that's why you have licencing officers, to enforce the laws. Maybe i'm wrong but that's how it works on other licences


Hilary Benn [male] is indeed the Minister in charge of DEFRA. Hillary Benn is son of Tony Benn, former MP and patron to Animal Aid. 

DEFRA make the legislation but Local Authorities enforce it, however, DEFRA have no powers to override decisions made by the Local Authority.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

rogersspider2007 said:


> some councils just make it harder for people to get a license.


Indeed, some Council point blank refuse to issue them!


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

physeptone said:


> Nitro, you are clearly trolling to me...
> ...whipping up pointless arguments.


my thoughts exactly:censor:


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

kenneally1 said:


> Can i ask a question? If you have any convictions will you be denied a DWA?
> 
> 
> 
> Also to PDR, my stepson shoots for Devon ( D.T.L ) and i know he had to jump through many hoops to recieve his license ( being under 16 ) and finnally had to have his O and U's stored at the grandparents.


i think if you have convictions for animal cruelty or something similar they can refuse a license, i doubt something like assault or shoplifting would be an issue tho


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

also nitro just to go back to the money issue have you any idea how much it cost to create a hotroom that will safely house the animals? many keepers on this forum have spent thousands doing this plus the license fee, vet inspection and insurance and in todays economy is not easy for the average person to find


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

nitro said:


> All the illegal keepers are in areas where the fee is the highest.


Incidentally, if the newspapers have their facts correctly, my council area DID have an unlicenced keeper (Kirklees states there are no current DWAL holders) despite its sub-£100 licence fee... either that, or the alligator whose six-week-dead partial skull was found in a field twenty minutes' walk from my house managed to migrate there himself due to global warming.

No, the 'gator wasn't mine; I just found out about it because one of my coworkers looks for local news stories regarding reptiles and points them out to me. But I sure would like to know why a six-foot gator died and was dismembered prior to being dumped in a field, and I _hope _it wasn't because an unlicenced keeper couldn't get vet care for it.

With our low council fee, and knowing that there *was* an animal like that in the area that wasn't licenced, I can't help but wonder if we will meet "administrative resistance" should we apply for the DWA at some point in the future.


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

kenneally1 said:


> Can i ask a question? If you have any convictions will you be denied a DWA?


The declaration on the DWA should be something like



> I hereby declare that I am over 18 years of age and not disqualified by being convicted of any offence at any time under the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964, the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, the Protection of Animals Act 1934, the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, the Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970 or the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.




Therefore it is only convinctions in those areas that should count.


----------



## Mujician (Mar 7, 2007)

A lot of people will think the fine us less than the licence. Just like driving without insurance. It's cheaper to get caught and buy another car than to pay insurance. 
WDBs are about fifty quid each, for 2000 quid I could buy loads of them and bypass the licence. If I got a licence ivcould only have one snake and a load of hassle. 



DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to do this, nor do I know where to get under the counter DWA snakes!!


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

slippery42 said:


> my thoughts exactly:censor:


If you don't like the thread I created do not comment on it.

You have made two comments?? Real interesting at that. So STFU.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> Unfortunately this is not correct. DEFRA do not set any standards, neither can they force a local authority to issue a DWA licence.


So who sets the standards then, are DEFRA not the government department for the keeping of DWA's? 

I didn't say DEFRA could over rule the council, that is what magistrates courts are for.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

nitro said:


> So who sets the standards then, are DEFRA not the government department for the keeping of DWA's?
> 
> I didn't say DEFRA could over rule the council, that is what magistrates courts are for.


DEFRA are not responsible for the DWA. The administration of the Act, issuing of licences, and prosecution for offences is the responsibility of Local Authorities.
This is why there is such a huge range of fees charged across the country and differing standards.
For this reason, a review is currently in place, the results of which are due soon, the aim being to standardise these charges and standards. The idea is to make it an easier process to go through, thus reducing illegal collections.
The legislation states that LA's may charge a reasonable fee to cover their costs, but does NOT say what is reasonable. This is one of teh aspects which hopefully will change.
LA's will consult a vet, usually either a zoo vet or exotics vet, for guidance on safety and appropriate housing - this is why you have to have a vets inspection (which you pay for) as part of the application.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

ian14 said:


> DEFRA are not responsible for the DWA. The administration of the Act, issuing of licences, and prosecution for offences is the responsibility of Local Authorities.
> This is why there is such a huge range of fees charged across the country and differing standards.
> For this reason, a review is currently in place, the results of which are due soon, the aim being to standardise these charges and standards. The idea is to make it an easier process to go through, thus reducing illegal collections.
> The legislation states that LA's may charge a reasonable fee to cover their costs, but does NOT say what is reasonable. This is one of teh aspects which hopefully will change.
> LA's will consult a vet, usually either a zoo vet or exotics vet, for guidance on safety and appropriate housing - this is why you have to have a vets inspection (which you pay for) as part of the application.


I understand what you are saying. The council enforce the act and police it.

Who sets the standards regarding for example rep room specifications


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

The individual local councils set the specifications - or their appointed vet inspector does.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

I understand that the vet comes round and does his bit, but everyone works to and from guidelines, so who writes those?

The government surely with there advisors??


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

nitro said:


> I understand what you are saying. The council enforce the act and police it.
> 
> Who sets the standards regarding for example rep room specifications


Again, there are no real "standards". This is a part of the inspection. Generally, most authorities will insist on the room being a spare room, if there are windows these need to have bars and sealed so they cannot be open (and I am sure they will expect reinforced glass), the floor must be sealed, commonly this is done by lino or similar going up the skirting boards, rather than wall to wall, and a double entry door system.


----------



## daz30347 (Aug 30, 2007)

*Dwal*



nitro said:


> A council can not refuse a licence if you have met the standards set by defra, it is illegal


You're neighbouring council does just that:whistling2:


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

daz30347 said:


> You're neighbouring council does just that:whistling2:


This can be appealed in the magistrates court though.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

From what I understand, no.

I read the document on the 2001 review (all 90-some pages of it) and it sounds like back in 1976 there was a sort of rough guideline pamphlet sent to local councils that did not have species or even genus/family specific guidelines in it; from what that document said, most current councils are unaware that document exists.

For that matter, not all councils use the same department to manage the DWA application and issue process. 

Who writes the guidelines at this time would appear to be something like: "Kirklees Council writes the guidelines that Kirklees Council will accept as suitable for having a DWA licence in Kirklees. Kirklees Council appoints their chosen vet inspector to inspect based on Kirklees Council guidelines."

Which is why having a licence in one council area would be no guarantee of having one in another council area if you moved, and why a licence isn't applicable country-wide.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

nitro said:


> I understand that the vet comes round and does his bit, but everyone works to and from guidelines, so who writes those?
> 
> The government surely with there advisors??


Again, no. This is why there are problems with the legislation - it is wide open to interpretation by each LA as to what they want.
Currently only two things are the same throughout the UK - 1. Schedule 1 (the list of restricted species) is the same wherever you live as it is part of teh legislation and 2. if you want to keep any of those species you need a licence.
Other than that, the costs involved, application process, everything, varies.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

Ok so if it is the council, they should have the power taken away from them.

If they put different charges on licences, refuse to grant them for no good reasons, basically do as they please, why have they been allowed to get away with it for so long?

Wouldn't it be better to have a licence issued by DEFRA with set charges? To have say, DEFRA officials whom would come and check your set up with a DEFRA
vet? That way everything would be universal and fair.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Indeed, and that's what certain folks fighting for the hobby are *trying* to do - get it centrally regulated, centrally charged, centrally accountable.

It's been allowed to go on the way it has because it hasn't done substantial HARM - but it also hasn't been of significant BENEFIT.


----------



## nitro (Dec 8, 2009)

If it was universal, there would be no need for illegal keeping?? 

There would be no excuse, unless someone has a conviction of cruelty to animals?

No illegal keeper has ever died or been the cause of the death through his/her collection, so keeping illegally must just be a stance against the system itself?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

nitro said:


> If it was universal, there would be no need for illegal keeping??
> 
> There would be no excuse, unless someone has a conviction of cruelty to animals?
> 
> No illegal keeper has ever died or been the cause of the death through his/her collection, so keeping illegally must just be a stance against the system itself?


That is the theory - the hope is that the licence will have a standard UK-wide application fee, a standard renewal fee, with renewal done every two years, not annually as it is now, standard vets fees and standard housing and safety precautions. This would mean once you have a licence you could move to a new LA and would simply transfer your licence, rather than starting again.

The one area you have wrong is that no illegal keeper has been killed etc - the point of the Act has nothing whatsoever to do with the owner's safety but ensuring the safety of the public. It could, however, be equally argued that no one in the UK has died from a non-native DWA species (in the case of snakes since the 1800's when the drunken zoo keeper died from a cobra bite), and so as such is there a need for the Act in the first place? It can also be argued that, given the belief that there are far more illegally held DWA's than legally held, and again, no bites sustained, then again the Act is doing nothing to protect the public.

I feel that the DWA should be kept, to prevent total muppets from getting their hands on venomous snakes, but then again if you really want to, you can any way!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

There's never a "need" for any kind of illegal behaviour (People don't NEED to keep DWA species, they WANT to), and there's often little excuse.

Even if the system of DWA is centrally managed and there's a uniform reasonable fee, some people will still object to the intrusion into their lives that an inspection represents, or will buy without knowing it's illegal to keep a specific species, or will just say "hell with that, if I don't bother to get a licence I don't have to have the insurance, and I'll save the money."

If the system were fairer I would have no problem with harsher punishments for people who are caught.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> From what I understand, no.
> 
> I read the document on the 2001 review (all 90-some pages of it) and it sounds like back in 1976 there was a sort of rough guideline pamphlet sent to local councils that did not have species or even genus/family specific guidelines in it; from what that document said, most current councils are unaware that document exists.
> 
> ...


Very observant of you, indeed when the Act came into force ‘guidance’ was issued to all Councils be the Home Office, this was back in 1976 and nothing had been issued since. I have a copy of the original guidance, probably one of the only copies left it would appear!

The good new is we are just completing new guidance for Councils [local authorities] which should be issued early part of 2010, I hope this will make a significant difference in generating compliance with the DWAA, when I say compliance I mean compliance from Local Authorities. In my view one of the major issues of non-compliance by keepers is due to maladministration of the Act by LA’s, either refusing to issues licences of illegally overcharging for them. The new guidance will not be perfect, but it’s a start.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

I think there seems to be a number of people who have never gone through the process of applying for a dwa and seem to speculate what happens, the following is my recent personal experience

I called my LA enviromental health office asking for an application form.
He asked me what it was for and i told him, within a couple of days the application form was in my hand.
I completed the form which asked my name and address among other questions was what i planned to keep, i listed 10 Sp of snake, and sent the form back.
A day or two later he called me asking if he could come round to show him my proposals for my "snake room". I had planned to convert part of my garage, when he came round i had not started the conversion so i explained my plans and he went away happy.
a month or so later i called him to say thet the room was finished and he said ok and asked me to arrange a vet to inspect the room.
Now contrary to popular belive, not just any old vet can/will do the inspection, i didnt bother trying to find a localish vet and went and called Chris Marshall who does a lot of DWAL inspections and also is the vet for West midlands Safari Park, my thinking was if this guy inspects and passes and recomends me then i am doing something right:lol2:
the following is what he inspected
Animal enclosure which is the building as well as the vivaria.......security, size, construction, sutability

Food and Feeding regime

heating

lighting

ventilation

drainage

clenliness

handling venomous snakes....tools/equipment

bite protocols

bedding/substrate

fire precautions

infectious desease precautions

exercise room

and suitability of applicant
He took around an hour to inspect my room which by the way is 15 foot by 9 foot ish

he then went away and made out the report for my LA saying i was a suitable applicant and the room was also suitable provided 6 small points that were highlighted in the report were addressed and the inspection cost me £269


points highlighted were

the inner door to the room had a latch style lock fitted
plastic handling tubes were present (they were on order from midwest in 
states and turned up the next day)
he recomended i use Virkon for deep cleaning
i replaced one of the window locks 
i had a clearly marked waste bin
that the gap between the viv stack between wall and viv side be blocked.

even though i had bite protocols he supplied me with some additional info to add to mine.

the issuing officer then came round and checked i had completed the above, and had a bit of a nose around, i paid my money £220 and that was it. no real hassle no problems and to me this is how it should be.

If all LA's were like that then there should be no problems with non compliance


----------



## louodge (Sep 26, 2008)

my LA is a nightmare and will go out of there way to not grant a DWAL 

here are some newspaper articals of a refusal the LA went and asked his neighbours if they wanted him to keep hots and guess what there answer was!! oh and by the way WTF has it got to do with your neighbours if you keep the corectly

Man's bid to keep deadly snakes at Blackpool home - Blackpool Today

Snake man fails in bid to keep reptiles - Blackpool Today


----------



## xxstaggyxx (Oct 22, 2008)

louodge said:


> my LA is a nightmare and will go out of there way to not grant a DWAL
> 
> here are some newspaper articals of a refusal the LA went and asked his neighbours if they wanted him to keep hots and guess what there answer was!! oh and by the way WTF has it got to do with your neighbours if you keep the corectly
> 
> ...


didt he in the end get granted his DWAL or am i wrong on that


----------



## louodge (Sep 26, 2008)

xxstaggyxx said:


> didt he in the end get granted his DWAL or am i wrong on that


 
No he diddent get his DWA in the end


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

I remember the case and I'm in agreement unless you want your neighbours to know what you are keeping WTF does it have to do with them?


----------



## xxstaggyxx (Oct 22, 2008)

thinking about that case when he was not granted his DWA would he be able to take it any further like to caught to argue your case and get the refusal from the LA overturned


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

my la advised me not to tell my neighbours haha


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

just read the article then i cant believe they went round asking his neighbours!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

i just read this thread and i stupefied... 


i couldn't live there and not 'go off'...

jeez!... it's another way to extort money from law abiding citizens charging that much for a dwa application... and non-refundable at that!


they could kiss my white *ss trying to make me pay that money and going through all that crap just to own a snake or some sort... for what?


stupid stuff... no one can possibly defend the racketeering scam that the authority imposes on people want to have a dwa animal...

it's incomprehensible to me...

so much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness there... who vote for that stuff?


no... it's retarded... i won't even get into the gun thing....

you guys are oppressed i say...


it's none of any government's business having those rules and fees in place... but i realise that the united kingdom is a very different place compared to america... we have our rights to be left alone trampled on all the time... but any american would take one look at those fees... non-refundable at that... and all those silly hoops one has to jump through would sour them... even non-snake keepers... 

why is it so important for the government there to want to control what people have anyway?


no disrespect intended at all... but christ!


stuff isn't even standardized in many cases...


erosion of liberties pure and simple... the government works for the people... it's not the people's master...

i guess you need a license to own a chainsaw or something too...

guns... they compare snakes to guns now... guns are to keep the government afraid of the people... pure and simple... i would keep whatever i wanted if i lived there... the powers that be can kiss my *ss...


you see the fight about the python ban... it's not even a ban... they'll still have these big guys for sale in every pet shop in town here ... just the big breeders will be impacted...

the good brits should throw a tizzy-fit anytime the u.k. government tries to take anything away or place fees and tarriffs on anything...

don't let them be your masters...

it's a bunch of crap the whole dwa thing and smells like it too...

what are they going to do?... lock everyone up?

non venomous keepers should support the venomous keepers in this...

do they just pass laws with no say so from the voters there?


never mind.... i just go out in the woods and find me a rattlesnake and that's that...











i need a smoke....


----------



## Chriseybear (Jun 6, 2008)

I remember talking to mark in the shop about this, He told me they put it to public debate to allow him or not.

You could probably mention the words "snake collection" and leave the venemous part out and the general public would still shake their heads and say "not in my district!" Feel Sorry for Daz, He's a nice guy and knows his reptiles.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

what was the official reason that they gave him?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

xxstaggyxx said:


> didt he in the end get granted his DWAL or am i wrong on that


This case was an absolute disgrace, and one that final convinced government guidance on administration of the DWAA was required. Hopefully once the guidance is issued he will reply!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

paulrimmer69 said:


> just read the article then i cant believe they went round asking his neighbours!


What the Council did in this case was not only a complete disgrace, it was totally illegal, hopefully he will reply.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

HABU said:


> i just read this thread and i stupefied...
> 
> 
> i couldn't live there and not 'go off'...
> ...


it could be worse we could have Bert Backarack Obumma or what ever his name is in charge


----------



## Chriseybear (Jun 6, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> What the Council did in this case was not only a complete disgrace, it was totally illegal, hopefully he will reply.


Hopefully.
Im sure the LA actually told him to go ahead to prepare everything aswell, I could imagine Not a cheap, quick and easy thing to do getting a Hot room ready. Knowing they would not issue the license, What a darn right rude and as you said disgraceful thing to do.

Knowing they were going to point blank refuse, they should have told him off the mark No not in our district (still wrong) Not played along so despicable to just say No after they've begun proceedings..


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

i remember a guy about 12 years ago spent about 3/4 grand building an enclosure for a caimen which i had for rehoming the guy was told to build it and get his insurence buy his coulcil when the vet and the council officer came to inspect they asked where the animal was and he said "well i cant have it till i have a licance" they then told him if he had the animal in the tank then they would have given him his licence but as he didnt they wouldnt,,,,,crazy


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

kenneally1 said:


> Also PDR, just noticed you said "change rifle or handgun," are handguns legal again now?


My handguns are muzzle loading black powder pistols / revolvers. These are legal as they are black powder firearms. I also have a long-barrelled revolver in my safe. This uses normal rounds of ammunition and is legal because the weapon is of the correct overall length for a section one firearm. There are certain circumstances where you can still own the sort of handguns that were banned in 1996 but people tend to keep this quiet about this along with the fact that you can own handguns on the Isle of Mann or the Channel Is. and Ireland.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

leecb0 said:


> it could be worse we could have Bert Backarack Obumma or what ever his name is in charge


 
oh... we dissin' obama now eh?...











:whistling2:


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

HABU said:


> oh... we dissin' obama now eh?...
> 
> 
> image
> ...


please feel free to take pot shots at our great leader........we all do:lol2:
i have friends in So Cal no one there seems to like him even though most of them voted for him......lol


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

PDR said:


> My handguns are muzzle loading black powder pistols / revolvers. These are legal as they are black powder firearms. I also have a long-barrelled revolver in my safe. This uses normal rounds of ammunition and is legal because the weapon is of the correct overall length for a section one firearm. There are certain circumstances where you can still own the sort of handguns that were banned in 1996 but people tend to keep this quiet about this along with the fact that you can own handguns on the Isle of Mann or the Channel Is. and Ireland.


 FNH USA Inc SCAR 16S 223 Rem/5.56 16" 30Rnd 98501










*SCAR 16S 223 Rem/5.56 16" 30Rnd Description*
Experience the reliability, accuracy and versatility of the FN SCAR 16S, the civilian legal, semi-auto only version of the U.S. Special Operations Command’s service rifles. The SCAR 16S is chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO (223 Rem.). The innovative gas-operated, short stroke piston system reduces fouling for greater reliability. The SCAR 16S features user-interchangeable, free floating, cold hammer-forged MIL-SPEC barrels with hard-chromed bores. Fully-ambidextrous operating controls instantly adapt the SCAR S-Series to any user. The receiver integrated MIL-STD 1913 optical rail plus three accessory rails enable mounting of a wide variety of tactical lights and lasers. The side-folding polymer stock is fully adjustable for comb height and length of pull, and is colored authentic USSOCOM Flat Dark Earth. 

- Caliber: .223 Remington/5.56
- Magazine Capacity: 30
- Barrel: 16"

i can buy this up the street...:2thumb: i ain't got 2 $grand$ though...:blush:


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

leecb0 said:


> please feel free to take pot shots at our great leader........we all do:lol2:
> i have friends in So Cal no one there seems to like him even though most of them voted for him......lol


cause california is the land of fruits and nuts...:lol2:


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

nitro said:


> If you don't like the thread I created do not comment on it.
> 
> You have made two comments?? Real interesting at that. So STFU.



How rude are you! 

In fairness everyone who has given an honest opinion or TRIED to explain your original question 'why would people keep hots illegally' you have just jumped all up and down on their replies and bragged about how much spare money you have to 'literally' burn... 

Now a genuine DWAL holder who has seen and done a whole lot more than you and is giving you real life accounts and oppinions gets brassed off with your attitude and your suprised? And respond like that?

Grow up.


----------



## Jay1978 (Sep 1, 2009)

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what cheshire is like when it comes to issueing DWA's?


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

Jay1978 said:


> Just out of curiosity does anyone know what cheshire is like when it comes to issueing DWA's?


I live in Cheshire but I don’t know what the council’s attitude is towards DWAL as I have never had reason to deal with them. I have helped two Private Keepers in Merseyside gain DWAL’s and Merseyside where very good once they had been to visit me and got an idea of what is involved in keeping venomous. 
(Our venomous collection does not come under the DWAL).

I


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

chondro13 said:


> How rude are you!
> 
> In fairness everyone who has given an honest opinion or TRIED to explain your original question 'why would people keep hots illegally' you have just jumped all up and down on their replies and bragged about how much spare money you have to 'literally' burn...
> 
> ...


Nitro is a dick.....................end of discussion?


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

slippery42 said:


> Nitro is a dick.....................end of discussion?


amen...


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

slippery42 said:


> Nitro is a dick.....................end of discussion?


Agreed. Eloquently said, Graeme


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

slippery42 said:


> Nitro is a dick.....................end of discussion?


dont sit on the fence Graeme for god sake say what you mean:lol2:


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Well you get rid of one and theres allways another waiting to take there place:lol2:


----------



## ScottGB (May 12, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> Well you get rid of one and theres allways another waiting to take there place:lol2:


yeah but not normally this quick!!!:lol2:


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> Well you get rid of one and theres allways another waiting to take there place:lol2:


dont forget the 14yr old who wants the tiger lol!


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> What the Council did in this case was not only a complete disgrace, it was totally illegal, hopefully he will reply.


then surely he would have a good case to get the decision overturned at the very least?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

paulrimmer69 said:


> then surely he would have a good case to get the decision overturned at the very least?


It couldn’t be overturned as the event is now historic, you only have 21 days after refusal for this to happen. He would need to make a new application, however, I would suggest this is done after the guidance is issued to LA’s. Then if they tried to pull the same stunt they would find themselves in some difficulties.


----------



## kenneally1 (Feb 17, 2009)

PDR said:


> My handguns are muzzle loading black powder pistols / revolvers. These are legal as they are black powder firearms. I also have a long-barrelled revolver in my safe. This uses normal rounds of ammunition and is legal because the weapon is of the correct overall length for a section one firearm. There are certain circumstances where you can still own the sort of handguns that were banned in 1996 but people tend to keep this quiet about this along with the fact that you can own handguns on the Isle of Mann or the Channel Is. and Ireland.


 
Thanks for the reply.

On another note, a friend of mine handed in a large collection in the 1996 amnesty, and is still waiting for his compensation.


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

slippery42 said:


> I remember the case and I'm in agreement unless you want your neighbours to know what you are keeping WTF does it have to do with them?


 
Ah I forgot to mention, Chobham also put an article in the local newspaper about my application, obviously trying to stir some kind of reaction from my neighbours.

The article read

"A bodybuilder from Burr Hill Lane Chobham with an affinity for snakes has applied for a licence to keep venomous reptiles in his garage.
Baboon vipers (Their Spelling, not mine) , a highly venomous species from Africa are one of the species he wishes to keep."

For starters why mention that i'm a bodybuilder? WTF has that got to do with my application. I would expect that they were trying to play with the fact most people stereotype bodybuilders as meatheads.
Also, at the time I was the only person into weights in Burr Hill Lane and the article told every kid in the neighbourhood who was applying. Next thing I knew I had kids nosing round my garage trying to get a peak.


Anyway, as far as I know the article did not stir up any negative feedback.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Al Hyde said:


> Ah I forgot to mention, Chobham also put an article in the local newspaper about my application, obviously trying to stir some kind of reaction from my neighbours.
> 
> The article read
> 
> ...


What sort of bodies did/ do you build Al car or truck?????????:lol2:


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

:lol2:


----------



## Jay1978 (Sep 1, 2009)

PDR said:


> I live in Cheshire but I don’t know what the council’s attitude is towards DWAL as I have never had reason to deal with them. I have helped two Private Keepers in Merseyside gain DWAL’s and Merseyside where very good once they had been to visit me and got an idea of what is involved in keeping venomous.
> (Our venomous collection does not come under the DWAL).
> 
> I


Thanks for the reply mate. I_t is not that I want one as much as a curiosity quesion. I admire venemous snakes there is no denying the beauty and charm I just prefer to handle my pets. But each to their own!_


----------



## TBreptiles (Dec 11, 2009)

*hi*

Hi,

I wont a dwarf caiman but im only 15.

i woukld not get one without a dwal but i have been waiting for 1 year and have still got 3 to go.

i can easaly understand y people would illegally keep them,

it saves money
it saves time
your home may not reach standerds due to a little thing.

btw what happes if u get caught pm me plz.
thanks


----------



## kenneally1 (Feb 17, 2009)

chondro13 said:


> How rude are you!
> 
> In fairness everyone who has given an honest opinion or TRIED to explain your original question 'why would people keep hots illegally' you have just jumped all up and down on their replies and bragged about how much spare money you have to 'literally' burn...
> 
> ...




Ive always thought you were hot :whistling2:... with a reply like that your even hotter : victory:


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

TBreptiles said:


> Hi,
> 
> I wont a dwarf caiman but im only 15.
> 
> ...


well last year a guy got a £2k fine and a 10 year ban


----------



## TBreptiles (Dec 11, 2009)

*o damm*

fine ok but ban hell no.



Sign In

click document.


----------

