# Is this list accurate?



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

Is this version of the DWAA accurate? I thought Tams and Squirrels didn't require a license to be kept?

https://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/NR/r...DB2447C11CB6/0/ListofDangerousWildAnimals.pdf


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

Nothing on your list suggests its a UK law based list. It could be from anywhere! It could also just be written by some random person.


Here is the official UK list:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2465/schedule/made


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

bothrops said:


> Nothing on your list suggests its a UK law based list. It could be from anywhere! It could also just be written by some random person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you, and just to clarify because I've always wondered, anything not on the list and the exceptions, you're allowed to own (as long as they aren't CITES listed?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

tams and squirrels are not dwa.
squirells were but removed.
tams are mostly a10.
bout 50/50


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

As far as I'm aware, if it isn't explicitly named on the list or if it is explicitly excluded from the list, then it is legal to own without a DWAL.

However, you may need other documentation, as you say such as an article A10 or whatever.

You'd also have to source it and check it is legal to breed, export or import.


(Do you have something in mind that is not on the list?)


----------



## DaOG (Jun 6, 2013)

eoj89 said:


> Is this version of the DWAA accurate? I thought Tams and Squirrels didn't require a license to be kept?
> 
> https://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/NR/r...DB2447C11CB6/0/ListofDangerousWildAnimals.pdf





bothrops said:


> Nothing on your list suggests its a UK law based list. It could be from anywhere! It could also just be written by some random person.
> 
> 
> Here is the official UK list:
> ...


 
I would say your right to question their list, I may be completely wrong here but that council require you to have a DWAL for a Racoon?


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> tams and squirrels are not dwa.
> squirells were but removed.
> tams are mostly a10.
> bout 50/50



Not a clue what a10 is, but I would love to own tams in a good few years when I've got a house of my own house etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

eoj89 said:


> Not a clue what a10 is, but I would love to own tams in a good few years when I've got a house of my own house etc.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


An 'article A10' is the documentation you need to prove that an animal you keep that is CITES listed is a legally owned specimen.

You do not need one to own the animal, but you do need one in order to legally sell one or display it in public.

Of course, if you do own the animal and don't have the relevant A10 - it might be difficult to explain how you procured it!

There are different types of A10 depending on species and level of protection giving you different permissions (some are specific to the owner in terms of the conditions (eg. owner can not sell or display or new owner would need new paperwork), some are connected to the animal regardless of owner (certificate authenticates the animal named for the life of the animal and goes with it to new owners).

All of them are explicitly linked to the animal itself via a microchip ID number in the animal and on the paperwork (except hatchlings that are too small to be chipped, where the chip remains with the paperwork until the animal is big enough to have it inserted).


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

bothrops said:


> An 'article A10' is the documentation you need to prove that an animal you keep that is CITES listed is a legally owned specimen.
> 
> You do not need one to own the animal, but you do need one in order to legally sell one or display it in public.
> 
> ...


Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Is it just an official document that shows legality of ownership and so on, then?


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

eoj89 said:


> Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Is it just an official document that shows legality of ownership and so on, then?


Pretty much. However it is more that it shows the legality of the animal rather than the legality of ownership (you could have stolen the animal and the A10 - the animal would still be 'legal' even if you ownership of it wasn't).....but that is more semantics than anything else!


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

bothrops said:


> Pretty much. However it is more that it shows the legality of the animal rather than the legality of ownership (you could have stolen the animal and the A10 - the animal would still be 'legal' even if you ownership of it wasn't).....but that is more semantics than anything else!



Thought it would of been semantic. Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

bothrops said:


> An 'article A10' is the documentation you need to prove that an animal you keep that is CITES listed is a legally owned specimen.
> 
> You do not need one to own the animal, but you do need one in order to legally sell one or display it in public.
> 
> ...


This is no longer the case. Where the specimen is too small to be chipped, the A10 from DEFRA has a special condition on it that the A10 must be renewed in a years time when the animal is big enough to be chipped. If it is still too small, then a note from a vet confirming this will enable teh A10 to be reissued without a chip.
When I bought my javelin sand boas, they were tiney, in fact even now they are still too small to be chipped. So teh breeder had A10's that stated the specimens would need to be chipped 12 months after the A10 had been issued. However, as I bought them under that age, they still have not been chipped. I will only need to get them chipped and new A10's issued once they are big enough to be bred. DEFRA no longer require the chip number for an A10 for animals too small to be chipped.


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

ian14 said:


> This is no longer the case. Where the specimen is too small to be chipped, the A10 from DEFRA has a special condition on it that the A10 must be renewed in a years time when the animal is big enough to be chipped. If it is still too small, then a note from a vet confirming this will enable teh A10 to be reissued without a chip.
> When I bought my javelin sand boas, they were tiney, in fact even now they are still too small to be chipped. So teh breeder had A10's that stated the specimens would need to be chipped 12 months after the A10 had been issued. However, as I bought them under that age, they still have not been chipped. I will only need to get them chipped and new A10's issued once they are big enough to be bred. DEFRA no longer require the chip number for an A10 for animals too small to be chipped.


Thank you for the update mate. I've never had to deal with that particular aspect - and lets face it, the guidelines aren't exactly the clearest piece of legislation - so its good to get a first hand update.

:2thumb:


----------



## eoj89 (Jun 20, 2013)

bothrops said:


> the guidelines aren't exactly the clearest piece of legislation
> 
> 
> 
> :2thumb:



This is true for almost every piece of law in the United Kingdom 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

this isn't a change Andy
its always been that way.
but with torts you keep same A10 till big enough.
Didn't know you needed letter from vet.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> this isn't a change Andy
> its always been that way.
> but with torts you keep same A10 till big enough.
> Didn't know you needed letter from vet.


I don't think a vets letter is a standard condition. Given how small adult Eryx jaculus are, I imagine it was put on there to cover the breeder in case he ended up having offspring that he was trying to sell that got to 12 months old, but still too small to chip.


----------

