# Quiet DWAL Opposition



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Anyone actually wonder why the RSPCA and the Antis did not kick up a stink with the species being lifted from the DWAL?

Especially on the primate side?

R

PKL


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

yeh I did actually


----------



## Snakes r grreat (Aug 21, 2006)

Because they probably know that it WILL cause problems when idiots get their hands on them, cant look after them properly, then let them lose or hand them over to the RSPCA. The RSPCA and the antis can then go look at this massive problem of keeping exotics, lets ban it to save the animals.


----------



## Fangio (Jun 2, 2007)

I did read something about the rspca not being happy with the lifting of the primates. Can't remember where though.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*unless*

...........of course they knew something we did not, eh?

R


----------



## hermanlover (Jul 8, 2007)

it was probably so they didnt publisize it, hoping less people will notice, and less people will get them


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

there was a small press release from the RSPCA but they wernt their usual selves.

I think it was a tactical. They are waiting for the shakeup with regional guidfelins etc and are wanting to make it harder for DWALs to be issued. 

There line is going to be "well the less harmless have been taken off so these are all deadly"

AND ALSO FOR WHEN THEY HAVE TO RESCUE A PRIMATE ETC THEY CAN SAY "THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF" And then get them replaced. 

(soz bout caps)


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*In many ways Dan*

........correct.
But for the last three years l ahve been saying that primates may be prohibited from private keeping.

That could now well happen.

By 2008 that could be in place.

Ok so you guys may not be primate keepers, but if they do enact that piece of legis out as a policy now, signed off by the same juinor Minister that signed off the EPS legis, then it will notbe long before they really start to win hands down other fraternities.

R


----------



## miffikins (Feb 25, 2007)

I was wondering that too. But there are now specific guidelines in place for the keeping of primates under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 that people will have to adhere to by law. Maybe thats why species like tamarins and squirrel monkeys came off, they can prosecute anyone not following these specific guidelines. 

But if you ask me, ALL primates should be DWA for the sake of their own welfare. Not many people in South Wales would have paid over 2 grand for a DWA so they can have a lil' monkey sat on their shoulder....

: victory:


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

Don't have much time for here today so sorry if the following is too abrupt.

Miffikins, the DWA is in place to protect the PUBLIC. When people start abusing it and using it for other purposes we get problems. There is no need for your line of thought to make things worse.

Rory, i have glossed over your comments on the other thread. I'll reply when i get chance or give me a bell, either way's good.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> ........correct.
> But for the last three years l ahve been saying that primates may be prohibited from private keeping.
> 
> That could now well happen.
> ...


just a note hope u dont mind... as its not strictly to do with legislation...


your sig is very striking but a misleading when you work out what it is referring to.... yes its dramatic but i really thinks it could be potentially very offputting and blurs the message you are trying to convey ... its very religious which im sure your campaign is not..

just a thought hope you dont mind me pointing that out...


----------



## glidergirl (Nov 27, 2006)

They tried this before though Rory at the beginning of 2007 and it was refused. Were they just handing us a rope to hang ourselves with or something?

Bear in mind people - IF primate keeping is banned, the animals will be taken from their home causing stress (a bit like MW did to ... ooops!!), they will be placed in zoos, but what happens if and when they're full and they cannot house anymore? The animals will be DESTROYED!!! What a f****ng load of w******s!!! And they're supposed to care, stupid b*****d morons!!!! Yes - it winds me up terribly!!! Those animals that were kept happily in a suitable environment will be ripped out of that leaving them scared and confused and they will then be MURDERED!!!! Now THAT'S cruelty!!!!


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Hi GG, hope you and R are well, 

The problem we have and this is where its all coming from,

A new policy on article ten [can still be overturned] but a policy all the same is saying that Lemurs are not allowed to be sold by private keeper to private keepers, nor are any article ten covered animals, they can only be donated or gifted to scientific or educational premises.

Now you know as l do that art ten covered primates also includes, Lemurs, Cotton Tops and Goeldis and some.

If the private keeper is not allowed to sell them, and we also know that the zoos will not want them, as they just simply can not budget for them properly, they will have to die out.

What is more concerning is the new cites legislation, where all primates species sit on appendix one and in the UK they all now sit on annex 1.

If Europe want to bring us in line, and all primates are covered by a1 legislation, then the implementaion of cites into UK would mean that all primates must be annex 1 for UK, if this is the case and there is no private sales to be had, what then?

It will mean placing animals onto the pill?

With dwa removals recently and no sales, expansion of enclosures will be a necessity.

No Sales, zoos and the likes not spending the money private keepers sell at, private keepers not wanting to donate then what?

You can see the line of thought yes?

Monkey world and rspca went behind the working groups back and got this policy signed off - pro keeping knew NOTHING about it till three days ago.

What does that suggest to you?

R


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*Sparkle*

Religion - odd subject. 

But people believe.

Campaigning - odder subject.

But people believe.

What is the tie in for my banners, are they deliberate?

Yes they are.

If people can believe in a God or deity and require no hard evidential proof and don't request it, then how can people not believe in a threat as is the one we face daily with the Opposition, and to continually request evidential verification on this threat when the threat is irrefutable?

The new campaign on Apathy and Ignorance is here.

Thanks for noticing and if you are a devout believer then no offence is meant towards you.

R
PKL


----------



## glidergirl (Nov 27, 2006)

It suggests to me that MW actually don't care about the welfare of animals currently in captivity. It suggests to me that they're r soles!!!! Why is it the people that DO care are the ones that are persecuted!!


----------

