# if you were in charge........



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

What changes would you make to the present licensing system?


----------



## Declan123 (Dec 29, 2007)

stuartdouglas said:


> What changes would you make to the present licensing system?


I like the floridas lisence routine at the mo, erm.... i think you have to work 1000 hours with Venomous before you can get the lisence

Correct me if im wrong


Actually, would be more trouble than its worth i guess

:bash:


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Stu (Kept the vogeli btw)

Definitely a set fee across the UK. The license would be renewed every 2-5th year and one set list of criteria to be reached.

there would be a few species added to the DWA imo too


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

I'd fix the prices nationally, instead of the ridiculous variation there is at the moment. I'd also employ specific people who had knowledge and experience to deal with DWA applications.


----------



## Declan123 (Dec 29, 2007)

Al Hyde said:


> there would be a few species added to the DWA imo too



most definatly mate, most definatly


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

Al Hyde said:


> Hi Stu (Kept the vogeli btw)
> 
> Definitely a set fee across the UK.


Beat me to it!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

i'll just disqualify myself here....


... carry on!:whistling2:


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Al Hyde said:


> Hi Stu (Kept the vogeli btw)
> 
> Definitely a set fee across the UK. The license would be renewed every 2-5th year and one set list of criteria to be reached.
> 
> there would be a few species added to the DWA imo too


I agree with Al, also id have a set criteria that every council had to follow to grant the license.


----------



## Al Hyde (Jan 6, 2008)

Declan123 said:


> most definatly mate, most definatly


Hehe, I wonder if our species are the same Dec


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

I think there should be a minimum fee, say about £1000 per year. This would separate those that are serious enthusiasts from the dreamers. The criteria for qualifying should also be tightened.


----------



## Jamie (Nov 18, 2007)

southwest vipers said:


> I think there should be a minimum fee, say about £1000 per year. This would separate those that are serious enthusiasts from the dreamers. The criteria for qualifying should also be tightened.


I don't know much about DWA, but I'm just thinking that wouldn't be fair to the serious/experienced keepers who cant afford £1000 a year? Especially with the current finacial climate.

Do you need to have money to be a serious enthusiast?

Or am I totally wrong, to be honest, I don't know how much they average in price now?


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

southwest vipers said:


> I think there should be a minimum fee, say about £1000 per year. This would separate those that are serious enthusiasts from the dreamers. The criteria for qualifying should also be tightened.


I really cant agree with that sorry but I think its a terrible idea.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

southwest vipers said:


> I think there should be a minimum fee, say about £1000 per year. This would separate those that are serious enthusiasts from the dreamers. The criteria for qualifying should also be tightened.


 
i smoke weed too!:lol2:


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

SiUK said:


> I really cant agree with that sorry but I think its a terrible idea.


reason being is because it doesnt weed out the people that arnt dedicated keepers, it just means people with money can get one, tightening the criteria I agree with fully, but theres plently of dedicated genuine keepers who wouldnt nessesarily have that much money spare every year.


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

The license fee is not the issue, if there was a standard for vivariums, rooms, husbandry, experience etc, the license fee would be secondary. Serious keepers would/do spend £1000's on their setups anyway, why further kick them with a £1000 license fee?
The license conditions don't necessarily need to be more stringent either, just sensible and standardised, so that a keeper in Aberdeen has to satisfy the same requirements as a keeper in St Austell. This would make transfer of license from one area to another easier in the event of moving house.
I would like to see one license fee across the whole country, one minimum set of standards for a "hot" room. An approved training scheme, delivered to Nationally approved standards by approved tutors with Government/Local Authority backed Insurance.


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

Jamie said:


> I don't know much about DWA, but I'm just thinking that wouldn't be fair to the serious/experienced keepers who cant afford £1000 a year? Especially with the current finacial climate.
> 
> Do you need to have money to be a serious enthusiast?
> 
> Or am I totally wrong, to be honest, I don't know how much they average in price now?


I would like to be a forula 1 racing driver but I cant afford it. Ferrari and McLarren dont make their cars cheaper to appease the less well off. 
Why should the DWA licence be cheap? If you're serious and want to take up a very serious and dangerous hobby then you would commit the money to the project. It seems to me that people want to apply for a licence from their local authority for nothing and get one by return of post. 
Like it or not, DWA keeping is elitist. The DWA licencing process keeps it that way and that's how I like it. Cheapening the licence would open the floodgates to all and sundry. This would "devalue" the integrity of the hobby also making the snakes cheap and commonplace.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

stuartdouglas said:


> The license fee is not the issue, if there was a standard for vivariums, rooms, husbandry, experience etc, the license fee would be secondary. Serious keepers would/do spend £1000's on their setups anyway, why further kick them with a £1000 license fee?
> The license conditions don't necessarily need to be more stringent either, just sensible and standardised, so that a keeper in Aberdeen has to satisfy the same requirements as a keeper in St Austell. This would make transfer of license from one area to another easier in the event of moving house.
> I would like to see one license fee across the whole country, one minimum set of standards for a "hot" room. An approved training scheme, delivered to Nationally approved standards by approved tutors with Government/Local Authority backed Insurance.


i agree. if you are going to do something, then at least do it right and do it fairly... any rich kid can get daddy to pay for stuff.

if a law is going to be imposed it has to pass the smell test...

stanardize it all. with different levels of enforcement and different standards in different places it's all willy-nilly it sounds to me.

money should have nothing to do with it except to prohibit less wealthy hobbyists from enjoying these animals... fees, fees, fees...

write a handbook that mainstream keepers agree with. a snake with a 50 year old is a lot less dangerous than some 16 year old barreling down the road at 100 miles an hour, with a week of experience under his belt and talking on his cell phone while his friends play grab-*ss in the back seat.


pardon me... but every time things like this come up i can't help but to think: "they're just snakes!... what's the big deal?


yeah, yeah,... they can kill you.... granted. just be careful... i can only imagine what people go through to carry a gun there.... jeez!


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

the trouble with a huge license fee is that the hobby would just go underground. if people couldn't afford a £1000 fee it wouldn't stop them getting an animal, then you have the problems if the animal got ill, the owner wouldn't be able to "surface" and get it treated. I'm not suggesting give the license away, make it reasonable and make a sensible set of standards for issue. Why in God's name would a CRB check make you a better/safer keeper? Why would a GP have to have any input into your application?


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

HABU said:


> i agree. if you are going to do something, then at least do it right and do it fairly... any rich kid can get daddy to pay for stuff.
> 
> if a law is going to be imposed it has to pass the smell test...
> 
> ...


Guns???? Banned! All law abiding gun owners had to surrender their weapons for destruction or to have them rendered inactive, funny thing, criminals still have guns in this country...........guess they didn't hear about that law then:whistling2:

This country seems to have a knack for criminalising the law abiding and allowing the criminal element to flourish.........

Your quote about _"they're just snakes!... what's the big deal?" _is absolutely spot on, they are not some maneating firebreathing demon, hellbent on murder and destruction. They are, by and large, shy and inoffensive, just don't p*ss them off!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

southwest vipers said:


> I would like to be a forula 1 racing driver but I cant afford it. Ferrari and McLarren dont make their cars cheaper to appease the less well off.
> Why should the DWA licence be cheap? If you're serious and want to take up a very serious and dangerous hobby then you would commit the money to the project. It seems to me that people want to apply for a licence from their local authority for nothing and get one by return of post.
> Like it or not, DWA keeping is elitist. The DWA licencing process keeps it that way and that's how I like it. Cheapening the licence would open the floodgates to all and sundry. This would "devalue" the integrity of the hobby also making the snakes cheap and commonplace.


 i completely disagree... i see your point but keeping hot snakes isn't elitist. this is a hobby the way i see it.... many, many people could keep hots just fine... they may not have big bucks or think of themselves as elitists, but they are just as caring and careful with their charges. hots are perfectly safe if you have a certain level of expertise and experience. as safe as many things can be.herps should be cheap and commonplace... why exclude people? kids catch and handle rattlesnakes here... just for fun... 12 year olds...... that's pretty elite to me.i'm just talking here so nobody get bent with me... just my slant. i do see what you are saying though... i just don't agree entirely.


----------



## Moshpitviper (Oct 21, 2005)

stuartdouglas said:


> Guns???? Banned! All law abiding gun owners had to surrender their weapons for destruction or to have them rendered inactive, funny thing, criminals still have guns in this country...........guess they didn't hear about that law then:whistling2:
> 
> This country seems to have a knack for criminalising the law abiding and allowing the criminal element to flourish.........
> 
> Your quote about _"they're just snakes!... what's the big deal?" _is absolutely spot on, they are not some maneating firebreathing demon, hellbent on murder and destruction. They are, by and large, shy and inoffensive, just don't p*ss them off!


I LOVE YOU STUART !!!! :lol2:


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

Moshpitviper said:


> I LOVE YOU STUART !!!! :lol2:


 
Steady on:blush:


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

This "standard" fee thats proposed is unattainable. There are too many variables to take into account. The cost of running council officers from central London is more than those from rural areas of the UK. If someone from a tower block in London applies for a DWA, the resources to grant it are far greater than someone who lives in a rural area with a purpose built facility and an obviously safer enviroment.etc.


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

southwest vipers said:


> This "standard" fee thats proposed is unattainable. There are too many variables to take into account. The cost of running council officers from central London is more than those from rural areas of the UK. If someone from a tower block in London applies for a DWA, the resources to grant it are far greater than someone who lives in a rural area with a purpose built facility and an obviously safer enviroment.etc.


 
Simple then, take it away from Local Authorities and give it to DEFRA, they then have a list of authorised veterinary inspectors and approved DWA inspectors, a centralised authority means one centralised fee.Besides how much does it actually cost to issue a DWAL? the prospective licensee pays the vet's fees and any other fees deemed necessary, the license fee is purely for the actual administration of processing and issuing the license. Are you telling me that this constitutes £2000 of work in that particular LA whereas it can be done for £70 in another. I would've thought wages for LA workers are about equal across the country, unless some are being paid in gold and others in beans???


----------



## maffy (Dec 24, 2008)

*Local Councils*

Hmmm got a feeling there's a reason for high prices in certain areas...

Has the area got a local venomous reptile store?

Has there been local cases of envenomation?

What is the ETA to a Hospital A&E? (We know antivenin isnt stored but immediate medical attention is necessary with a number of species). Say yes to DWA and the Council "shouldnt" discriminate a Copperhead from a Cobra.

Is the cost of administration greater in a less populated area?

And the one we all no doubt agree... Is a key decision maker in charge who is uncomfortable with snakes, let alone ones that ask questions later?

Not everything is racoon tailed.

All that said, I'd be gutted if my area was £2k!! :lol2:


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

stuartdouglas said:


> Simple then, take it away from Local Authorities and give it to DEFRA, they then have a list of authorised veterinary inspectors and approved DWA inspectors, a centralised authority means one centralised fee


 There are always people who will keep dwa unlicenced no matter what the cost. There are probably more illegal keepers than legals. I would expect DEFRA to make it far to expensive for all but the most dedicated. Their approved vet for my inspection was from the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth and charges £1100 per visit. Fortunately for me, my licencing officer had the common sence to see that this was a ridiculous fee and found one for free from a charity rescue centre. DEFRA could also standarize the fee at the UKs most expensive LA, Newport Gwent. There are people in the UK who wish their licence was only a £1000.


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

southwest vipers said:


> There are always people who will keep dwa unlicenced no matter what the cost. *There are probably more illegal keepers than legals*. I would expect DEFRA to make it far to expensive for all but the most dedicated. Their approved vet for my inspection was from the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth and charges £1100 per visit. Fortunately for me, my licencing officer had the common sence to see that this was a ridiculous fee and found one for free from a charity rescue centre. DEFRA could also standarize the fee at the UKs most expensive LA, Newport Gwent. There are people in the UK who wish their licence was only a £1000.


I would agree with that, but the question is why? Probably because, the majority have been presented with such a ridiculous set of conditions for issue of a license that it makes it impracticable, I admit there will always be the ones who think "f**k it" and not even bother applying, but the majority of keepers are responsible, sensible and are effectively criminalised by a ridiculous system that has no grounding in sensibility and qualifying conditions set by people with, in most cases, no herpetological knowledge


----------



## Rexc (May 23, 2008)

if i was in charge i would change certain animals on and off the dwa list , but iam not rly experianced enough to say , but ithink a green anaconda Should be on there


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

Rexc said:


> if i was in charge i would change certain animals on and off the dwa list , but iam not rly experianced enough to say , but ithink a green anaconda Should be on there


 What would you take off? And why the Green Anaconda on?


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

Rexc said:


> if i was in charge i would change certain animals on and off the dwa list , but iam not rly experianced enough to say , but ithink a green anaconda Should be on there



why a green anaconda and not a retic (longer) or a burm, afrock etc etc..? which ones would you remove? each to their own - im not arguing, just curious lol!


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

stuartdouglas said:


> I would agree with that, but the question is why? Probably because, the majority have been presented with such a ridiculous set of conditions for issue of a license that it makes it impracticable, I admit there will always be the ones who think "f**k it" and not even bother applying, but the majority of keepers are responsible, sensible and are effectively criminalised by a ridiculous system that has no grounding in sensibility and qualifying conditions set by people with, in most cases, no herpetological knowledge


I agree, it is quite a nerve wrecking experience when you first apply. You become the focus of a lot of attention from your LA. Its like running a hurdles race and the LA keep putting more and higher hurdles in your way.If you fall at a hurdle, then you have given up and prove that you are not commited enough.When the LA run out of hurdles, you have won and you qualify. I jumped very high hurdles for over 5 months before I qualified. This is why I believe the process should be tough. As tough as mine. And now I am qualified, I can see why the LA wanted to make it tough. They were right to and had a duty to do so. If the licence is made cheap and easy to get, all kinds of idiot would get one. The hobby would be ruined by abandoned litters of WDBs and other cheap hot snakes in parks and other public places. We already have this problem with cheap pets. Somebody dumped a hermans tortoise outside my local rep shop today.(I have it now). My opinion, keep DWA elitist. Be proud of your DWA licence, you qualified for it. If you want your ticket, stump up the cash and start jumping the hurdles...high.


----------



## Chriseybear (Jun 6, 2008)

Definately a standard price for the license.

Having a DWA officer with an initial grasp of what would be required to obtain and mantain a license - Fair enough, its not your every day thing in most places but I believe a standard code of practice or minimum requirements (go into detail with species, animal etc at the time) would be better than stabbing in the dark - as I've been putting up with.

Even if thats not the case, Surely a knowledgeable vet should be a requirement? I mean come on, around here its a Equine Vet doing the inspections..


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

Chriseybear said:


> Definately a standard price for the license.
> 
> Having a DWA officer with an initial grasp of what would be required to obtain and mantain a license - Fair enough, its not your every day thing in most places but I believe a standard code of practice or minimum requirements (go into detail with species, animal etc at the time) would be better than stabbing in the dark - as I've been putting up with.
> 
> Even if thats not the case, Surely a knowledgeable vet should be a requirement? I mean come on, around here its a Equine Vet doing the inspections..


 If you're in the process of applying and your having difficulty,a good solicitor can sort out the whole thing. Solicitors generally like these cases as they are easy. They just apply the Dwa act 1978 to every queery thrown at them by your LA. Expensive but probably worth it long term and probably guarantee your success.


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

Set fee across the country, set standards/criteria that have to be met across the country, standards for hot rooms the same nationally and government approved/backed insurance for keepers and an approved scheme trained nationally by government approved/backed trainers.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

isnt it a vet from chester zoo who does the inspections round merseyside?


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

southwest vipers said:


> I agree, it is quite a nerve wrecking experience when you first apply. You become the focus of a lot of attention from your LA. Its like running a hurdles race and the LA keep putting more and higher hurdles in your way.If you fall at a hurdle, then you have given up and prove that you are not commited enough.When the LA run out of hurdles, you have won and you qualify. I jumped very high hurdles for over 5 months before I qualified. This is why I believe the process should be tough. As tough as mine. And now I am qualified, I can see why the LA wanted to make it tough. They were right to and had a duty to do so. If the licence is made cheap and easy to get, all kinds of idiot would get one. The hobby would be ruined by abandoned litters of WDBs and other cheap hot snakes in parks and other public places. We already have this problem with cheap pets. Somebody dumped a hermans tortoise outside my local rep shop today.(I have it now). My opinion, keep DWA elitist. Be proud of your DWA licence, you qualified for it. If you want your ticket, stump up the cash and start jumping the hurdles...high.


 
I sort of agree with you.
There are some people out there who, quite frankly, aren't capable of safely looking after themselves so why should they be allowed to look after another life form? especially one that has the potential to ruin somebody elses day.

However, some of these people are loaded and can throw money on a fire if they wanted. On the other hand some of the most capable handlers/keepers i know have next to no money at all.

The idea of the DWA is to protect the public, NOT create something for people with money to play at.

If you want it elitist then yes make it harder to get one. If you do that then the fee is irrelevant but you still get to think of yourself as something special. 
For me i think the fee should be £100 from the council, across the board. At the end of the day these people spend FAR more time on other matters than DWA apps and that figure is representative of the time spent i think.


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

Dan said:


> I sort of agree with you.
> There are some people out there who, quite frankly, aren't capable of safely looking after themselves so why should they be allowed to look after another life form? especially one that has the potential to ruin somebody elses day.
> 
> However, some of these people are loaded and can throw money on a fire if they wanted. On the other hand some of the most capable handlers/keepers i know have next to no money at all.
> ...


I think I was lucky as my LA are extremely helpful and were very co-operative when I applied. Even so, it took 5 months to get through. I had to write a 10 page book on what I intended to keep, feed, breed, etc,etc.
I was realy put through grinder. 5 visits to my property with different people for different reasons.When the licence was granted, the officer said "sorry for making your application so difficult, you would be suprised at the number of people who phone and ask", " can you send me a licence to keep a cobra". If this is indicative of all LAs, then you surely must understand how nervous they must be when a genuine application is put in. The LA dont know the first thing about you until you build a relationship with them. This is part of the process. I dont like parting with money more than anyone else, but I would rather it was expensive and difficult than easy and cheap enough to attract the morons who would damage and ruin the hobby. Remember, the first American pit bull terriers in the UK were £5000 each. The bred them till they were £50 each.Then the morons were able to afford them.Now they are banned and the rest is history. I maintain, keep it elitist, keep the idiots who would destroy it. Welcome and help all the genuine applicants and keepers, like most interested parties on the DWA forums.


----------



## Agkistrodon (Dec 12, 2008)

Set fee, reasonably priced. People need to stop thinking that astronomically high costs are gonna stop the inexperienced keeping snakes - money =/= common sense, and that works both ways - I know people who are very strapped but very intelligent, but then look at people like the "lotto lout" of a few years ago - multi-millionaire...stupid chav.:lol2:
Basically, I'd be all for it being under 50 pounds, even free (apart from administration costs), if the inspection routine was tightened up a little - the problem I see with it is that the local authorities are attempting to discourage inappropriate keepers by setting prices high - that's not the way it should work, innapropriate keepers should be recognised by the government or during inspection and their licenses be refused - they're putting the burden on us by charging us really high prices to keep bad keepers out of keeping venomous, whereas really it should be their responsibility to do a more thorough inspection. In my opinion, the license should not be expensive to act as a deterrent - the point of licensing fees are generally to cover administration - but with the price of some of these, the money just seems to end up lining the council's pockets.

Additionally, I'd change the DWA to a "tiered" system - certain licenses costing/requiring more or less requirements to get it - for example:

On the bottom tier comes things like raccoons, small wildcats, etc (I believe these are on the DWA, am I right?). Candidates have to show correct knowledge of husbandry of the animal, but security need not be as double-safe as hot's enclosures. Cheapest of the lot.

Second tier, the "lower level" venomous snakes such as copperheads, cottonmouths (not saying these aren't dangerous, but they won't cause you as many problems as say a taipan!), lizards and small crocodilians - things you have a good chance of surviving if you have an argument with them, however not without a considerable degree of regret and pain. Security inspections by a general exotics specialist, correct knowledge of husbandry etc. Insurance and security requirements decided on a species-to-species basis. Slightly more expensive.

Next tier is maybe the "top level" hots - taipans, cobras, mambas etc. Things you don't really keep until you have a LOT of experience with the less incredibly unpredictable stuff. Security and enclosure inspections by an experienced specialist, say a zoo vet or something like that who's had specific experience with the particular species. Notification of the local police force and emergency services required. Proof of experience with related things needed - for example for a cobra, you should at least show you've kept some venomous snakes. A middling price, but similar to the last.

Next one would be the larger animals, moose, buffalo, llamas etc. Things that are generally not out to eat or completely destroy you, but are still very dangerous - similar requirements to above.

And the final tier would be VERY dangerous animals - mainly things that would potentially prey on humans. Large crocodilians (salties, etc), lions and other big cats, rhinos (very territorial), elephants, etc. Pretty much stuff that in an enclosure, you would NOT survive an encounter with. Licenses given out only if the person can show experience with dangerous animals of this size and ferocity before. Husbandry knowledge and security must be perfect, insurance a must, and inspections carried out frequently - the most expensive of the lot, then again if you can afford an elephant then you should be able to afford that.:blush: Security must be zoo standard or above, possibly including the need for dartguns, or lethal firearms (and yes, with another license required).


And yes, this is all completely theoretical - but that was the point of the topic, no? I sincerely doubt the government will put this amount of money and effort into revamping a system that's used by...ooh I believe the last number I was given was around 350-400 people in the UK, at most, in a way that'd probably allow more people to get into it? It's just not worth it nor cost effective, especially seeing as regardless, noone's ever been bitten and died from a captive hot in this country, and that's the aim of the licensing system.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

southwest vipers said:


> If you're in the process of applying and your having difficulty,a good solicitor can sort out the whole thing. Solicitors generally like these cases as they are easy. They just apply the Dwa act 1978 to every queery thrown at them by your LA. Expensive but probably worth it long term and probably guarantee your success.


A solicitor is not going to be able to reverse a decision made by the local authority - they cannot be FORCED to issue a licence. This is the biggest problem, there is no standard set of guidelines, it is down to each individual authority. There is no requirement in the Act for the vet to be a specialist in the animal being applied for, simply that they are a vet. 

The changes needed are a standard set of guidelines as to minimum security standards for the species concerned, the vet needs to be a specialist exotics vet, certified to conduct the inspection, and a standard fee. Who knows, maybe the changes in March will reflect some of these.

Oh, and it is 1976, not 1978.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

There needs to be a set fee, a specilist licensing, its not that hard, then current DWA holders should assist vets and LA's in new applications in the area, since they will all be up to standard, that way they can have help and insight. 

a registered key holder (of viv and room locks) so that in the event of an emergency the holder can gain acess to the hots once the police have gained acess to the front door etc, or after a fire, just in case the lisence holder is unavalable. 

Tiers would be a good addition, such as a keeper can only have mildly venomous snakes for one year then move up, i think there should be 3 tiers. 

1-crotalus, trimeresurus, small bitis, akistradon, ceserates, 
2-larger bitis, naja, daboia, acanthophis, 
3-Ophiophagus, Oxyuranus, Pseudonaja, dendroaspis

you would need to update the list when you renew, therefore you need 2 years minimum before you can keep the really dangerous animals. 

I think it should be sectioned, So that a previous keeper of say primates, could not keep reptiles without getting a new license. IE, seperate DWA for reptiles, mammals, primates, birds, aquatics etc. 

Adding of some species and removal of others. 

Personally i would like to see all animals be licensed, like a dog license thing...online registration with say a £5 fee per year (for non DWA), like dog licenses, and births/deaths would be updated. This would allow cross referencing from police, RSPCA(spit) and other agencies and keep better track of those banned. 

ID with any sale of any animal, and details taken, and updated on said database. 

This sounds like a pain but it would discourage twats who are continually buying/selling animals, and shops etc would have have to keep ontop of this aswell, with buys and sells. 

God that was quite a rant and only half my ideas lol


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

darkdan99 said:


> 1-*crotalus*, trimeresurus, small bitis, akistradon, ceserates,


Mildly venomous?!?!:lol2:


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

In comparison to others, yes, they are mild.


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

darkdan99 said:


> There needs to be a set fee, a specilist licensing, its not that hard, then current DWA holders should assist vets and LA's in new applications in the area, since they will all be up to standard, that way they can have help and insight.
> 
> a registered key holder (of viv and room locks) so that in the event of an emergency the holder can gain acess to the hots once the police have gained acess to the front door etc, or after a fire, just in case the lisence holder is unavalable.
> 
> ...


Bloody Hell, I,m exhausted ! When I suggested making it more difficult I was attacked from all sides. Unfortunately all of your ideas are irrelevant now as all the debating for DWA reform was done in 2004 and is about to be confirmed in law. (March, apparently). I believe a draught copy of the proposed changes can be obtained from DEFRA.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

you didn't really mention alot about the difficulty more to do with the cost! 

personally i could not afford to pay 1000 a year, but why does that make me any less of a keeper since i have been working with the hots for a long time? 

If the fee was £1000 i simply would not pay it. I have the resources and contacts to do so, to get vetanary treatment for any animal and i would be no safer either way, the difference is that i would have no insurace so if the proverbial hit the fan then there is no safteynet. 

Nothing will stop me from keeping the animals i love, so if you were to make the DWA out of reach then simply i would not get one, and i am sure there are many people who would do the same. 

At the moment the license is too easy to get and reasonably priced so there isnt an issue.


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

Rikki said:


> Mildly venomous?!?!:lol2:


its the difference between a ford escourt and a ferrari...both have the capacity to kill you but ones gonna hit you harder and do damage faster...


----------



## Lucifus (Aug 30, 2007)

southwest vipers said:


> I think there should be a minimum fee, say about £1000 per year. This would separate those that are serious enthusiasts from the dreamers. The criteria for qualifying should also be tightened.


At that price it will just drag it further underground. But yeh a fixed fee would be great. Also a high standard of security based on the animal you are keeping.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

southwest vipers said:


> Bloody Hell, I,m exhausted ! When I suggested making it more difficult I was attacked from all sides. Unfortunately all of your ideas are irrelevant now as all the debating for DWA reform was done in 2004 and is about to be confirmed in law. (March, apparently). I believe a draught copy of the proposed changes can be obtained from DEFRA.


Just had a look at DEFRA's site, hasn't been updated since October 08, an no details of the amendments, just states that the consultation has now closed.


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

ian14 said:


> In comparison to others, yes, they are mild.


i know, but as darkdan99 said, it doesnt matter if it can kill you. I just dont agree with a tiered system for snakes.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

Rikki said:


> Mildly venomous?!?!:lol2:


 crotalus species are up there with the snakes I would never want to be bitten by they are extremely dangerous so id agree with you there mate.


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

ian14 said:


> Just had a look at DEFRA's site, hasn't been updated since October 08, an no details of the amendments, just states that the consultation has now closed.


unless iv read it wrong the amendments look like they will actually benefit the keeper? nothin there about toughening it up etc


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

SiUK said:


> crotalus species are up there with the snakes I would never want to be bitten by they are extremely dangerous so id agree with you there mate.


I wont be taking my chances with any of the _trimeresurus _complex i encounter this this summer either!


----------



## darkdan99 (Dec 28, 2006)

So which venomous snakes would you want to be bitten by? 

Can you not see that there is a huge difference between a rattlesnake and mamba. Do you not think that the two are immensely different to keep. 

Simon would you feel comfortable dealing with a mamba alone today? 

That is my point. They need a differnt level of keeper, any numpty can avoid a rattlesnake with correct procedure but my "tier 3" snakes take another level of handler!


----------



## Rikki (Mar 27, 2007)

darkdan99 said:


> So which venomous snakes would you want to be bitten by?


If this is aimed at me, i didnt show any discontent towards your proposed system. I was laughing at the fact that _Crotalus_ etc. can be considered mildly venomous. I would consider something like _Ahaetulla_ mildly venomous, or a wasp! 

Personally though, i think a tiered system is very subjective. But it doesnt affect me, i'll never personally keep venomous. I prefer studying them in the wild, where everything should be considered as extremely dangerous.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

well a bite from a large rattler is in a different league to the others.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

darkdan99 said:


> So which venomous snakes would you want to be bitten by?
> 
> Can you not see that there is a huge difference between a rattlesnake and mamba. Do you not think that the two are immensely different to keep.
> 
> ...


the thing is though mate, I wouldnt want to get bitten by any venomous but that goes without saying, but id like to be bitten less by an adult adamanteus than I would a B.schlegellii, and no I wouldnt feel comfortable with a mamba today. I personally wouldnt jump in over my head anyway I would never get what I didnt feel comfortable with because its not forgiving of mistakes.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Agkistrodon said:


> And yes, this is all completely theoretical - but that was the point of the topic, no? I sincerely doubt the government will put this amount of money and effort into revamping a system that's used by...ooh I believe the last number I was given was around 350-400 people in the UK, at most, in a way that'd probably allow more people to get into it? It's just not worth it nor cost effective, especially seeing as regardless, noone's ever been bitten and died from a captive hot in this country, and that's the aim of the licensing system.


I think this particular post was a very good one. People forget that it's not just venomous snakes on the DWA listings - and I do think that there should be codes of practice put into place alongside the tier system that will give guidelines as to what security the national DWA licencing standards specify for each species. 

A Gila might be perfectly safe in a viv that's contained in a locked room. 
A cobra might be perfectly safe in a viv that's contained in a locked room with a door that has viewing ports.
But a tiger certainly needs something other than a vivarium in a locked room.


----------

