# what would you put on the DWA



## Doogerie (Jul 6, 2007)

I think i would put on the Annacond and Retic becaus although not vemnous thay are defnaly strong and some of the biggest ones have been knowen to eat humens befor or so i have been told


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

I wouldnt put either of those two on, because it would be pointless and a step too far


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

you might as well put horses on as well because a kick from one of those bad boys can do you some serious damage.


me personally, i'd put cats on it.. just cos i don't like them and i'd rather see them locked up than stamping on me and making me sneeze.


----------



## georgieabc123 (Jul 17, 2008)

my nan now thats one dangerous animal:lol2:


----------



## BexyBabes (Nov 23, 2008)

Doogerie said:


> I think i would put on the Annacond and Retic becaus although not vemnous thay are defnaly strong and some of the biggest ones have been knowen to eat humens befor or so i have been told


wasnt the a thread a few weeks back the same? also have u ever owned a retic or a conda??? probably not, i think u have opened a can of wooop assss coming your way tbh retic and anaconda on DWA what ever next!!!:bash:


----------



## Bluejen (Jan 15, 2009)

Meko said:


> you might as well put horses on as well because a kick from one of those bad boys can do you some serious damage.
> 
> 
> me personally, i'd put cats on it.. just cos i don't like them and i'd rather see them locked up than stamping on me and making me sneeze.


Too true lol i heard something like horses kill more people in the states than any other animal! but yeah cats can be just evil! :whip:


----------



## sanders (Jan 15, 2008)

*Anacondas*

Large constrictors shouldn't be put on the d.w.a list. It's not the snake that's the problem but inexperienced people who purchase them or people that hear stories about them that give them the bad name. Some dogs can be dangerous does that mean they have to go on a d.w.a. And if it did happen could you imagine the numbers of constrictors that would be dumped or have to be rehomed due to this happening.


----------



## BexyBabes (Nov 23, 2008)

sanders said:


> Large constrictors shouldn't be put on the d.w.a list. It's not the snake that's the problem but inexperienced people who purchase them or people that hear stories about them that give them the bad name. Some dogs can be dangerous does that mean they have to go on a d.w.a. And if it did happen could you imagine the numbers of constrictors that would be dumped or have to be rehomed due to this happening.


 
fully agree with u i think that some people that post threads like this dont think the knock on affect it would have, especially the comment about alot of constrictors getting dumped as that would happen if alot of costrictors were to be put on DWA.


----------



## Azemiops (May 1, 2008)

sanders said:


> Large constrictors shouldn't be put on the d.w.a list. It's not the snake that's the problem but inexperienced people who purchase them


This is exactly why the D.W.A licence was put in place to begin with for big cats, venomous snake species and the likes, because inexperienced keepers were getting animals that they could not deal with safely. Its not the monocled cobra thats the problem, its the inexperienced person who purchases it. 
Now, playing devils advocate here because i dont think large constrictors need to be put on, but think of this. Lets say i had a waglers pitviper. If i was inexperienced and got nailed by it, i would have time to ring the emergency services, applying basic first aid and get medical attention. However, nows lets say i was inexperienced and had a 15ft anaconda. If i was by myself and received a bite, and it proceeded to constrict, ive got no time to ring emergency services, no time to apply basic first aid and no time to get to medical attention. So which is more of a risk?


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

My sentiments exactly. You've more chance of surviving a bite from a venomous snake than you have from constriction by a large snake. With proper levels of experience and safe procedures, the likelihood of either happening should be slim.


----------



## sanders (Jan 15, 2008)

*Large constrictors*

I totally agree with your comments. Isn't it best we try and keep these snakes off the list. Like the person who started this thread saying because they are strong and eat people so I've been told, that's what adds to peoples judgement on large constrictors and gives them
A bad name. I have 4 green ana's and if they did go on I would pay for them on a d.w.a but what would happen to the thousands of others that have to be rehomed because they have been dumped. It could cause more problems.


----------



## LewisH (Sep 13, 2008)

sanders said:


> Large constrictors shouldn't be put on the d.w.a list. It's not the snake that's the problem but inexperienced people who purchase them or people that hear stories about them that give them the bad name. Some dogs can be dangerous does that mean they have to go on a d.w.a. And if it did happen could you imagine the numbers of constrictors that would be dumped or have to be rehomed due to this happening.


your completely and utterly contradicting yourself there. Your right in saying the snakes arent the problem its the people, but thats the whole point in the DWA license. It stops inexperienced people buying these animals and housing them in poor conditions. and that applys to all animals that are on the DWA. the animals arent the problem, its the people. people that keep DWA animals legally have proven themselves that they are fit and knowledgable enough to keep these animals safely.


----------



## Azemiops (May 1, 2008)

BexyBabes said:


> retic and anaconda on DWA what ever next!!!:bash:


Can i ask why you are so suprised that someone has suggested that large constrictors should be covered by the DWA licence? Because im not.



sanders said:


> I have 4 green ana's and if they did go on I would pay for them on a d.w.a but what would happen to the thousands of others that have to be rehomed because they have been dumped. It could cause more problems.


And are you basing your opinion soley on the fact that you would not like to see any large constrictors get dumped? Because if you are youve totally missed the point of the DWA Act. The fact is they are potentially dangerous and capable of causing a human fatality. As the OP correctly pointed out, they are strong, and there are reports of them eating people. The DWA act does not take into consideration animals 'being dump', it is there simply to protect the public.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The Dangerous Wild Animals Act was enacted to protect the general public from ‘dangerous animals’. Clearly captive constrictors do not pose a threat to the general public, therefore they are not appropriate for consideration for inclusion on the schedule. The simple fact is that over the passed one hundred years not a single member of the public has been killed, or seriously injured by an attack a non-native reptile. On the reverse, dogs, cats [domestic] and horses kill people each and every year – therefore if people are so concerned about adding species perhaps they should be arguing the aforementioned animas are subject to some stricter controls!


----------



## sanders (Jan 15, 2008)

The d.w.a is there to protect the public from potentially dangerous animals from getting into the wrong hands and it is not there for animals being dumped but would it cause problems if they did? Because of the amount in circulation in the Uk. I just think it's a bit too late to do it.


----------



## Azemiops (May 1, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> The Dangerous Wild Animals Act was enacted to protect the general public from ‘dangerous animals’. Clearly captive constrictors do not pose a threat to the general public, therefore they are not appropriate for consideration for inclusion on the schedule. The simple fact is that over the passed one hundred years not a single member of the public has been killed, or seriously injured by an attack a non-native reptile. On the reverse, dogs, cats [domestic] and horses kill people each and every year – therefore if people are so concerned about adding species perhaps they should be arguing the aforementioned animas are subject to some stricter controls!


Thankyou for some wonderful information. Just because a non-native reptile has not killed or injured a member of the public 'in oveer a hundred years', does not make them any less dangerous. Anyhow, as previosuly mentioned i am simply playing devils advocate and would not like to see big snakes placed on the DWA schedule, however i find it unsual that people are so suprised when someone does mention it.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Legislation has to be proportionate, including constrictors on DWAA legislation would be clearly disproportionate, considering the infinitesimal threat to the general public posed by such creatures held by private keepers. 

Upon further consideration perhaps we should be recommending tortoises be added to the DWAA! After all should a tortoise keeper live in a flat and his pet wanders off the balcony it ‘could’ seriously injure or even kill a member of the public walking underneath!!!


----------



## BexyBabes (Nov 23, 2008)

Azemiops said:


> Can i ask why you are so suprised that someone has suggested that large constrictors should be covered by the DWA licence? Because im not.


tbh the is one of these threads every week on hear, dont u think that we need it?? because it aint going to change, this hobby gets watched enough by different people as it is, u no the legal type that wait for another thing to get published on tv etc then we all loose out it might not ever happen but u never no, and i think all the people that do have a DWA are sick of it aswell. Im sorry but its just going to go round and round in circles, DWA section is to talk about things that are on the DWA not things u wish would be on there because someone hasnt got anything better to do in there time apart from draw attention to th DWA section...


bexy.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

As I have said before on the numerous similar threads on this subject, has anyone stopped to think about the outcome of adding such commonly kept animals onto teh DWA?? In the 2007 review, the species added are so rarely encountered that there was no issue.

Look at the big cat issue - prior to 1976, big cats were being kept privately in fairly large numbers. The Act was brought in largely to stop this and to protect the public from such predators. Of course, most keepers could not afford the housing needed to comply with the Act and be granted a licence. This left a choice - surrender to a zoo or have the animal destroyed. Clearly, most zoos could take them all in, and many keepers did not want to have their pets destroyed, and so a number were released into the wild, resulting in the now confirmed situation of big cats breeding in small numbers in remote parts of the UK.

Large pythons are kept in huge numbers in the UK - we all know how costly and difficult a DWAL can be to get, so if they were to be added on, the same situation will arise. Obviously, breeding is not going to happen, and they will not survive in cold weather, but if released during a warm summer, think of the impact on our own wildlife, as well as livestock, pets, etc etc.

If you carried on keeping them, illegally, how long do you think it would last? How would you hide a giant snake? You end up having the snake seized and destroyed, you get a criminal record and potentially the rest of your animals seized.

The DWA is not perfect, and to be honest, I can't think of any legislation that is 100% perfect. It has been reviewed in 2007 in terms of which species need to be covered, and a further review is due in March this year concerning the way in which the Act itself should be administered and the processes for granting licences.

As has been said before, if you start campaigning for more species to be added, you are risking giving further ammunition to the animal rights and "anti" groups, as it comes across that reptile keepers themselves do not think that such animals should be kept privately.

The reviews for the DWA are completed after extensive consultation with acknowledged experts, including the FBH.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

ian14 said:


> resulting in the now confirmed situation of big cats breeding in small numbers in remote parts of the UK.


how was it confirmed? this is a subject that interests me alot.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

In principle the DWAA is a good idea, its falling is that it is administered by local government [often illegally] not by central government, sadly this will not change. The final part of the review of this Act should go for public consultation latter this month, it is hoped this will raise compliance levels. 

It is estimated that there are between 100,000 and 300,000 large constrictors held by private keepers in the UK. It would be a disaster if they were included in the DWAA as most likely 50-70% of current keepers would not be able to get a licence. Fortunately this is not going to happen as large constrictors will not be added to the schedule. 

Keepers should think very carefully before suggesting species be added to the DWAA, personally I think we should be arguing that more species should be removed!


----------



## VoodooWitchDoctor (Sep 3, 2008)

See my signiture bellow!
:lol2:


----------



## Owzy (Jan 19, 2009)

SiUK said:


> how was it confirmed? this is a subject that interests me alot.


Same. Can you give us a link or two perhaps or an idea of where this info came from.

Ta mate.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Owzy said:


> Same. Can you give us a link or two perhaps or an idea of where this info came from.
> 
> Ta mate.


I have been having a search this morning and I cant find any conclusive evidence, no definate proof but speculation but it seems likely that they are, theres definately big cats out there thats been proved unless thers some very elaborate hoaxing going on, but you got to wonder how many of the sightings are genuine and how many are hoaxes or people thinking they saw something that they didnt. And being that they are out there it stands to reason that after this many years then they must be otherwise they would all of died out.


----------



## Doogerie (Jul 6, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> The Dangerous Wild Animals Act was enacted to protect the general public from ‘dangerous animals’. Clearly captive constrictors do not pose a threat to the general public, therefore they are not appropriate for consideration for inclusion on the schedule. The simple fact is that over the passed one hundred years not a single member of the public has been killed, or seriously injured by an attack a non-native reptile. On the reverse, dogs, cats [domestic] and horses kill people each and every year – therefore if people are so concerned about adding species perhaps they should be arguing the aforementioned animas are subject to some stricter controls!


Just when i was in Sinagapor i herd abpout a hel of alot of fataltys form peopl gettin killed by wiled anncondas now i know that cative breda and wilde are not the same thing but it's in there nature to constrict and if they suddenly decide to go for you you have no chance


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

Doogerie said:


> Just when i was in Sinagapor i herd abpout a hel of alot of fataltys form peopl gettin killed by wiled anncondas now i know that cative breda and wilde are not the same thing but it's in there nature to constrict and if they suddenly decide to go for you you have no chance


I'm quite sure you dont get anacondas in Singapore


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Owzy said:


> Same. Can you give us a link or two perhaps or an idea of where this info came from.
> 
> Ta mate.


There was a recent report in the press, concerning this, stating that DEFRA have been aware of this for some years.
There was also a series a few years back on cryptozoology (I think Chris Packham was the presenter), one of the episodes concerned big cats, with the conclusion that there are big cats here, but likely to have grown smaller over successive generations due to availability of prey. All of the other episodes, covering old favourites such as the Yeti and other "ape men", Nessie, etc etc were all proven as hoaxes.


----------



## VoodooWitchDoctor (Sep 3, 2008)

Rikki said:


> I'm quite sure you dont get anacondas in Singapore


Maybe he meant Singapore in South America!:lol2:


----------



## Owzy (Jan 19, 2009)

ian14 said:


> There was a recent report in the press, concerning this, stating that DEFRA have been aware of this for some years.
> There was also a series a few years back on cryptozoology (I think Chris Packham was the presenter), one of the episodes concerned big cats, with the conclusion that there are big cats here, but likely to have grown smaller over successive generations due to availability of prey. All of the other episodes, covering old favourites such as the Yeti and other "ape men", Nessie, etc etc were all proven as hoaxes.


Ta

It's interesting. Do you remember what species they are thought to be?

My knowledge is weak when it comes to big cats... could most survive our climate?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Given that the types of big cats often reported - bobcat-like, lynx-like and cougar-like - all live in temperate to subarctic areas, yes, there certainly are species that can survive in our climate.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

ian14 said:


> There was a recent report in the press, concerning this, stating that DEFRA have been aware of this for some years.
> There was also a series a few years back on cryptozoology (I think Chris Packham was the presenter), one of the episodes concerned big cats, with the conclusion that there are big cats here, but likely to have grown smaller over successive generations due to availability of prey. All of the other episodes, covering old favourites such as the Yeti and other "ape men", Nessie, etc etc were all proven as hoaxes.


so its not confirmed in the true sence, of conclusive proof then?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Footprints, numerous sightings, dead sheep examined and found to have injuries consistent with a "big" cat. There is a fair amount of evidence I would suggest!


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

na I mean the breeding side of it, I know there are big cats out there, they have DNA tested fur samples and they found the skull of a puma, but how many isnt known, because as an expert on this program I watched said "if there was as many big cats as there are reports, then we would have more than Africa" but conclusive proof of breeding I meant


----------



## bladeblaster (Sep 30, 2008)

*"what would you put on the DWA" *

Women


----------



## danathon (Jan 4, 2009)

bladeblaster said:


> *"what would you put on the DWA" *
> 
> Women


:lol2:


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

Firstly I know trustworthy people who have seen a 'big cat' in a certain area of Norfolk.

Re DWAA I disagree with the act in principle. Why should UK animal keepers be put under financial and legal constraints not applicable in the rest of Europe? Are we a member or not?


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

Owzy said:


> Ta
> 
> It's interesting. Do you remember what species they are thought to be?
> 
> My knowledge is weak when it comes to big cats... could most survive our climate?


Surely if big cats can acclimatize to live in British Zoos and Safari Parks , they can acclimatize to life in the British countryside :whistling2:
I have heard reliable reports of big cats being released in the 70’s, and I guess they could still be out there.


----------



## Danhalen (Jun 6, 2008)

Sicarius Hahni and Sicarius Terrosus - They make black widows and sydney funnel webs look like tonka toys!

I imported 7 terrosus spiderlings, but my girlfriend wasn't happy with me having them. So I had to give them away to a good mate for christmas...


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

PDR said:


> Surely if big cats can acclimatize to live in British Zoos and Safari Parks , they can acclimatize to life in the British countryside :whistling2:
> I have heard reliable reports of big cats being released in the 70’s, and I guess they could still be out there.


apparently theres 23 definate big cat releases that are known of according to this site I was reading, not sure if its true or not, you never know what to believe on the net


----------



## Scott W (May 19, 2007)

Doogerie said:


> I think i would put on the Annacond and Retic becaus although not vemnous thay are defnaly strong and some of the biggest ones have been knowen to eat humens befor or so i have been told


 
DOGS, pretty much all breeds.

If not DWA, then I'd suggest compulsary liability insurance required.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

PDR said:


> Surely if big cats can acclimatize to live in British Zoos and Safari Parks , they can acclimatize to life in the British countryside :whistling2:
> I have heard reliable reports of big cats being released in the 70’s, and I guess they could still be out there.


As they are "warm blooded" predators then acclimatizing is not an issue, as they do not need to rely on external heat.
My point is this - the animals released in the '70s would have been adults. I would suggest that 30+ years later, the "big cat" sightings are NOT due to people seeing old aged cats. The only logical, scientific explanation is that breeding, though very limited, has occurred.


----------



## Dextersdad (Mar 28, 2008)

All joking aside I'd put ex in-laws on the list.

You can be sure of it: victory:


----------



## matt1977 (Jul 1, 2007)

Ive been lucky enough to see a big black cat in walse myself and too other friends watched one chase a coli dog around a field befor the dog had enough and ran to wards the farm house the cat then shot off like a rocket across the field and through a hedge and gone.
my friends both had air riffles and we were able to get a good look at the cat through the scopes no doubt what it was! 
Another friend of mine was doing some secuirty work near langport in somerset (Batts lane for those that might know it) and early one morning one walked right past the gate of the site he was guarding, a site i had guarded many times myself.
There have been a few sightings of young cats but not as many as adults, this maybe due to the simple fact tht they would be hidden by long grass ect.


----------

