# Dangerous Wild Animals Act



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Finally some movement on the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, the draft Statutory Instrument has just been laid before Parliament. It contains proposed additions and deletions to those species requiring of a licence under the Act. The draft SI is numbered 1437 and was laid before Parliament on 14 May 2007. 

The SI has been laid in draft form in both Houses and will be looked at by separate committees in both. In the Commons the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will be doing a technical scrutiny of the SI (ie is the SI correctly worded and being taken forward under correct legislation) and in the Lords the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee will be looking at the 
policy issues contained therein. The Instrument cannot be made if disapproved by either House (within 40 days) and Members can introduce a negative resolution or a "prayer" if they are not happy with the content. If a Member does table a motion against the Order this could lead to a debate in the House. 

While technically the SI has to lay for 40 days, if no reservation have been made within 14 days it will pass. The new schedule will 'hopefully' come into effect on October 1st 2007. Now all we have to do is push DEFRA into issuing some strong guidance to Local Authorities on implementing the wretched thing! 

The following animals are no longer listed in the Schedule and so the provisions of the Act no longer apply to them: 

certain smaller primates (woolly lemurs, tamarins, night (or owl) monkeys, titis and squirrel monkeys), sloths, the North American porcupine, the capybara, crested porcupines; cacomistles, racoons, coatis, olingoes, the little coatimundi, kinkajou, binturong, cat hybrids which are predominantly domestic cat, hyraxes, guanaco, vicuna, emus, sand snakes, mangrove snakes, and the Brazilian wolf spiders

The additions are:

Dingo _Canis familiaris dingo_

Argentine Black-headed snake _Elapomorphus lemniscatus, _
South American green racer _Philodryas olfersii,_
Peruvian racer _Tachymenis peruviana, _
Amazon false viper _Xenodon severus._

Middle eastern thin-tailed scorpion _Hemiscorpius sp._


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

blimey, thats a lot of mammalian movement...

N


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

chris, to clarify..

does this mean that, for instance, as of october mangroves are off ?

or are they off from now on?

and is that for definite, or could it be changed in the mean time?

N


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Technically Mangroves will remain on the DWAA until October 1st when the new schedule comes into effect. However, this could change if the SI is opposed by a MP or a Lord. If this happens then it COULD result in a debate in parliament which could result in the current proposals being overturned. This is not very likely but it could happen, fingers crossed and lets hope that after 7 years of review this process is finally concluded.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

indeed !

ta for quick response

N


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

Damn and there was me hoping for a ban on primates... Oh well.


----------



## TBUK (Feb 25, 2005)

Art_Gecko101 said:


> Damn and there was me hoping for a ban on primates... Oh well.


Why were you hoping for a ban?


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Art_Gecko101 said:


> Damn and there was me hoping for a ban on primates... Oh well.


What has DWA got to do with bans ?


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

> What has DWA got to do with bans ?


burger all as far as i know?

N


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

sorry just meant that i dont think any primates should really be kept as pets, let alone not even requiring a DWA. Just my opinion but i think that unless you can provide them with a social community of same species animals then they will be mentally stunted and almost all normal households wouldnt be able to provude that. Thats why places such as Monkey world have done such a good job rescuing 'pet' primates that have gone wrong.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Part of recent presentation to PAW concerning primates and Monkey World.



For some time the RSPCA has been campaigning, with other organisations, to prohibit private ownership of primates. 

In 2005 an elaborate sting operation was set up to entrap a private primate keeper. The police assisted in this operation and in June 2005 Jason Allan was arrested at Leigh Delamere service station for attempting to sell a young monkey.

Mr Allan was arrested by the police and taken to a local police station. The RSPCA, along with accomplices from Monkey World in Dorset, then traveled to his home in Wales and snatched more animals - the parents of the young monkey in question.

For the record, Monkey World is not a charity; it is a commercial operation (limited company) a business. Monkey World is also campaigning for an end to private ownership of primates.

Although the police acquired and executed Warrants in this investigation the prosecution was, predictably, deferred to the RSPCA.

So, after the statutory delay of nearly six months the summonses were duly issued and the mandatory high profile publicity campaign started - all standard tactics in RSPCA prosecutions.

Eventually the case came to Court and the defendant was found not guilty, as expected, as clearly he had committed no offence. One of the issues here is that these are private prosecutions and all too frequently no offence has actually been committed – indeed many RSPCA prosecutions are brought for political, and indeed financial objectives.

So what is the issue I hear you say, the chap was found innocent? The issue, apart from all of the distress caused to an innocent keeper, is the fact the property seized has not been returned to the rightful owner even though he has been found innocent!

The month before the trial Monkey World placed an imported monkey in with the property of Mr Allan, thus assuring his animals would be held in quarantine, so regardless of the outcome of the trial could not be retuned to him for a further six months. 

This period was due to end in February of this year. On the 8th of December 2006 Monkey World added yet another freshly snatched monkey to the quarters, so that the quarantine clock had to be reset yet again for a further six months, further depriving an innocent man of his much-loved companion animals. 

Monkey World have, of course, derived substantial financial gain from holding these animals, and benefited from the free use and public display of Mr Allan’s property. There is also of course the matter of the animal that ‘allegedly’ died in there care! 

As the police seized the property they are legally responsible for it! It is quite clear that neither the RSPCA nor Monkey World have any intention of returning the animals to their rightful owner, indeed the RSPCA have subsequently tried to buy the monkeys!

So what is going to happen? Well, as in several other cases (Cambridge for example), this is going to cost the police a great deal of money - Monkey Business indeed!


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

Wow im shocked at that. Living in southampton i know the daughter of the owner of monkey world, and would certainly not excpect that of them. They have done a great deal for the welfare of primates, going as far as rescuing them from captive situations that have gone horribly wrong even abroad, even when the cost of doing so is great. I do not agree with underhand operations and sneaky methods such as those by any means, but i do agree with the principle that primates do not make good pets. 

I think it is riduculous that they be removed from DWA


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

So why is it OK for a business like Monkey World (who exploit monkeys for profit) to keep them but not for a private keeper!


----------



## PendleHog (Dec 21, 2005)

A very good point Chris!

About time they got their act together over the DWA too. I was hoping for montpelliers to come off though, sand snakes and mangroves dont really do it for me.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

thank you chris, i was hoping you would post that..

i didn't want to say it myself, but i was aware that all was not quite how it seemed in that respect..

i don't know enough to have an opinion really, but i knew there was _something..

N

_(although i have to admit that i too am not fond of the "keep a monkey in a parrot cage" brigade.. but then in a way, who am i to talk..)


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

I am disappointed that we failed to get Malpolon removed from the schedule, certainly in my view they do not warrant inclusion. However, on balance we haven’t done to bad – at least boas and pythons have not been included.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Nerys said:


> thank you chris, i was hoping you would post that..
> 
> i didn't want to say it myself, but i was aware that all was not quite how it seemed in that respect..
> 
> ...


 
Few keepers today keep primates in parrot type cages and I for one would not support that. Like many things used by the antis they base there arguments on out dated practices. There are some excellent private primate keepers who have superb facilities for the animals they keep, and I will fight tooth and nail to stop any bans on the keeping of animals.


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

thats true but how long will it take for another overhauls all large contrictors to be added to the list??


----------



## weelad (Jul 25, 2006)

is the mangroves venom more toxic then hmmmm FWC?


----------



## PendleHog (Dec 21, 2005)

In my (albeit limited) experience I would not say mangroves were anymore "dangerous" than hydrodynastes, and having seen a good few bites from both species I have never seen an outlandish reaction.

Mangroves are a more dfficult snake to keep in terms of husbandry and feeding.


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

> So why is it OK for a business like Monkey World (who exploit monkeys for profit) to keep them but not for a private keeper


Because of what i said earlier...


> Just my opinion but i think that unless you can provide them with a social community of same species animals then they will be mentally stunted and almost all normal households wouldnt be able to provude that


They are not a household and the enclosures and facilities they provide the primates in their care is way beyond the means of a private keeper. If you say monkey world shouldnt be allowed them because private keepers shouldnt, then zoos shouldnt either. Its a completely different scenario, have you ever been there?


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

Chris Newman said:


> Few keepers today keep primates in parrot type cages and I for one would not support that. Like many things used by the antis they base there arguments on out dated practices. There are some excellent private primate keepers who have superb facilities for the animals they keep, and I will fight tooth and nail to stop any bans on the keeping of animals.


yus, you know what i mean tho.

N


----------



## PendleHog (Dec 21, 2005)

Art_Gecko101 said:


> Because of what i said earlier...
> 
> 
> They are not a household and the enclosures and facilities they provide the primates in their care is way beyond the means of a private keeper. If you say monkey world shouldnt be allowed them because private keepers shouldnt, then zoos shouldnt either. Its a completely different scenario, have you ever been there?


I have seen facilities constructed for private keepers which far outstrip those offered by monkey world or most zoos. Many private keepers have their animals in purpose built facilities rather than within their home.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Art_Gecko101 said:


> Because of what i said earlier...
> 
> 
> They are not a household and the enclosures and facilities they provide the primates in their care is way beyond the means of a private keeper. If you say monkey world shouldnt be allowed them because private keepers shouldnt, then zoos shouldnt either. Its a completely different scenario, have you ever been there?


I have been to Monkey World, I oversaw the repossession of the monkeys unlawfully taken there. 

What I said is why is it OK for Monkey World, which is merely a private collection exploited for profit, acceptable to you, but a private collection not open to the public is wrong! As for facilities, there are private keepers with facilities just as good as that at Monkey World so why do you think it is wrong for them to keep primates!


----------



## Matt_Wall (Jan 28, 2007)

Not sure if this has been asked before but does anyone know what the conditions for including a venomous species on the DWAA is? Is it based on LD50 or just based on how much of a risk the species poses?


----------



## Art_Gecko101 (May 6, 2006)

> What I said is why is it OK for Monkey World, which is merely a private collection exploited for profit, acceptable to you, but a private collection not open to the public is wrong! As for facilities, there are private keepers with facilities just as good as that at Monkey World so why do you think it is wrong for them to keep primates!


if you actually read what i said i said that IF they can provide a same species social group and adequate facilities for them all, then yes they should be allowed. however it is beyond the means of most private keepers to be able to do so. If it not the housing i have a problem with, it is the mental disability many of these creatures suffer by not being part of the social constructs they would in the wild. 
So to paraphrase as you keep not actually reading what im saying...... IF a keeper can provide conditions like monkey world - not just housing but the social aspect,then yes they should keep them. But most cannot


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Art_Gecko101 said:


> Damn and there was me hoping for a ban on primates... Oh well.


What you said at the start of this thread is above, this is irreconcilable with your latest comments I would suggest!


----------



## masticophis (Jan 14, 2007)

It's ok for Monkey world an all like them of course because they are making money off these animals. If you are making a lot of money and you can get very expensive animals for free by attacking other people and snatching their animals then of course anyone with low morals are going to do it. 
I wouldn't mind so much if they were pure charities doing this with ALL their methods, paperwork, monies being available for inspection. With all the well touted policies being kept to.BUT unfortunately most of these types of people have either big links to AR people (most of whom are very hypocritical) or to people who just like to make a profit and have their name in the paper as a good person (it's amazing how much good you can be seen to do if you have a louder voice, remember people like hitler worked that one out).

They won't be the first or the last people to snatch animals for a profit, the rspca do this fairly often as well, wasn't there another reptile charity that did something similar (obviously I cant say the name). 

If you really believe that private keepers can't look after these animals properly and that only the loud voices can, then please look to your reptiles as no one can look after them properly (according to these loud voices). 

I do think that there should be some sort of license to keep a lot of animals, but I can't see the government making it easy, they will do it like they do every thing, listen to the loud voices (the ones that have more money to splash, private and limited companies). The animal hobby could oversee the license with the governments help, rather than these AR companies who know only what facts they've made up running it.

Mike

Pity about malpolon staying on, but at least psammophis comes off, now to find who ships elegans, sibilans are too common.


----------



## KenMan (Feb 14, 2007)

Can anyone tell me the genus of the sand snakes theyre refering to? Or the exact species?
Cheers


----------



## masticophis (Jan 14, 2007)

KenMan said:


> Can anyone tell me the genus of the sand snakes theyre refering to? Or the exact species?
> Cheers



Look on this thread.. 
http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/33692-olive-sand-snakes.html

These are psammophis sibilans, the species thats coming off is psammophis as a whole.

They certainly aren't beginner snakes, very very fast (think mamba fast) and prone to biting at least at the beginning. There are certainly venom effects though not usually requiring hospitalization. While I'm glad they are coming off so I can keep them, I can see a lot of people who aren't suitable getting them, just like with the mangroves. I just hope that any shops that stock these animals that are coming off make sure the people buying are suitable, not just flog them because there is suddenly a very good demand for them.

If you like very fast and nervous snakes and are prepared for the venom then by all means get some. If however you've only had corns etc then there are other species that may be an idea first. It's rather a large jump for most (though not all) people. 

I personally love the fast racer type snakes (hence my forum name), and really have fancied psammophis for a while.

Mike


----------



## KenMan (Feb 14, 2007)

No I wouldnt be getting any, just interested in knowing which they are. Thanks alot


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I have been told to ask what the genus of the mangrove snake is?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

SiUK said:


> I have been told to ask what the genus of the mangrove snake is?


Boiga


----------



## PendleHog (Dec 21, 2005)

Strange question Si.. I assume what you actually mean is what species is being taken off?
In that case its Boiga dendrophilia and the subspecies (melanota/gemmicincta...)


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I was asked on a tarantula forum that question so I just posted the same question here, thanks for the answer people


----------



## masticophis (Jan 14, 2007)

_Boiga dendrophila _Again not an easy species to keep for a beginner. They require much more humidity and tend to want to be left alone a lot more. Some are not to bad to handle but a lot will at least strike a fair bit and as they get to around 8/9 ft then you don't really want one hanging off you for long.
Tend to be a bit more tricky to acclimatize to captivity, most come with high parasite loads. Nocturnal snakes and so tend to be much more alert and snappy during the evening.
A stunning species to keep in a well planted viv, but it doesn't need to be said that you must be confident of dealing with a 9ft aggressive venomous snake before thinking of one. 
Very similar but currently not DWA and slightly smaller are the green cateyes, boiga cyanea. They still get to 6ft and can be nasty as well. Mine always tries to bite and will if I let her. These have the same sort of care and that but are available as CB stock which will make life easier for the owner.

Mike


----------



## carisma02uk (Sep 14, 2006)

nice, wasnt there a rumor about burms etc...being added???


----------



## DeanThorpe (Apr 9, 2006)

I think the rumour is about all snakes over a certain size.
BUT....im not sure where that was and im pretty certain its a fair way off.


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

there was rumors for a while that large constrictors would be placed on the list.. so defo burms & retics but also common boas. That is a dodgy one though as on average they don't get above 8ft. Painful I'd imagine but not life threatening for me.

They will not be able to say that any constrictor over 8ft needs a DWA because that would mean some commons and not others, how would you go about inforcing that?? Impossible. The only way would be to add common bci period, which should never happen


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Some of the lunatic organisations applied pressure to have all snake capable of exceeding three meters included on the schedule. This was not possible as it would have required Primary Legislation to make such a change, so they pushed for the inclusion of Burmese, Reticulated, Africans and Green Anacondas to be included. Fortunately the Minister was not persuaded by there arguments, nevertheless they will continue to push so this matters is not over yet.


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

What do you guys think the actual chances are of getting the large constrictors on the list??

Lets put it into some sort of context, how many life threatening cases involving large constrictors were there in the last few years? Then how many life threatening cases of dog attacks were there?

I have no idea of the figures but I bet the dogs win! They might be politicians but I don't think they are complete idiots, just idiots. I'm not sure if that would ever be passed.

Yes people are always going to be pushing for it, but until they can show some stats to back it up I don't think it will pass


----------



## Evolution (May 22, 2007)

I don't think they could ever do it, because there are just to many around. They could never inforce it. Does any one know how many big snakes are in the uk?

I know it has been suggested that Dwarf Caiman should come of the list. I think this would be a bad thing, as people wanting a status symbol would go for them. With the DWA the work getting it puts of these people.


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

Evolution said:


> I don't think they could ever do it, because there are just to many around. They could never inforce it. Does any one know how many big snakes are in the uk?


Never say never.. I've learnt that. But yes the fact that there are 5 million people now keeping reptiles in the UK (remember that from somewhere?) is obviously a big logistical problem if they were ever introducted as DWA. There must be 250,000 people keeping a large contrictor surely?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Some statistics from a presentation I gave to parliament a couple of years ago.



*Are reptiles safe pets?*
Home Accident Surveillance System (HASS) 2002
accidents that caused a serious enough injury to warrant a visit to a hospital


Animal Home accidents National est. 

Dog 3,125 64,063 
Cat 732 15,006 
Equine 169 3,465 
Reptile 16 328 

*Are reptiles safe pets?*
_Perspective _

n It is estimated (HASS) that *65,000* people seek hospital treatment for dog attacks each year

n Of these a *1,000* will require surgery 

n *100* will have serious permanent disfigurement 

n *3-5 will die* as a result of the attack

*n **60%+ of these are likely to be children *

*n **Over the past 100 years there has not been a single death from an attack by a pet reptile*


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

thats why people are disapointed about the fact that alot of primates are coming off because it will make it easier for anyone to get a very specialist animal


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The purpose of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is to protect the public from ‘dangerous wild animals’. Small primates are patiently NOT dangerous and therefore there inclusion on the Act was unlawful. If they had not been removed then we would have moved to have the whole Act repealed. The welfare of primates is now covered by the Animal Welfare Act and that is quite sufficient.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

The fact really is that large constrictors are not a danger to the public, if they escaped it would likely be too cool for them to pose any real threat to a person.

Given that, then there is absolutely no way that they should be on the DWA list.


----------



## Nerys (Apr 18, 2005)

see... now i don't agree with the statment that

"small pet monkey's are not dangerous"

see here for instance.

Testimonials About Pet Monkeys

now... i know that a dog can do just as bad as that.. 

tbh, so could my skunks if they tried.. they could sever a finger nicely..

and yes neither of them are dwa either.. maybe they need to be.. they could be a danger to the public after all..

BUT... personally i would have prefered to see primates stay ON the dwa.. as i personally believe removing them from it, will lead to a higher number of mis-kept primates in the pet trade, and in unsuitable pet homes.

the sort of people who can afford to build the correct facilites, and feed the correct diets.. are normally the sort of people who are enthusiastic enough about their animals to not want to see them with the potential for abuse. and i think taking them off the dwa could led to a potential in abuse. i'm talking about the average Mr Smith from 2 up 3 down land.. with a handkerchief size garden and delusions of granduer.. 

great, a lot of people at the moment keep them in good facilites.. is that becasue the muppets who would not, find it harder to get hold of them? partly due to the dwa..

the dwa may not be the right thing... but.. there is nothing else there. 

we need a DAPI license instead  Dangerous for Animals when People get Involved

i would get a license tomorrow to keep my animals, if i thought that their brothers and sisters would be safer as a result.

if burms go DWA/DAPI, i will get one for the rescue burm i was given.. easy really.. if i thought it was for the overall proection of that species in the pet environment, i, as a responsible keeper, would not have an issue with complying.

N


----------

