# The DWA



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

As predominately a mammal man, and only just starting to look at the reptile side of life [albeit with enthusiasm], i am curious to hear peoples views on the species being lifted off the actual licence in/on October 1st 2007.

I have reservations about certain mammal species being lifted, for a few reasons;

1] Non knowledgable keepers able to purchase them as a status kick rather than specifically an animal to bring into their collections.

2] The dangers of some of these species in the wrong hands.

3] The damage that the lifting will have of these same species into the market - in terms of apparent greed and financial gain.

4] The lack of now regulative control of these same species.

5] The long range affect that these lifts will have in so far as the hobby fraternity of qualitable keepers versus those that have more money than common sense.

I think that there should be something present in terms of licencing, perhaps Private Keepers' Licence.

What are your views on the subjects raised?

Do you have different subjects in thought/

And what are your views on the lack of regulation on the dwa species now that they will be lifted?

Many thanks

Rory Matier
PKL

http://www.tskalegislation.com/DWAA%202007.pdf


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I dont agree with certain primates just coming off, however I dont think that perhaps the DWAL was the right place for them. But to be totally unregulated seems a bit daft, everyone knows that they have fragile mental states and need specific care, some form of licencing is needed.

I havnt really thought much about the other mammals coming off, but I do agree that some of the snakes should be put on.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

I have said this a few times, but i belive that ALL animals should require a license. 

Simlar to a dog license, and TV license, costing around £5-20 per year. All animals sold will have a slip sold with them with a unique number, which then needs to be registered online, by phone or mail. 

DWA would still be covered by the DWA but i would take off alot of species on the list that are not dangerous, and add others (giant constrictors, giant monitors, and some breeds of dog).

ANimals such as small monkeys, lemurs, and other primate families, along with animals such as aardvarks, armadillo and all equine species. 

But these animals would flag on a system so that an inspection could take place, should you fail you would be banned from keeping and licenses removed. 

Any animal kept without a license would have legal punishment such as unlimited fine, and up to 5years jail depending on seriousness. The RSPCA could become involved.

What is your opinion onthis, would you be happy to pay a nominal fee each year, would you welcome inspections of your collection (for the greater good)


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

T.V. license? wow, that's gotta suck


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Damn you americans LOL yes we need a license ($200 per year) to have a TV in the house!


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

HABU said:


> T.V. license? wow, that's gotta suck


yeh you get a huge fine if you get caught without one


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

tv police and everything! i pay for cable


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

what about two tv's? double the cost?


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

i think it is an extra tenna or somthing to be honest...


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

we have animal laws here but not at all like yours. you must have a lot of law makers. sounds like a growth industry. but our animal laws are divided into 3 parts: federal laws, state and local. ...way different


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

darkdan99 said:


> i think it is an extra tenna or somthing to be honest...


you guys have cable don't you? we can only get the major networks over the air (for free hehe)


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

I have no problem with the DWAA its there to protect the public not the animals. The thing that bothers me is the difference in the cost and how easy/hard it is to get one from the local council. It should be made the same across the board. Where I live,as far as I know, there has never been a license granted to keep any DWA.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

HABU said:


> what about two tv's? double the cost?


No... it's per household.

It pays for the BBC Habu. They have no advertising since their fees are paid by Television owners. All the other channels have advertising so they pay for themselves.


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

I think that a possibvle licensing scheme would be a viable option for all animal owners.

That places the responsibility of ownership onto each individual and it would possibly go some way into preventing people from impulse buying etc.

I think that pet shops and registered private breeders should each have to supply the relevant license with the animals they sell in a similar way that pedigree forms are done with dogs. No license sold, no sale and a fine in place for shops and breeders who do not sell with these.

Obviously this would leave the hobby breeder under the radar but I am sure there is a way to tie small scale breeders into the scheme.

Yes, there would be potential problems with those who try to evade the licensing scheme just as some of us Brits evade our Tv licenses (not good - £1000 fine for that!!) but a fine system and a possible jail term would help some way to preventing this.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

A licence is all well and good but who would draw up the rules for such a licence? The RSPCA? And what would the licence do? Give housing requirements? I think a licence is a good idea in theory but in practice would be a nightmare.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Sorry for being different here but I don't want to have a damn licence to keep my animals !!!

I keep rat snakes. The worst most of them can do is GUM me to death. 

They are physically less dangerous to me than the small furry rodents I feed to them unless I am stupid enough to put them around my neck... which fortunately, I am not.

So why do I need a licence to keep them ?

If you want to keep an animal that is capable of killing you, then that is your decision.... and if it does kill you, it's your problem. Why should I need a licence because other people are not capable of keeping themselves alive ?

Just another viewpoint


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

I think the people who were suggesting licences for all pets weren't suggesting it for the safety of the keepers and public like the DWAA but for the wellbeing of the pets themselves.:smile:


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Yes. But you would need a licence to keep them yes ?

So I would need a licence for a harmless 3 foot trinket snake just as others would need one for a 14 foot Burmese Python ?

All you need to keep the majority of animals is a some intelligence, a lot of common sense and some money.

Edit: And enough space


----------



## Fangio (Jun 2, 2007)

I don't believe having a license makes someone a better keeper.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

thats the problem alot of people who buy animals dont have all the things on that list some only the money, no common sense and no intelligience! I dont want licences for my pets either by the way.:smile:


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

ratboy said:


> No... it's per household.
> 
> It pays for the BBC Habu. They have no advertising since their fees are paid by Television owners. All the other channels have advertising so they pay for themselves.


thanks! now i understand!!: victory:


----------



## Esarosa (Jul 13, 2007)

I wouldn't mind having licenses for my animals, in theory it's a good idea. But who would regulate it n help to draw up the bill/license requirements.. The RSPCA!? They're okay with mammals, but they don't know the first thing when it comes to snakes,lizards,amphibs,tortoise care etc...If it was up to them the hobby would be dead.

They'd see a med tortoise in an unadapted viv on cedar chips with tortoise pellet food n think oh well it's nice n warm n has food..they wouldn't think, it's being kept on a toxic material (when heated) n the humidity will become to high,not to mention an unsuitable diet.. Just like they'd see a 5ft corn snake in a 3ft viv n say that it's too small to keep them in.. (the education hasn't been provided to them..n from a non reptile person u could see why a small viv may appear cruel in theory)

I don't think that the problem as such is with licensing..but I think it would help alot if there were more herp related courses available for people to study. I know myself i'd love to take such a course... and maybe it would help organisations become more rounded, if their inspectors had to take similar courses.

In regards to the original topic, re certain mammals coming off the DWA... I'd say that all primates/monkeys should be on the DWA list to start with. They require such precise care. And you will get absolute numpties buying them who have more money than sense n thinking that they'd be quite happy living in a bird cage or a shed... now that's not to say that all capuchins,marmosetts are kept in a terrible way. There are alot of keepers out there who adore their animals n do everythin suitable to enrich their lives.. but not everyone is like that.. And at least having a DWA license requirement, means only people very serious about taking on such high maintenance animals can do so..

I do agree that the difference between DWA license costs around the country is mad though and really should be standardised. Maybe something like £300 with vet checks? (Just enough to deter people who haven't thought it through enough, but manageable..even if it involves saving up for a serious keeper)


slightly off topic again: Darkdan i didn't understand u (sorry i scan read) what did you say about equines? u think they should be on or off the dwa?:S


Katie


----------



## jamie_coxon (Jul 18, 2007)

most animals on dwa are for zoos anyways. its just rediculos. in theroy every animal in the wild is dangerous. so i think they should be a liecence (sp) for any animal kept


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

If you could apply for a GENERAL keeper's proficiency exam - or even exams for various groups (8'+ Snakes, 3'+ Lizards, Up-to-8' Snakes, Small Lizards, Primates, Equines, Parrots) and so on - not a per-animal license, but a proficiency exam on keeping various species - I might support something like that. I could go through, take the tests, and for future reference keep a card in my wallet saying "I've passed X, Y and Z animal keeping tests and have been deemed suitable to own X, Y or Z classification species."

However, I could not afford a yearly £5-50 license on each and every single animal I own - that would be in the region of £500 - £5000 per year - especially if I had to license the rodents! Wouldn't it be better if that money was spent on FEEDING my animals instead?


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*Equine*

Darkdan,

Equine?

As in horses on the dwa?

Is this what you referred to or meant?

Rory


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*My Views, concerns and worries 1*

1] Non knowledgable keepers able to purchase them as a status kick rather than specifically an animal to bring into their collections.

With the lift of certain species of the dwa licencing, l do forsee major problems, Agreeably there are some species [and l talk of experience here with the mammal side of things only] that should not be on the dwa, but there are many species that should be on it that are not already and some which should not be lifted off.

I do not think that primates should be lifted, but think that the marmoset species should have gone on.

Racoons, coatis and kinks should not come off.

Far too many people think they have the right to own these types of animals and they do not have the right experience nor undertake sufficient if any research into them.

This is potentially the biggest threat we have and undoubtedly we will hear in the next 18 months from rescue centres and sanctuaries experiencing problems with unwanteds - predom quite poss Racoons - whom are lovely when young but are not when they are older an can turn on a sixpence.

God - why, why, why bring any primates off?

Do regulative friggin bodies not understand that despite the dwa being not a very good piece of legislation to begin with as it only concentrated on public saftey and not animal welfare that it was still a regulation piece that enabled the enforcing of ensuring that animals held under this legislation were still in some kind of control with the local authorities?

Too many, no, wait - FAR TOO MANY people who own primates own them in completely the wrong way in bloody cages in their sodding living rooms, and the cages in many cases are just oversized hamster cages!!

This is an error, and this is the foundation for worsened situations to occur.

Well done to those who successfully managed to get these species lifted off - hip hip hooray.

I forsee a problem of not just some but a certain magnitude arising which will damage the ability of 100% professional and responsible keepers in the future will become again tarred with the same bloody brush that the numpties and wannabee keepers make happen

Golly, now that some species are off, how joyous it will be.

We may as well now just stop keeping, for we are true cannon fodder to those that oppose with this movement involving the dwa and in many respects the opposition would be right to attack us from every quarter!!

Well done chaps!

The Voice of Doom
Pro Keepers Lobby


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

i see where your coming from there but like you say the DWAA is not there to protect the welfare of the animals its there to protect the public from dangerous animals. You cant really argue about the DWAA not protecting the animals because thats not what it is there for. I agree that possibly some people buying things that come off the list may cause problems but in all fairness there are dangerous reptiles that people have been able to buy for decades already.

Forgot to add, the DWAA does not stop people buying dangerous animals anyway there are plenty of people who still buy dangerous animals on the black market as we all know and i have never heard of any deaths due to DWA on the news. (just something else to add to the debate)


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Very True Andy.

And l agree.

But this is just the start of my answer.

People will always buy whether they are licenced or not, and it will be this that will soon become apparent as to just how big the potential problem is.

The DWAL is not there for the animals you are right and it should be. But that is perhaps where upon another more suitable licence would come into action.

Deaths on the DWA, however, how about attacks from animals on the same licence?

It only needs a childs' death or severe mauling from one of the species to be lifted and owned by an inexperienced keeper to be used against us.

I am an experienced keeper and one second of absent mindedness and l was mauled. Twenty two bites in roughly two minutes.

TSKA Consultancy | Exotic Species Consultancy Services

Two years on, l still experience tendon injury difficulties in both arms.

Yes, there are those that will say that dogs can cause injury and this too is true, and then perhaps certain dogs need to sit on the licence or bring back the dog licence itself. But then that was suggested not long back.

Monkeys can inflict nasty bites also.

It is just a thought.

Rory


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Animals such as zebra, and mustangs are currently covered, but are no more harmful than the domestic horse (which isn't) so i would like to see them off the list.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

I aren't trying to be argumentative but...lol

You can either have every animal that can possibly harm or maim a human on a list or you can have the most dangerous ones on a list. I know which I would prefer. You could argue that giant constrictors like retics or the large monitors like niles should be on the list because they have the potential to kill or seriously injure a child. I am pretty sure if one did then they would end up banned. But where would you draw the line? Alot of reptiles have the capacity to do serious damage in the wrong hands. I do find it quite strange that a 16 year old can go out and buy a 18 foot snake that could quite easily kill them but i cannot go and buy a Gila Monster that wouldnt kill me even if i had the misfortune to get bitten.


----------



## madaboutreptiles (Jun 5, 2007)

Andy said:


> I aren't trying to be argumentative but...lol
> 
> You can either have every animal that can possibly harm or maim a human on a list or you can have the most dangerous ones on a list. I know which I would prefer. You could argue that giant constrictors like retics or the large monitors like niles should be on the list because they have the potential to kill or seriously injure a child. I am pretty sure if one did then they would end up banned. But where would you draw the line? Alot of reptiles have the capacity to do serious damage in the wrong hands. I do find it quite strange that a 16 year old can go out and buy a 18 foot snake that could quite easily kill them but i cannot go and buy a Gila Monster that wouldnt kill me even if i had the misfortune to get bitten.


fair point.....cant argue with that


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> 1] Non knowledgable keepers able to purchase them as a status kick rather than specifically an animal to bring into their collections.
> 
> With the lift of certain species of the dwa licencing, l do forsee major problems, Agreeably there are some species [and l talk of experience here with the mammal side of things only] that should not be on the dwa, but there are many species that should be on it that are not already and some which should not be lifted off.
> 
> ...


This is why am not associated with any group/society. 

One person making statements and signing it for the group. Does everyone in the PKL agree, have they been consolted before you signed your statement on behlaf of them? 

And i think this is a little one sided. In the wild rats run for miles in a night, (or day) as do hamsters, mice, and gerbils. But it is okay to keep those species in little cages? No-one moans about thier rights. 

But since it is a primate then it needs a huge space (which they undoubtably do) So why not argue on behalf of rats and such? BECAUSE they are not a exotic and are common pets. 

Also, an angry racoon. About as big as a cat (slightly larger) simlar sized teeth and claws. Why is this more dangerous? 

ANY ANIMAL can cause harm to a Human (ish) but people are not worried about the pet ones because they dont matter anymore (don't they?) What about the cats that are comming off, (L1 and L2 hybrids with domestic species) Bengals and such can cause harm, but of course these are not as cute and fluffy. 

I appologise for the offence this may cause, please dont read it to be offencive, more eye opening. 

There are lots of species that need regulation, but the DWA isn't the place for harmless animals. And if cirtain animals will be exepted (like domestic varieties) then the whole species (or genus) should be taken off. 

Answer me this Is a shire horse any more dangerous than the (smaller) zebra. 

Is a spider monkey any more dangerous than a rottie?

THIS is why there needs to be a new piece of legislation, the pet keepers license. 

Ssisthisto, the license would (in my "proposal") £5-£20 per year, for ANY number of animals, a one of fee, and ongoing registration of species. The cost is purly to cover the admin involved and if people (not you by any means) cannot or will not pay that nominal sum should they be keeping at all?


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

darkdan99 said:


> There are lots of species that need regulation, but *the DWA isn't the place for harmless animals*. And if cirtain animals will be exepted (like domestic varieties) then the whole species (or genus) should be taken off.
> 
> THIS is why there needs to be a new piece of legislation, the pet keepers license.


What harmless animals are on the DWA list? I would say nearly all are capable of causing harm. I think there are more dangerous animals not on the list than harmless ones on it. Not that I personally think any more should be on it.

Also what would your licence entail? Housing requirements? Basic knowledge? Who would police the licence? Hopefully not the RSPCA...


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Andy*  
_I aren't trying to be argumentative but...lol

You can either have every animal that can possibly harm or maim a human on a list or you can have the most dangerous ones on a list. I know which I would prefer. You could argue that giant constrictors like retics or the large monitors like niles should be on the list because they have the potential to kill or seriously injure a child. I am pretty sure if one did then they would end up banned. But where would you draw the line? Alot of reptiles have the capacity to do serious damage in the wrong hands. I do find it quite strange that a 16 year old can go out and buy a 18 foot snake that could quite easily kill them but i cannot go and buy a Gila Monster that wouldnt kill me even if i had the misfortune to get bitten._

I'd like to see every animal on a list, and a seperat list for "animals with the capacity to kill with ease" 

This would include all venomous species of the elapid and viperid family AND all specie of the genus Dispholidus. Species and subspecies of P.reticulatus, P.molarus, P.sebea, and E.murinus. 

and all dangerous mammals etc.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Thank god your not in power then thats all I will say!


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Andy said:


> What harmless animals are on the DWA list? I would say nearly all are capable of causing harm. I think there are more dangerous animals not on the list than harmless ones on it. Not that I personally think any more should be on it.
> 
> Also what would your licence entail? Housing requirements? Basic knowledge? Who would police the licence? Hopefully not the RSPCA...


 
Well IF it was up to me, the license would be issued by a new department of DEFRA. There would be "standard conditions" set out of the website. 

Then when people registered primates or other "potentially difficult" species it would flag on the inspection and a RSPCA, Enviromental health, defra repersentative or the police would have to inspect the conditions, of the animal. For set cirtiria including size, enrichment, hygene, food/water facilities, suitability etc. 

And part of the license terms would mean that without notice an official could visit the premisis to check suitability of the enclosure for any animal at all. 

There could be "license inspection officers" emploed who go door to door looking in on animals. 

If like me you have nothing to hide, and enjoy interaction and showing pets off there will be no problem. If youwouldnt like the inspection then that tells me that you have somthing to hide..


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

LOL 

So you wouldnt be willing to pay £10 per year to keep pets. 

Its not a big inspection or anything IMO it should just be a peice of paper such as a TV license form. Giving details of what pets and numbers are kept so the powers that be know of them. 

Just as a TVL holds details of number of TV's colour or BW etc.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

darkdan99 said:


> And if cirtain animals will be exepted *(like domestic varieties*) then the whole species (or genus) should be taken off


The DWAA is for dangerous _wild _animals. I take that to mean non-domesticated animals. I would say thats why some domestic species are not on the list. :grin1:

On the licence thing I would say in theory it could be a good idea. In practice though it would be a nightmare. Most people within the hobby have alot of different ways of keeping their animals would you be happy with the RSPCA telling you how to keep yours? For example, take tubs. I dont agree with keeping pets in tubs but there are many who do. WHo is right and who is wrong?


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

but in sevral points it says the species are banned but domestic is permeitted. My question is what makes a horse less dangerous than a mustang (all from domestic horses set free originally)???

Example. 
*Family​*​_Suidae_:
All species except any domestic form of the​
species _Sus scrofa_.

*Family​*​_Cervidae:_​_
_All species of the genera​​_Alces _and _Rangifer_,
except any domestic form of the species _Rangifer_​_
tarandus.

*Family​*​Bovidae:
All species except any domestic form of the​
genera Bos, Bubalus, Capra and Ovis.

Just because it is a domestic variety, it is less harmful?
_


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

No but if its domesticated would it be still classed as a dangerous wild animal?:grin1:


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

No but if its is a ferral domestic species is it still dangerous?


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

darkdan99 said:


> a RSPCA, Enviromental health, defra repersentative or the police would have to inspect the conditions,
> 
> If youwouldnt like the inspection then that tells me that you have somthing to hide..


I have nothing to hide I just wouldnt want people who have no idea whatsoever about how to keep the pets that I keep coming to tell me how to do it!



darkdan99 said:


> No but if its is a ferral domestic species is it still dangerous?


Yes because if its ferral it is no longer domesticated hence it being ferral...feral means it has gone wild if i am not mistaken:lol2:


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

You have a mean mustang, and a mean domestic horse. Both are 12 hands tall, and weigh 1250kg. 

Both have the same intellegence and anatomical structure, both have been born in captivity and have had interaction from birth, although both have decided that they dont like people. 

Which is more dangerous. 

You have an agressive Pig, weighing 550kg, and a wild boar (a species without tusks) that gets to a max weight of 300kg. Which is more dangerous. 

A domestic dog of the breed alsation, and a wild wolf, of the same size. 

A domestic cat, or a sand cat which is smaller. 

That is my point!


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

Your point is what? That only dangerous wild animals are on the Dangerous Wild Animals list?! Your examples are of wild animals of which the majority are dangerous to humans against domesticated animals which only sometimes are dangerous. Your basically saying that because some breeds of dog, horse, whatever that are kept in captivity have the capacity to harm you want them all putting on a list which would require DEFRA, the RSPCA or god forbid the police to come and inspect your house and housing for the animal. Like I said I see where your coming from and in theory could make an interesting idea but in practice would be an absolute nightmare.:smile:


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

if a group wants to ban certain animals because they are dangerous then i would guess that they are trying to protect society from harm. but then, they may require people who want to keep "dangerous" animals to have a permit and demonstrate that they can handle the "dangerous" animal safely. that all seems fair and reasonable. they'll make a list of the most dangerous animals that should be regulated, to protect the public from harm. i'm sure they'll begin with the most dangerous things first and work their way down the list. surely, they'll require that people wanting to keep the most dangerous things be absolute experts and be able to demonstrate this level of ability. but how will they be able to classify the degree of danger something poses to the public? i mean dead is dead. are you any less dead from a tiger snake bite than from an attack from a big cat? i suppose they'll have to regulate things by clumping all dangerous things together. i mean, dangerous is dangerous, right.
they already have a model program in place that i can use as an example. automobiles! cars are inherantly dangerous. but thankfully, they give tests to people that desire to drive a car. they have to demonstrate knowlage and ability to handle that car so as not to endanger the public. they need to be licensed. they need insurance. that have to keep their car properly and maintain it. if they fail to do this, their driving privilages will be taken away, indeed, they can even have to car taken away. the end result is that cars are now about the safest things in the world. you hardley ever hear of a traffic accident since these laws were passed. its almost unheard of anyone ever getting killed anymore. why, even a child of 16 can drive a car! and as we all know, teenagers rarely crash into anyone. how many people are killed each year by cars? 2...3 maybe? i have to take a guess so car laws have been highly effective in keeping the public safe...well done! if a squirrel monkey was as safe as an automobile, life would be grand! think of all the people killed and maimed by "dangerous wildlife" each year. the numbers have to be staggering! now compare the tiny, miniscule death toll from automobiles. it shows that by regulating dangerous things they become safe. these people are trying to protect the public! i feel much safer being chased down the street by a car than to be chased across the yard by a ferocious, bloodthirsty ferret!! so we should encourage wildlife regulation to stop the slaughter of innocent people by skunks and bring it all on par with the ridiculously safe level of automobiles. it just demonstrates that regulation works!


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

im guessing thats sarcasm? i really hope it isnt serious Habu!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

darkdan99 said:


> im guessing thats sarcasm? i really hope it isnt serious Habu!


:lol2::lol2::lol2: got ya!!!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

You're absolutely right, though, Habu.

The simple act of having a license does not mean that the license holder will always act in a responsible fashion.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Not at all, but it allows the powers that be to monitor the numbers and distrabution of licensed items/specimins.


----------



## Snakes r grreat (Aug 21, 2006)

Ok, up until today, i had mixed views on the subject, my main view WAS that i had little objection to a license to keep my reps, afterall i have nothing to hide, and if it caught out the bad keepers, then thats only good right? BUT, who would police it, the RSPCA? I would rather slit my own throat than have them do it! Defra inspectors? Who would mainly be civil cervants who have very little knowledge on reps, and would probably just be going off care sheets issued by Defra, who would probably have got the infomation from the RSPCA, back to square one, get the knife!!

The only other option that seemed viable and more more relaxing to me would be an independent exotic specialist vet. But, today i took one of my yearling cornsnakes to my local exotic specialist vet as i was worried about something. On arrival i had to fill out 3 pages of forms listing all my reps, what they are kept in, heating, food, suppliments, lighting etc etc etc, basically everything! 

When i went in to see the vet, we sat down and went through the forms. Now i do keep all my 'growing' snakes in tubs, adults are in vivs. The ones in tubs are on heat mats and stats, the vivs have bulbs and mats for nights. 

I was told by the vet (as though i was completly new to this) that i should have them all with ceramic heaters and only use mats for night period, but dont have the mats on stats! I should also use UV lighting for all my snakes, as even though they dont need it, snakes who have UV seem to be healthier.

Other than that he said i seemed to know what i was doing, my snake was fine and seemed to be in perfectly good health.

Now, although i cant say what he said was wrong, the way i keep my animals obviosly works as they are all healthy, i have never yet had a regurge and all my reps are growing nicely, shedding fine etc. 

But what if that vet was to inspect my animals in reference for a licence, would he feel that its not all up to his standard and refuse me a license, even though they are all healthy? I do not have the money to buy vivs for my yearling hatchlings, and then replace them 2 or 3 times as they grow, yes i will buy vivs when they are adults, but there is no way i am going to until then, to me its a waste of money.

So, i now feel that licensing wouldnt work, it couldnt be policed effectively or fairly, and it would penalise too many perfectly good keepers. 

As for the DWA, i admit i dont have enough knowledge on it, or species that are on it, or those coming off, so i will leave that for others.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

DDan, 

There are species, that are not on that perhaps should be on, and there are species on that should never have been on.

How one judges the danger aspect will be different to the next person.

For instance, horses will never be placed onto the dwal, because of the racing industry, there is way too much money to be lost there. But should they be there? Perhaps, but it will never happen.

A Zebra can do more damage to a human, than in some respects an actual horse can do, yet both can do remarkably large amounts of damage.

Should cats come off, as in exotics - nope.

The argument here is for the dwal and the species on that licence.

The rights of hamsters, rats, mice, gerbils etc, etc are no different, but as much damage as a hamster can inflict in a single bite it will never compare to the damage that some of the dwa species can do - ever.

There does need to be some regulatory licencing perhaps for all species l agree, but this debate is about the dwal species.

A new licence, private keepers licence, pet keepers licence which ever should be looked into, l do agree.

At present there is nothing in working or focus groups to suggest that something is being addressed, but perhaps there should be.

Who would police it?

Fair question - but should it be the RSPCA? No.

Should it be DEFRA? Perhaps.

Or should it be a federation council of sorts made up of private keepers? Well could this happen? Who knows.

As to the comment about PKL, fair comment, but when it is established properly, and we have a full working team on board, each team will be addressing each and every campaign we tackle.

The voice of pkl is to be seen to represent the keeper and all that concerns the keeper, however up until the point in time that PKL has the right teams established. Then myself and a few of the others will continue to address such situations like this, DWAL, EPS, the future of animal keeping and other such tangibles that are causing or creating grief.

Rory


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Fair comments there. 

The DWA should be used to cover dangerous animals, and the minimal distinction between on and off species is IMO laughable. 

That was my point. 

As for the PKL i mean no offence, but i took the oppertunity (probably wrongfully) to illistrate a point. 

We are fighting the same battle, to win the same war yet we are in differnt army's!

Regards
Dan


----------



## gaz (Oct 5, 2005)

given the numbers of people and organisations that are giving us grief already it is beyond me why anyone would wish to impose licencing on them selves, has no one learned yet that regulation is the first step towards a ban,self regulation is simply shooting yourself in the foot whilst making life laughably easy for the opposition
regards gaz


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

gaz said:


> given the numbers of people and organisations that are giving us grief already it is beyond me why anyone would wish to impose licencing on them selves, has no one learned yet that regulation is the first step towards a ban,self regulation is simply shooting yourself in the foot whilst making life laughably easy for the opposition
> regards gaz


I agree totally. First you place all animals that could kill you on a dangerous animals list-dogs, horses, cows, pigs along with all the other really dangerous stuff. Then you have another licence for everything else that requires DEFRA, the RSPCA or the police to come and check your house for suitability. Good idea!


----------



## PendleHog (Dec 21, 2005)

darkdan99 said:


> And part of the license terms would mean that without notice an official could visit the premisis to check suitability of the enclosure for any animal at all.
> 
> There could be "license inspection officers" emploed who go door to door looking in on animals.
> 
> If like me you have nothing to hide, and enjoy interaction and showing pets off there will be no problem. If youwouldnt like the inspection then that tells me that you have somthing to hide..


There is absolutely no way on this earth I would allow ANYONE I didnt know to come into my home unannounced to inspect the condition of my animals. This is not about "having something to hide", it is about my refusal to be "instructed" on proper care by those with less experience and specialist knowledge than myself. The officers would undoubtedly be as uneducated and uninformed as the current RSPCA, in which case the inspection would not improve the welfare of the animals. It would probably lead to me wasting yet more of my time trying to explain to the uninitiated how to care for the exotics I keep and why I choose to keep them in the first place.

Back on track...

I believe the DWAA is an outdated piece of legislation that no longer performs its function. The DWA license fees should be standardised in terms of cost and enclosure/security requirements and I would also like to see a tiered system for keeping different "grades" of exotic. 
I find it ridiculous that I can apply for a DWA to keep racoons in an outdoor enclosure then waltz out with my piece of paper and buy venomous reptiles I have never been inspected to keep. This needs to be rectified.

If people insist on having licensing for primates (I do not keep nor do I have much interest in primates, so will keep my opinions brief) I feel the DWA is the wrong vehicle for such controls and an alternative licensing structure should be developed.


More importantly I would desperately like to see self-regulation within the industry. I feel that Rorys business is a good example of how buyers can be vetted for suitability in a non-confrontational or offensive manner. If more breeders, seller and consultants were to take this approach and the "rogues" were more publically exposed (an issue in itself!) the hobby would not need such stringent licensing.


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

:iamwithstupid:


----------



## Trice (Oct 4, 2006)

I agree with Pendlehog


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

Have to say I also agree with Pendlehog.

I understand that sometimes self regulation can be the key to the destruction of some things BUT one only has to look into the aplicaiton of TSKA's vetting systemto see that self regulating withint he hobby can be successful and can improve not demean things drastically.

I also, like Pendlehog, find it disturbing that should I apply for a DWa to keep a non-venemous species, I would automatically be able to buy a venemous animal having undegone no further scrutiny as to my experience, handling skills and such. That is a very sobering thought!!


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Here's a question many on these forums will be able to answer....

Why are shops exempted from the DWAA ? Not an argumentative question... but what is the reasoning behind it ?


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

I prsumed that anyone be them shop or business required a DWA to keep animals listd on it??

I find it highly laughable that a shop, which is open to the general public, and whose workers are not able to wach everything all of the time can own and keep such species on their premises without having the same, if not more stringnt licensing than average Joe would have!


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

brittone05 said:


> I prsumed that anyone be them shop or business required a DWA to keep animals listd on it??


No. Pet shops and Circuses do not need a DWA certificate. Strange eh


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

Tis very strange indeed - I owuld have thought that, as I say, being in such close contact witht he general public that the rulings would be more so for both of the above.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*Dwa 3*

3] The damage that the lifting will have of these same species into the market - in terms of apparent greed and financial gain.


Already especially in the mammal market prices are rising on species that are being lifted from the licensing.

Rightly or wrongly this is happening.

For years keepers without licences have been selling their surplus’s into the market and now with the approval from DEFRA, this will now be a legal move in their eyes.

Squirrel Monkeys already an expensive species to purchase prior to the lifting are set to go to astronomical prices, Tamarins relatively expensive are now getting ready to shift higher. Marmosets for years holding a slowly riding price are now being raised to ridiculous levels so that those keepers who wanted a DWA species in the first place can now afford to buy them

To give you an example of what l mean:

Pre DWA Lift: Squirrel Monkeys £4200-£5000 per pr
Post DWA Lift: [Suggested Hint] £4600 - £7000 per pr
Pre DWA Lift White Lipped Tamarins £1300 - £1750 per pr
Post DWA Lift [Suggested Hint] £1700 - £3500 per pr
Pre DWA Cotton Eared Marmosets £1000 - £1500 per pr
Post DWA [Suggested Hints] £1500 - £2800 per pr

This is also a bad sign for the likes of those looking to buy other already expensive primate species such as Capuchins and the Lemurs, for no doubt the DWA shift will signal price increases in these as well. But other species now to come off will rise drastically in price also.

The damage of this type of manoeuvre will become all too apparent over the next two years. How long before these new keepers realise that their new additions are not what they wanted? Or that they are scared of them and as such can not actually continue to own?

For keepers who are now able to buy certain mammals that were once licensed will pay ridiculous prices to own what perhaps many have dreamed of owning for years. But when the surplus’s start to enter the market again as sales due to youngsters, we will see the buy in price reappear but with an additional mark up on, and thus we will then enter the continuous field of high prices on livestock. 

This alone will seriously thwart the ability’s of the genuine keeper whom is not into the collection of animals for greed nor financial gain alone and in it for the genuine passion of ownership of an exotic species.

The DWAL may well have been and still is an appalling piece of legislation, but in many respects it did/does serve for regulation on price, although not the way everyone would expect it to. It was always said that prices for DWA species should be lower, and they have been in many respects higher, pending of course the seller.

The market will be filled with illegal keepers livestock - the latter phrase referring to unlicensed keepers releasing surplus legally now into the market purely driven by financial gain alone, and this will mean no scruples as to their buyers. 

This in turn also then means that we will have a new range of keepers. Many will be genuine and responsible, but many more will be those whom are only in it for the status symbol of owning an exotic species. We will now have irresponsible sellers also, which will then add to the problems this market will already has.

Perhaps l come across as hard on keepers, this is not the case when it comes to the genuinely responsible keeper. For they will know that l speak the truth and those mammal keepers whom know which l refer to will agree.

This lift of species off this licence will signal problems for our hobbies, and whilst many keepers are pleased to see the species eventually come off after a long wait, at what cost to the genuine collector keeper?

I don’t know how this will affect the reptile community but feel sure it will be addressed by those who do know?

My main concern as a seller is that insufficient questions are asked of buyers in today’s’ market and they are only seen as big wallets by some sellers. 

We do vet potential buyers and we do so at 1] our responsible outlook and 2] at the clients request to know about the buyers.

TSKA injected secure protocol into its system 15 months ago and yes, we are viewed by many as hard, but at least the right animals go to the right keepers. Not everyone likes the fact that we vet a buyers answers, but we do so for the protection of the animals. This should be adopted as a procedure by many sellers.

Before way too much damage is done!

Rory Matier
Pro Keepers Lobby


----------



## Andy (Jul 27, 2005)

ratboy said:


> Here's a question many on these forums will be able to answer....
> 
> Why are shops exempted from the DWAA ? Not an argumentative question... but what is the reasoning behind it ?


 
i think the reason is the DWA licence is to KEEP the dangerous animals. As a petshop they are not keeping them they are just selling them. 

Taken from DEFRA website....

The Act does not apply to any dangerous wild animal kept in a zoo; circus; pet shop; or registered scientific establishment. Zoos are regulated under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (as amended) and scientific establishments are regulated under the Animals (scientific procedures) Act 1986. Pet shops (currently regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951) and the sale of animals as pets will become regulated under secondary legislation timetabled for 2008 under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (a code of practice is also planned). It is also proposed to produce secondary legislation to regulate wild animals in circuses, this too is currently timetabled for 2008.

:smile:


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*Correct*

Andy is right.

Even if as a shop owner you owned say a pair of Racoons, they would still technically have to be under a sales tag. So if you ridiculously priced them high, still acceptable as they are still for sale.

Some councils are now making it so that you apply for both a pet shop licence and a dwa licence.

R


----------

