# DWA without a licence



## FreakOonique

If you knew someone was keeping DWA without the licence would you report them, and if so to who?


----------



## SiUK

theres probably twice as many illegal keepers here in the UK as there is legal


----------



## FreakOonique

Tis a bit naughty though, especially when you know they are not taking the correct precautions. I mean it wouldnt be so bad if said person was being sensible about it, but posting pictures up of themselves holding a DWA scorp is plain stupid, and its things like this that ultimately ruin it for the rest of the exotic community due to bad press because the moron got stung and died. 

*Le Sigh*


----------



## paulrimmer69

unless they were a genuine danger to themselves or the public no


----------



## Ssthisto

The "Who To" would be your local council.

As for whether I personally would report them, it would depend a great deal on:

1. Are my local council's DWA fees extortionate without justification or reasonable/hefty WITH justification? 
2. Is the unlicenced keeper keeping responsibly (aside from lack of licence) - does he have any safety protocols, double-locked cages or a locked venomous room containing cages that are also locked, or is he just keeping a rattlesnake in a viv in his front room? 
3. Does the unlicenced keeper have any sort of insurance?
4. Is the unlicenced keeper keeping species that are likely to be a real problem for his family members or neighbours if something goes absolutely pear-shaped? For example, a Gila or Beaded lizard is a different league of animal to having a fast-moving aggressive elapid.

Depending on the situation, I might contact the environmental health department of the council if I were concerned that the keeper and their actions genuinely posed a threat to the public.


----------



## FreakOonique

paulrimmer69 said:


> unless they were a genuine danger to themselves or the public no





Ssthisto said:


> The "Who To" would be your local council.
> 
> As for whether I personally would report them, it would depend a great deal on:
> 
> 1. Are my local council's DWA fees extortionate without justification or reasonable/hefty WITH justification?
> 2. Is the unlicenced keeper keeping responsibly (aside from lack of licence) - does he have any safety protocols, double-locked cages or a locked venomous room containing cages that are also locked, or is he just keeping a rattlesnake in a viv in his front room?
> 3. Does the unlicenced keeper have any sort of insurance?
> 4. Is the unlicenced keeper keeping species that are likely to be a real problem for his family members or neighbours if something goes absolutely pear-shaped? For example, a Gila or Beaded lizard is a different league of animal to having a fast-moving aggressive elapid.
> 
> Depending on the situation, I might contact the environmental health department of the council if I were concerned that the keeper and their actions genuinely posed a threat to the public.


See my above post. Handling a DWA scorp, just to show he "has got balls" and those were his words

If he were being sensible about it, then fine not a problem, I understand depending on where you live it can be an expensive licence to hold. But getting a DWA just for show reasons and to post pictures if you holding said DWA is plain stupid. I mean what if he got stung, dropped it, and it stung one of his kids? From what I understand the sting can be lethal.


----------



## SiUK

Tamz said:


> Tis a bit naughty though, especially when you know they are not taking the correct precautions. I mean it wouldnt be so bad if said person was being sensible about it, *but posting pictures up of themselves holding a DWA scorp is plain stupid*, and its things like this that ultimately ruin it for the rest of the exotic community due to bad press because the moron got stung and died.
> 
> *Le Sigh*


thats because he is a pleb.

There has been a noticible case recently where a keeper got caught with DWA species without a license and got banned for 10 years from keeping and fined nearly 2k.


----------



## Crownan

As above. If they were doing everything properly and sensibly etc. then no, I wouldnt report them, I dont see a real need to.

If they were a twat though, bad keeping, showing off, poor setups, poor security etc etc then yeah, why the hell not. It would be better for everyone!


----------



## rockkeeper

isnt that the reason of the license, that person are,up to a certain standard, vivs etc ,etc?


what does that say to the one who have done it the right way?


anyway how do you know they havent got a license ?


----------



## luke1983

He sounds like a right nob! Let the bloody scorpion sting him! Might teach him a lesson!


----------



## MJ75

Ssthisto said:


> The "Who To" would be your local council.
> 
> As for whether I personally would report them, it would depend a great deal on:
> 
> 1. Are my local council's DWA fees extortionate without justification or reasonable/hefty WITH justification?
> 2. Is the unlicenced keeper keeping responsibly (aside from lack of licence) - does he have any safety protocols, double-locked cages or a locked venomous room containing cages that are also locked, or is he just keeping a rattlesnake in a viv in his front room?
> 3. Does the unlicenced keeper have any sort of insurance?
> 4. Is the unlicenced keeper keeping species that are likely to be a real problem for his family members or neighbours if something goes absolutely pear-shaped? For example, a Gila or Beaded lizard is a different league of animal to having a fast-moving aggressive elapid.
> 
> Depending on the situation, I might contact the environmental health department of the council if I were concerned that the keeper and their actions genuinely posed a threat to the public.


I really don't see the relevance to reason 1 here? It's genuinely dissapointing to read such drivel when the hobby has it's opposition elsewhere. It's opinions like these that fuel the anti's fire. It can also make us look very irresponsible. 

P.S I doubt (Though I could be wrong) any insurance would be valid if the keeper had a DWA without the relevant license so it's a moot point really.


----------



## sophiep

I would report them 100% I dont think I could live with myself knowing they had the animal if it ever got out and stung a young child.


----------



## Ssthisto

MJ75 said:


> I really don't see the relevance to reason 1 here? It's genuinely dissapointing to read such drivel when the hobby has it's opposition elsewhere. It's opinions like these that fuel the anti's fire. It can also make us look very irresponsible.
> 
> P.S I doubt (Though I could be wrong) any insurance would be valid if the keeper had a DWA without the relevant license so it's a moot point really.


The relevance to reason 1 is that some councils use an extortionate, ridiculous licence fee to discourage keepers from getting a licence - just as some councils make their requirements for the licence near impossible to meet or have a stated policy of not giving out licences in general. Either way, it's an abuse (on the council's part) of the system; if it only costs £85 for Council A to administer the DWAL then it should not realistically cost £1500 for Council B to administer the DWAL. Assuming that "making a licence hard to get will stop people from getting DWA species" is a foolish thing to do... no, make it too expensive or make a public policy of not issuing the licence, and you're ENSURING people will keep illegally.

So if someone was doing everything ELSE right... and they lived in that £1500-for-a-licence Council B - then I don't think I'd feel it was my responsibility to report them to Environmental Health although I'd be asking why they hadn't gone for the licence. If they were doing everything right in £85 Council A I'd be asking them some pretty hard questions about why they haven't got the licence and saying they DO need to get it sorted.

As for the insurance, I would presume that you could get Public Liability Insurance and perhaps if you were a little... loose with terms... say "I keep large snakes that can be dangerous, I'd like to get public liability insurance in case they ever escaped" ... well, you're unlikely to be seriously covered, but it's a nod in the right direction.


----------



## Athravan

If you knew someone was driving without a license but they were a competent driver - yet they could still have an accident, and have no insurance, would you report them? How about if they were drink driving & speeding in a residential area as well?

There are always extremes. Most people do not want to be the person who runs to whoever's in charge and tells on them, it's not a good feeling and it's not a good thing to have to do. You shouldn't be put in that position. Most people have the sensibility that if they're going to break the law they do it in private and certainly don't go around boasting about it.

I don't believe personally in sticking my nose in other people's business - but if someone is openly flaunting the laws then they can only expect to get caught! I have no idea what kind of person breaks the law, takes pictures of it and shows it to other people whilst admitting it anyway, but it doesn't sound like the type of person who should be keeping DWA.

And ultimately it comes down to your personal ethics, assuming you know where he lives and thus can report him. If you think there is a danger to other people will you be able to live with yourself and your conscience if his actions cause another person to be seriously injured or even killed.

I once had to report a neighbour for drink driving and it wasn't good - but he was getting absolutely slaughtered and coming home weaving all over the road, driving on the wrong side of the road, and one night I watched him hit two cars trying to park and almost killed a poor cat, and I thought, what if it were some kids crossing that road? I tried to speak to him when sober and he threw a brick through my window the next night whilst drunk, so I had no alternative. He lost his driving license for 3 years, but that's better than a jail cell and a seriously injured person.

Perhaps you can try to speak to this keeper and convince them of the dangers and to pass on their scorpion to someone with a DWA - or apply for a license.


----------



## MJ75

Ssthisto said:


> The relevance to reason 1 is that some councils use an extortionate, ridiculous licence fee to discourage keepers from getting a licence - just as some councils make their requirements for the licence near impossible to meet or have a stated policy of not giving out licences in general. Either way, it's an abuse (on the council's part) of the system; if it only costs £85 for Council A to administer the DWAL then it should not realistically cost £1500 for Council B to administer the DWAL. Assuming that "making a licence hard to get will stop people from getting DWA species" is a foolish thing to do... no, make it too expensive or make a public policy of not issuing the licence, and you're ENSURING people will keep illegally.
> 
> So if someone was doing everything ELSE right... and they lived in that £1500-for-a-licence Council B - then I don't think I'd feel it was my responsibility to report them to Environmental Health although I'd be asking why they hadn't gone for the licence. If they were doing everything right in £85 Council A I'd be asking them some pretty hard questions about why they haven't got the licence and saying they DO need to get it sorted.
> 
> As for the insurance, I would presume that you could get Public Liability Insurance and perhaps if you were a little... loose with terms... say "I keep large snakes that can be dangerous, I'd like to get public liability insurance in case they ever escaped" ... well, you're unlikely to be seriously covered, but it's a nod in the right direction.


Keeping DWA is either done legally or illegally. The fact that you take objection to how councils choose to charge DWA holders has no relevance in law or even morally. The keeper has not proven to the relevant authority (Other animal keepers either DWA or otherwise don’t count) that they can house the animal safely. There is no excuse in law to keep an unlicensed animal. 

Your comments about insurance speak volumes really. Technically wording it as you suggested would constitute fraud as the person would not be declaring that they are keeping the animal illegally. And realistically the individual would not be covered. So I’m struggling to understand how it’s relevant to your consideration as the keeper isn’t insured if he doesn’t have a DWAL. A “nod in the right direction” will mean nothing when any subsequent claim will not be honoured will it?

You acknowledge that things “could go pear shaped” yet query the keepers insurance status that can’t actually be covered without the license, so I’m struggling to understand your logic I’m afraid. 

Your argument appears to hinge on the actual cost of the DWA. Not the welfare of the animal (Remember the keeper has not proven without a DWA to the RELEVANT authority that it can be housed and cared for correctly). And you acknowledge that the keeper has a responsibility to the public etc by stating he should have insurance which they can’t get. Can you see the flaws in what you’re saying?


----------



## Jczreptiles

The trouble is on the snake health side of things what if the illegal keeper finds he can't cope with a DWA or is too scared of it to fill the water, They can't sell it very easily because they don't have a licence so either it will get released (I really hope that would never happen) or it will be left to die.


----------



## Caz

As a side note, is the DWA itself legal or does it infringe the human rights of members of an EU Country..?


----------



## MJ75

Caz said:


> As a side note, is the DWA itself legal or does it infringe the human rights of members of an EU Country..?


Very, very good question. Possibly a query for a new thread. 

Go for it. I know you want to.


----------



## Moshpitviper

rockkeeper said:


> isnt that the reason of the license, that person are,up to a certain standard, vivs etc ,etc?
> 
> 
> what does that say to the one who have done it the right way?
> 
> 
> anyway how do you know they havent got a license ?



If this was the case then why is the fee so prohibitively expensive with some local authorities?


----------



## Ssthisto

MJ75 said:


> Your argument appears to hinge on the actual cost of the DWA. Not the welfare of the animal (Remember the keeper has not proven without a DWA to the RELEVANT authority that it can be housed and cared for correctly). And you acknowledge that the keeper has a responsibility to the public etc by stating he should have insurance which they can’t get. Can you see the flaws in what you’re saying?


To be honest, given what I've heard about *some* vets doing DWA inspections on people I know who HAVE their licence .... Having the inspection doesn't prove you can care for the animal either, it just proves you have cages that look nice and that appear to lock. Any inspector that asks "Where's your stock of antivenin" has just shown they do not understand *that* much about keeping venomous species.

I never said I'd actively CONDONE someone not getting the licence (my personal feeling on it is "if you can't afford the licence or don't want the home inspection, you'll have to forgo the animals.") But on the other hand, if someone is a good keeper - someone I myself might aspire to be like - and keeps DWA species, and I just happen to find out through conversation that they are not currently (or never have been) licenced... I do not automatically assume it is my *job* to report them. What is my job at that point is finding out why they aren't licenced, and encouraging them to GET licenced. If I talk to that keeper as a friend, maybe I can make a difference for the better, where reporting them might result in the destruction of their animals.

JczReptiles - you have a very, very good point about vet care. Granted, there are not that many vets out there who will even see DWA animals (and GETTING your animal to a vet is going to be a problem - house call would be more likely) but that is no excuse for not being able to provide your animal necessary health care. In that respect, although I still would not see it as my duty to REPORT an unlicenced keeper I sure would be doing everything I could to help them GET licenced.

As for the insurance, given my distrust of animal-related (and specifically exotics-related) insurance to begin with - the fine print excludes a hell of a lot - that's something that if the keeper DID have it, great, it still shows they're willing to make a nod in the right direction. It doesn't make a lot of practical difference, but it's showing that they're willing to TRY. If they're willing to try, even if it's not going to work, maybe they're also willing to do what's needed to get the licence. 

I have to wonder how many unlicenced keepers just don't KNOW they need a licence for the species they have. Are ALL of them doing it in full knowledge that what they're keeping isn't legal without the licence?


----------



## xxstaggyxx

I beleave there is no regulations on what the councils can charge for the cost of DWAL as we all know prices ranges are huge in some cases some as little as £65 right upto £1000+ 
also there is talk to make a set price across the board of what to charge but i have know clue when this will happen even if it will happen they same as making the DWAL last 2 years instead of 1 year


----------



## STReptiles

How do people get them with no license.........who is selling them to people with no license. I love gaboon vipers but if someone was to offer one i wouldnt take it, the risk is too high and as mentiond before it ruins it for the responsible ones.


----------



## Jczreptiles

STReptiles said:


> How do people get them with no license.........who is selling them to people with no license. I love gaboon vipers but if someone was to offer one i wouldnt take it, the risk is too high and as mentiond before it ruins it for the responsible ones.


 You could probably get one easier than you think if you got friendly with one of the very many dodgy pet shop owners out there they could get you one without a licence.


----------



## Owzy

STReptiles said:


> How do people get them with no license.........who is selling them to people with no license. I love gaboon vipers but if someone was to offer one i wouldnt take it, the risk is too high and as mentiond before it ruins it for the responsible ones.


Probably not bought in the UK... We don't want to give people the exact way of doing it though.


----------



## Jczreptiles

Owzy said:


> Probably not bought in the UK... We don't want to give people the exact way of doing it though.


 Too late sorry, I was offered a western diomon back rattler two years ago without a DWA I won't mention who from but I passed as I would not take the risk.


----------



## Owzy

Jczreptiles said:


> Too late sorry, I was offered a western diomon back rattler two years ago without a DWA I won't mention who from but I passed as I would not take the risk.


Thats fine, I would say only a small percentage come from sources like this though. However I have not carried out any questionaires so I am purely guessing!

I am not sure how people come up with even estimates of non-licienced keepers...


----------



## MJ75

Owzy said:


> Thats fine, I would say only a small percentage come from sources like this though. However I have not carried out any questionaires so I am purely guessing!
> 
> I am not sure how people come up with even estimates of non-licienced keepers...


They're not difficult to get. I'm fairly sure I know the route you're alluding to. lol


----------



## FreakOonique

He hasnt got a licence, he made that public a little while ago


----------



## STReptiles

Owzy said:


> Probably not bought in the UK... We don't want to give people the exact way of doing it though.


 i think i could find my own way of obtaining a venomous snake but prefer not too. whats the appeal???


----------



## Owzy

STReptiles said:


> i think i could find my own way of obtaining a venomous snake but prefer not too. whats the appeal???


There is plenty of appeal

There is also many reasons why it is not a good idea but people tend to have that 'it won't happen to me' attitude.


----------



## Athravan

There may be some appeal to people keeping these animals illegally but most keepers when faced with the harsh reality of the penalites will realise it is not worth the risk - legally, even if they decide it is worth the risk to safety.

I am not sure if it set by the council or UK wide but there is a fine of £2000 set by my council. You can be prosecuted and may be banned from keeping pets, or reptiles - and can receive a conviction that may stop you from be able to even apply for a DWA or a pet shop license in the future.

Furthermore the law allows the local council to seize & destroy any animals found to be kept without the correct licensing. You could be putting an animals life in risk if a council decided the best thing for the public would be for the animal to be destroyed. Many councils will of course try to rehome where appropriate but legally they do not have to, the animal can be disposed of as they think fit.

It would be a sad day if dwa reptiles were taken and destroyed simply because the owner chose to keep them without a license. Is that really a risk worth taking?

Even if the license fee was what some people consider extortionate, ie. over £1000 - a fine of £2000 is a lot more so again, consider it in that view and it makes sense to get a license. But the majority of councils cost less than £500 including the vet visit.

Perhaps if you pass this information on to the person who is keeping without a license they may realise it's quite serious and work towards applying one, or find the animal a licensed home.


----------



## leeh1985

To be fair Tamz I would report this chap as it shows that he has no understanding of the animal he is keeping.
It is always a hard decsion wether or not to report someone who owns dwa with no license as I have known someone in the past that has kept a dwa animal without the license. Would I report him? it's hard to say as like many people on here have said if they are doing it properly and show that they know what there doing and are not being a muppet then why report them. 

I myself will be looking to get a dwa license once I have bought a house and it does piss me off that people have these animals without a license so if they are abusing it then I do say report them.


----------



## mrcarlxx

may i ask. why do you have to pay for a DWAL, is there some service they provide eg anti venom?..what is it you pay for? what do you get out of it?


----------



## Athravan

mrcarlxx said:


> may i ask. why do you have to pay for a DWAL, is there some service they provide eg anti venom?..what is it you pay for? what do you get out of it?


You have access to the council who ensure that health & safety is observed, you get a certificate that legally allows you to buy, keep and sell the DWA animals specified. Presumabley the fees go towards the council's cost for having to inspect and declare you a competent and safe environment for the dangerous animal. You also have to pay a vets fee for the vet who inspects.

I believe anti-venom is covered under the NHS? You cannot keep the anti venom yourself, you have to be airlifted or ambulanced to one of the hospitals (I think it might only be one now?) in the UK that stocks anti-venom where you'll be treated by doctors under the NHS as far as I'm aware so you don't have to pay extra if you get bitten.


----------



## mrcarlxx

Athravan said:


> You have access to the council who ensure that health & safety is observed, you get a certificate that legally allows you to buy, keep and sell the DWA animals specified. Presumabley the fees go towards the council's cost for having to inspect and declare you a competent and safe environment for the dangerous animal. You also have to pay a vets fee for the vet who inspects.
> 
> I believe anti-venom is covered under the NHS? You cannot keep the anti venom yourself, you have to be airlifted or ambulanced to one of the hospitals (I think it might only be one now?) in the UK that stocks anti-venom where you'll be treated by doctors under the NHS as far as I'm aware so you don't have to pay extra if you get bitten.


so you pretty much have to pay for a bloke in a hi viz jacket to come to your home and say 'put another lock on that me sun' and then they leave you alone until the next inspection.......yeah thats sounds well worth spending £1500 :whistling2:.....i have a better idea....dont buy anything dwa :2thumb:


----------



## mythicdawn07

its got nothing to do with me what pets people keep and i wouldnt report someone over a piece of paper they are missing, That doesnt mean they are bad pet owners.


----------



## Oliver Dodds

Its ok, natural selection should sort everything out :whistling2:


----------



## mrcarlxx

mythicdawn07 said:


> its got nothing to do with me what pets people keep and i wouldnt report someone over a piece of paper they are missing, That doesnt mean they are bad pet owners.


yeah thats what i am thinking, i think they should be registerd but i dont believe that people have to pay up to £1500 to own one!...

how often do you have to pay this bill then? is it a once yearly thing or do you only ever pay it once?


----------



## xxstaggyxx

once yearly you have to pay to get the DWAL renewed


----------



## Athravan

The last proposed changes said it was proposed to be changing to every 3 years, but these haven't come into effect yet.


----------



## mrcarlxx

xxstaggyxx said:


> once yearly you have to pay to get the DWAL renewed


 
what?.....lmfao, damn they must love people that keep dwa....what a con.

i am going to make my own licence for normal snakes, you will all have to start paying my £50 a year....

i mean really?!?! how do they get away with it?


----------



## mythicdawn07

i wouldnt pay yearly, its a scam. Come to think if it i probably wouldnt pay it at all.

Although i have no intrest in DWAs if i did i wouldnt pay it lol.


----------



## mrcarlxx

mythicdawn07 said:


> i wouldnt pay yearly, its a scam. Come to think if it i probably wouldnt pay it at all.
> 
> Although i have no intrest in DWAs if i did i wouldnt pay it lol.


lol, im with you there pal


----------



## xxstaggyxx

Athravan said:


> The last proposed changes said it was proposed to be changing to every 3 years, but these haven't come into effect yet.


I didt here them changing it to 3 years last i herd on the preposals they was looking at making it every 2 years and look at making a standard fee across all the councils


----------



## Owzy

mythicdawn07 said:


> i wouldnt pay yearly, its a scam. Come to think if it i probably wouldnt pay it at all.
> 
> Although i have no intrest in DWAs if i did i wouldnt pay it lol.





mrcarlxx said:


> lol, im with you there pal


I don't think you have quite got the point. What else do you suggest, councils doing it all for free? Can you imagine what Daily Mail readers would say to that?


----------



## mythicdawn07

Owzy said:


> I don't think you have quite got the point. What else do you suggest, councils doing it all for free? Can you imagine what Daily Mail readers would say to that?


 
Who cares about the daily mail readers if they are too dumb to understand some things and blow them way out of proportion then thats there fault, aslong as your proven to know how to look after and care for the animals safely you shouldnt have to pay a yearly fee to fat council members to keep them.


----------



## Owzy

mythicdawn07 said:


> Who cares about the daily mail readers if they are too dumb to understand some things and blow them way out of proportion then thats there fault, aslong as your proven to know how to look after and care for the animals safely you shouldnt have to pay a yearly fee to fat council members to keep them.


I don't think you are thinking about it properly. Read through some of this section & then tell me if you think some of the people who want to keep should be allowed to waste councils money getting their whole application rejected for free!

On the Daily Mail readers point... unfortunately the government cares what they think, and if it would benefit them they would ban all DWA's without too much thought.


----------



## mrcarlxx

the way i think about it is, anyone who keeps a dwa should be sent through a course on how to care and look after said dwa animals, at the end of this course there should be some sort of test, like a theory test if you like? to make sure the new dwa owner isnt just some boy from da hood innit.

once this is proved that said person is capable of looking after such a animal there are no more tests but once a year should have a inspection for a small fee (a MOT but on vivs..if you will) 

this is how i would like to see it done.....not just some fat old guy in a ofice saying 'ahh ummm give i £1500 and i will let you keep one' thats just silly.

look at me getting all wound up and i dont even want dwa near me


----------



## Owzy

mrcarlxx said:


> the way i think about it is, anyone who keeps a dwa should be sent through a course on how to care and look after said dwa animals, at the end of this course there should be some sort of test, like a theory test if you like? to make sure the new dwa owner isnt just some boy from da hood innit.
> 
> once this is proved that said person is capable of looking after such a animal there are no more tests but once a year should have a inspection for a small fee (a MOT but on vivs..if you will)
> 
> this is how i would like to see it done.....not just some fat old guy in a ofice saying 'ahh ummm give i £1500 and i will let you keep one' thats just silly.
> 
> look at me getting all wound up and i dont even want dwa near me


I see where you are coming from but there is a big problem with that. There is no set way to deal with DWA animals. What works for some could be dangerous for others. You can be given pointers and tips but as far as I can make out it would be pretty unwise telling everyone they must do it a certain way.


----------



## Azemiops

mrcarlxx said:


> the way i think about it is, anyone who keeps a dwa should be sent through a course on how to care and look after said dwa animals, at the end of this course there should be some sort of test, like a theory test if you like? to make sure the new dwa owner isnt just some boy from da hood innit.
> 
> once this is proved that said person is capable of looking after such a animal there are no more tests but once a year should have a inspection for a small fee (a MOT but on vivs..if you will)
> 
> this is how i would like to see it done.....not just some fat old guy in a ofice saying 'ahh ummm give i £1500 and i will let you keep one' thats just silly.
> 
> look at me getting all wound up and i dont even want dwa near me


You keep bringing up this point of £1500 for a licence, what makes you think this is the price for keeping DWA? My licence and renewal fee is less than £100 a year, most councils are between the £100 - £300 range. Very few councils charge £500+ and those that do could very easily be challenged on charging to much and be taken to court to get the price reduced. They are only allowed to charge for the time is takes for them to process the licence.


----------



## Guest

I think it depends on the circumstances. I myself have in the past kept species which are on the DWA list without a license (I should stress I don't any more, but thats more due to circumstance than deciding its wrong to do so) BUT I've never kept anything thats even close to medical significance. The problem with the DWA is whilst it is necessary, I don't think its particularly well thought out. Take scorpions for instance, of the 650+ species classified there are perhaps 30-50 (thats a very generous figure) which actually pose a threat to a healthy adult.

If I were to ever keep anything which I thought was capable of doing lethal damage, and therefore deserving of being on the DWA list, then I'd certainly look in to aquiring one.


----------



## paulrimmer69

mrcarlxx said:


> the way i think about it is, anyone who keeps a dwa should be sent through a course on how to care and look after said dwa animals, at the end of this course there should be some sort of test, like a theory test if you like? to make sure the new dwa owner isnt just some boy from da hood innit.
> 
> once this is proved that said person is capable of looking after such a animal there are no more tests but once a year should have a inspection for a small fee (a MOT but on vivs..if you will)
> 
> this is how i would like to see it done.....not just some fat old guy in a ofice saying 'ahh ummm give i £1500 and i will let you keep one' thats just silly.
> 
> look at me getting all wound up and i dont even want dwa near me


 
i must be lucky then mine was only £59 :2thumb:


----------



## HABU

DWA?


YouTube - RATM -Killing in the name - official video


----------



## mrcarlxx

Azemiops said:


> You keep bringing up this point of £1500 for a licence, what makes you think this is the price for keeping DWA? My licence and renewal fee is less than £100 a year, most councils are between the £100 - £300 range. Very few councils charge £500+ and those that do could very easily be challenged on charging to much and be taken to court to get the price reduced. They are only allowed to charge for the time is takes for them to process the licence.


i think i read it on the first page of this thread?


----------



## Ssthisto

mrcarlxx said:


> i think i read it on the first page of this thread?


That might have been my post. And that was a "for example" - by no account are *all* or even *most* DWAL that expensive.

There are a couple of counties where it is horrifically expensive and with no apparent good reason for it. Those are the ones to which I was referring as the "£1500 County B" - the vast majority of counties are going to be a lot cheaper.


----------



## MJ75

Ssthisto said:


> That might have been my post. And that was a "for example" - by no account are *all* or even *most* DWAL that expensive.
> 
> There are a couple of counties where it is horrifically expensive and with no apparent good reason for it. Those are the ones to which I was referring as the "£1500 County B" - the vast majority of counties are going to be a lot cheaper.


It's £150 here. So is there a council anywhere near £1000? If so where is it?


----------



## SiUK

my license is under £300 all in, last year it was £90 all in.


----------



## mythicdawn07

Owzy said:


> I see where you are coming from but there is a big problem with that. There is no set way to deal with DWA animals. What works for some could be dangerous for others. You can be given pointers and tips but as far as I can make out it would be pretty unwise telling everyone they must do it a certain way.


 
and paying some random bloke 1500 quid will fix this? I think your missing the point, money does not make you a safe keeper, nor does a little liscence from the council.

doing some sort of course will atleast make sure you know the risks, and how to look after animals and properly revise a caresheet.


----------



## xxstaggyxx

It's £211 were i am


----------



## mrcarlxx

MJ75 said:


> It's £150 here. So is there a council anywhere near £1000? If so where is it?


read the post above yours :winks:


----------



## MJ75

mrcarlxx said:


> read the post above yours :winks:


I did. It didn't mention the council responsible. It may all be hearsay for all I know.


----------



## mythicdawn07

even 150 quid for a piece of paper is totally missing the point.

My point is that you dont need a piece of paper to say your going to be a well commited pet owner who wants whats best for everyone and the animals.

you dont need to spend a bucket load of money to show your commitment.


----------



## MJ75

mythicdawn07 said:


> you dont need a piece of paper to say your going to be a well commited pet owner who wants whats best for everyone and the animals.


So how else do you prove it to a suitable authority? If you don't believe your local council to be a "suitable authority" who is?


----------



## SiUK

How many people here even keep DWA that are arguing about it?


----------



## sophievictoria

I may be new and just recently learnt about this in my exotics class, but people paying for a DWA aren't just paying to keep them, it is also to help the council recover losses if anything happens or if the animals gets out into the local population.
Tell me if I'm wrong as I said I have only just learn about this myself. 

But I personally think people should have to pay to keep dangerous animals, yes it may be a hobby but some people aren't as responsible as others. 
I would probably report them if there was proof of the animal and if it was in bad living conditions.


----------



## SiUK

sophievictoria said:


> I may be new and just recently learnt about this in my exotics class, but people paying for a DWA aren't just paying to keep them, it is also to help the council recover losses if anything happens or if the animals gets out into the local population.
> Tell me if I'm wrong as I said I have only just learn about this myself.


in order to keep the animals we have to have public liability insurance this covers any keeper in the event of an escape and someone getting injured
.


----------



## sophievictoria

Yes that's it  I couldn't think what it was called, as I said only did it in my exotics class last week.
Was a very interesting lecture.


----------



## mythicdawn07

MJ75 said:


> So how else do you prove it to a suitable authority? If you don't believe your local council to be a "suitable authority" who is?


 
i never once said the council wasnt suitable authority, but there way's are just profiteering, i'm not sure how you go about getting an DWA. surely you have to sit some sort of test to show your knowledge of different species.

Having to pay yearly after you have sat this test and paid for the initial liscense is purely for profit nothing else.


----------



## mrcarlxx

so in a worse case...rattle snake gets out, starts wandering down the street. what does this piece of paper pay for? it pays for the council to come and get the snake?

dog goes walkies all by its self...bites someone, you pay the council nothing?


----------



## mrcarlxx

sorry for being a bit random, but i really really dont grasp why someone has to pay for something that is of no use.


----------



## mrcarlxx

is the licence printed on special paper, that will help the owner look after said animal in any way shape or form?


----------



## SiUK

mrcarlxx said:


> sorry for being a bit random, but i really really dont grasp why someone has to pay for something that is of no use.


If it wasnt for this license alot more people would keep these snakes.


----------



## mrcarlxx

SiUK said:


> If it wasnt for this license alot more people would keep these snakes.


 
lmao....nope, i don't think they will! i bloody wouldn't :lol2:

i don't see how having a dangerous rep in my house will satisfy me in any way shape or form


----------



## SiUK

mrcarlxx said:


> i don't see how having a dangerous rep in my house will satisfy me in any way shape or form


so why on earth are you loitering in a DWA thread arguing with people then, if you have absolutely no interest or understanding of why people would want to keep them, then why waste your time?


----------



## Ssthisto

MJ75 said:


> It's £150 here. So is there a council anywhere near £1000? If so where is it?


Yes, there are council areas that are that expensive:

Surrey Heath:
Fees and Charges
Current charge for first animal is £1628, plus £120 per additional animal, renewal fee is £814 for the first animal and £60 for each additional animal. 

I'll look up the others once I've eaten my tea.

(ETA

As of 2006, these are the "higher-end" council charges, generally NOT including the vet inspection fee (A list compiled by members of Livefoods UK):
Ashfield City Council £700+
Cheltenham Borough Council £1600+
Luton Borough Council: £975+
Nottingham Council: £1100 (part-refundable)


----------



## mrcarlxx

SiUK said:


> so why on earth are you loitering in a DWA thread arguing with people then, if you have absolutely no interest or understanding of why people would want to keep them, then why waste your time?


why? just because i dont like them doesnt mean i dont want anyone else to have them! understand now?


----------



## mythicdawn07

SiUK said:


> so why on earth are you loitering in a DWA thread arguing with people then, if you have absolutely no interest or understanding of why people would want to keep them, then why waste your time?


 
These forums are for discussion, we are discussing why the government feel the need to charge people for this, like i have said before the willingness to handover X amount of money doesnt turn you into a rep expert and doesnt make you comit to anything more then other people would.

i for one totally understand why people keep DWA, and some day i will probably keep one or two myself there are some beautifull DWA species, i just dont see the need for paying for a liscence.

I totally agree that there should be a liscence, but the way to obtain one shouldnt be throwing cash at the government/local council.


----------



## MJ75

I think this thread has been derailed enough so I'm gonna bow out. I'm surprised a DWAL can cost as much as it can. I still don't believe it's an excuse for someone to keep a DWA simply because they can't afford the DWAL though.

And I think the OP should report the idioy in question. Assuming he can be traced etc. Good luck.


----------



## mrcarlxx

right i am going to use mr x as a example.

mr x lives in a high rated area he has to pay a large sum of money for his licence.

mr x is 50+ years old and has been keeping dwa with no problems for 30 years, but looses his job (gets made redundant or something) so...the time comes to re-new his piece of paper but does not have the money!! 

these animals are mr x's pets and has kept them for a number of years....so what does he do with them now?...does this piece of paper mean he is unfit/unable to look after his pets any longer?


----------



## mrcarlxx

MJ75 said:


> I think this thread has been derailed enough so I'm gonna bow out. I'm surprised a DWAL can cost as much as it can. I still don't believe it's an excuse for someone to keep a DWA simply because they can't afford the DWAL though.
> 
> And I think the OP should report the idioy in question. Assuming he can be traced etc. Good luck.


its not been 'derailed', i a, a very curios person...the only way you learn is asking q's getting answers, and questioning the answers....i mean no harm : victory:


----------



## SiUK

mrcarlxx said:


> why? just because i dont like them doesnt mean i dont want anyone else to have them! understand now?


well your coming across as if you think that everyone that keeps DWA is stupid for wanting to do so.


----------



## MJ75

mrcarlxx said:


> right i am going to use mr x as a example.
> 
> mr x lives in a high rated area he has to pay a large sum of money for his licence.
> 
> mr x is 50+ years old and has been keeping dwa with no problems for 30 years, but looses his job (gets made redundant or something) so...the time comes to re-new his piece of paper but does not have the money!!
> 
> these animals are mr x's pets and has kept them for a number of years....so what does he do with them now?...does this piece of paper mean he is unfit/unable to look after his pets any longer?


Mr X will have more serious financial concerns and should sell his collection to fund his basic living costs. Therefore he won't face additional hardship when fined for keeping illegal animals. Simple............. :Na_Na_Na_Na:

On a serious note.... Mr X no longer has valid insurance. Therefore why should he keep them if one of his animals of which he is responsible for injures someone and causes them financial hardship. As he's now out of a job, he may not be able to meet a compensation claim etc.


----------



## HABU

DWA keepers shouldn't be smug... having haves and have nots invites smug-ness...


a ten year old can keep a rattlesnake here and do...


... educate, not intimidate.: victory:


----------



## mythicdawn07

SiUK said:


> well your coming across as if you think that everyone that keeps DWA is stupid for wanting to do so.


 
if you read his posts you would see thats not what he think's.


----------



## mrcarlxx

MJ75 said:


> Mr X will have more serious financial concerns and should sell his collection to fund his basic living costs. Therefore he won't face additional hardship when fined for keeping illegal animals. Simple............. :Na_Na_Na_Na:
> 
> On a serious note.... Mr X no longer has valid insurance. Therefore why should he keep them if one of his animals of which he is responsible for injures someone and causes them financial hardship. As he's now out of a job, he may not be able to meet a compensation claim etc.


lol fair point, plus he could sell them all and make a fortune....well could mr x sell them? haveing no licence?


----------



## SiUK

mythicdawn07 said:


> if you read his posts you would see thats not what he think's.


I have been and thats my opinion


----------



## mrcarlxx

SiUK said:


> well your coming across as if you think that everyone that keeps DWA is stupid for wanting to do so.


 
thats funny, i have just been defending dwa keepers side for the last couple of hours :lol2:


----------



## Ssthisto

mrcarlxx said:


> lol fair point, plus he could sell them all and make a fortune....well could mr x sell them? haveing no licence?


Actually, Mr. X won't make much money selling the animals because, with such a limited market for DWA animals, prices just CAN'T be sky-high. Last I checked, a diamondback rattler _could _cost less than a normal corn snake.

And without the licence, I'm not sure Mr. X CAN sell them... certainly he can't sell them to anyone who doesn't have a licence.

But I sure can empathise with Mr. X on that one - if I'd been keeping an animal for twenty years legally, become attached to it and suddenly don't have the financial means to pay a high council licence fee... how gutted would you be to have to sell an animal you've cared for for the last two decades?

I very much like some DWA species myself - Gilas among them - but when or if we decide to make that step it is going to be with the full knowledge and acceptance of our local council.


----------



## SiUK

mrcarlxx said:


> thats funny, i have just been defending dwa keepers side for the last couple of hours :lol2:


:lol2:


----------



## MJ75

I think the people who see the license cost as unnecesary should ask themselves, if they get hit by a car when travelling themselves would they think :-

A) I hope he's got insurance.

B) Ah well, it was his fault but it doesn't matter if he's no insurance as it's an uneccesary cost So I'll just deal with the costs I have to incur even though it's not my fault. 

So if YOU suffered injury and costs because you were injured by a neighbours DWA pet what would you think then? Would you want the keeper prosecuted? Would you take civil action against the keeper? Or would you want both? It's a no brainer for me......


----------



## SiUK

Ssthisto said:


> Actually, Mr. X won't make much money selling the animals because, with such a limited market for DWA animals, prices just CAN'T be sky-high. Last I checked, a diamondback rattler _could _cost less than a normal corn snake.


My atrox was £20 have seen them selling for less as well


----------



## mrcarlxx

Ssthisto said:


> Actually, Mr. X won't make much money selling the animals because, with such a limited market for DWA animals, prices just CAN'T be sky-high. Last I checked, a diamondback rattler _could _cost less than a normal corn snake.
> 
> And without the licence, I'm not sure Mr. X CAN sell them... certainly he can't sell them to anyone who doesn't have a licence.
> 
> But I sure can empathise with Mr. X on that one - if I'd been keeping an animal for twenty years legally, become attached to it and suddenly don't have the financial means to pay a high council licence fee... how gutted would you be to have to sell an animal you've cared for for the last two decades?
> 
> I very much like some DWA species myself - Gilas among them - but when or if we decide to make that step it is going to be with the full knowledge and acceptance of our local council.


well i was lieing slightly, i do like the look of some of them allot!...but i am way to slow to even get out the way or a royal trying to tag me, let alone something with fangs...so on that point i just dont see/feel the need for myself to own one....

the one i like is black with yellow stripes on it and i think it lives in oz, know what it is?


----------



## mythicdawn07

MJ75 said:


> I think the people who see the license cost as unnecesary should ask themselves, if they get hit by a car when travelling themselves would they think :-
> 
> A) I hope he's got insurance.
> 
> B) Ah well, it was his fault but it doesn't matter if he's no insurance as it's an uneccesary cost So I'll just deal with the costs I have to incur even though it's not my fault.
> 
> So if YOU suffered injury and costs because you were injured by a neighbours DWA pet what would you think then? Would you want the keeper prosecuted? Would you take civil action against the keeper? Or would you want both? It's a no brainer for me......


 
i think insurance is a total scam aswell, insurance should only cover YOU. so if you dont have insurance and get hit then it should be your fault, and the fact that insurance goes up after you have made a claim is rediclious.

But thats for another discussion.


----------



## Caz

HABU said:


> *DWA keepers shouldn't be smug... having haves and have nots invites smug-ness...*
> 
> 
> a ten year old can keep a rattlesnake here and do...
> 
> 
> *... educate, not intimidate.*: victory:


I have to agree totally. I know plenty of experianced sensible keepers that would be perfectly capable of owning a a reptile requiring a DWAL. Paying there local district councils EHD a fee for a vet check and a certificate makes no difference to their capabilitys.

(I used to keep DWAL animals but don't at the mo - so perhaps my opinion is not vaild :lol2


----------



## stuartdouglas

Caz said:


> As a side note, is the DWA itself legal or does it infringe the human rights of members of an EU Country..?


It isn't legal, but nobody has the money to take on the Uk government and win on a case such as this


----------



## ian14

stuartdouglas said:


> It isn't legal, but nobody has the money to take on the Uk government and win on a case such as this


I am not sure that this is the case, because it does not provide a complete ban on individuals keeping these species. If that was the case, then it would breach the Human Rights Act, however, because it allows you to keep them under licence then I cannot see that it is in breach of any Article. The fact that councils charge, in some cases, extortionate prices is neither here nor there, the argument would be that if you want to keep them there is nothing to stop you, but you have to pay the costs involved.


----------



## ryanr1987

Nope i wouldn't report them. up to them what they do


----------



## paulrimmer69

mythicdawn07 said:


> i think insurance is a total scam aswell, insurance should only cover YOU. so if you dont have insurance and get hit then it should be your fault, and the fact that insurance goes up after you have made a claim is rediclious.
> 
> But thats for another discussion.


the whole point of public liability insurance is to cover any member of the public who may be harmed by the animals you keep, if you get bitten the nhs covers any medical bills, same way the reason its the law to insure your car, not to cover you, its to cover anyone you may hit and injure


----------



## mythicdawn07

paulrimmer69 said:


> the whole point of public liability insurance is to cover any member of the public who may be harmed by the animals you keep, if you get bitten the nhs covers any medical bills, same way the reason its the law to insure your car, not to cover you, its to cover anyone you may hit and injure


 
then people who own dogs, cats and do the hundreds of thousands of things that endanger peoples lifes by the SLIGHTEST should also have to pay a yearly fee.

Your kidding yourself if you believe thats the reason they charge you so much, It's like believing adding 10% extra tax to alcohol will stop people drinking so much. Its to line peoples pockets nothing else.


----------



## paulrimmer69

mythicdawn07 said:


> then people who own dogs, cats and do the hundreds of thousands of things that endanger peoples lifes by the SLIGHTEST should also have to pay a yearly fee.
> 
> Your kidding yourself if you believe thats the reason they charge you so much, It's like believing adding 10% extra tax to alcohol will stop people drinking so much. Its to line peoples pockets nothing else.


fair point but if your dog escapes and seriously injures someone you can be taken to court and sued plus lose your dog, if you own an animal which you know if it did escape could easily kill or seriously injure someone in my opinion its worth a couple of hundred quid a year to cover your back


----------



## mythicdawn07

paulrimmer69 said:


> fair point but if your dog escapes and seriously injures someone you can be taken to court and sued plus lose your dog, if you own an animal which you know if it did escape could easily kill or seriously injure someone in my opinion its worth a couple of hundred quid a year to cover your back


 
Then it should be a choice, not a requirement. Forcing someone to pay a yearly fee to keep there pets is a joke. 

DWA should be a one time fee, insurance should be recurring fee. But at the end of the day it's just a con.


----------



## AZUK

Tamz said:


> Tis a bit naughty though, especially when you know they are not taking the correct precautions. I mean it wouldnt be so bad if said person was being sensible about it, but posting pictures up of themselves holding a DWA scorp is plain stupid, and its things like this that ultimately ruin it for the rest of the exotic community due to bad press because the moron got stung and died.
> 
> *Le Sigh*


Which post is this ?


----------



## Ssthisto

MJ75 said:


> I think the people who see the license cost as unnecesary should ask themselves, if they get hit by a car when travelling themselves would they think :-
> 
> A) I hope he's got insurance.
> 
> B) Ah well, it was his fault but it doesn't matter if he's no insurance as it's an uneccesary cost So I'll just deal with the costs I have to incur even though it's not my fault.
> 
> So if YOU suffered injury and costs because you were injured by a neighbours DWA pet what would you think then? Would you want the keeper prosecuted? Would you take civil action against the keeper? Or would you want both? It's a no brainer for me......


Well, from my side of things... I suffered an injury in a car accident that resulted in my losing a week's worth of wages while I was in hospital. Unfortunately... I was a passenger in the *at fault* driver's car.

Did I get any compensation for the week's lost wages - or the fact that I was on a liquid diet for a month afterward? Does a bear poo in the middle of Trafalgar Square?

If I was injured by a neighbour's pet I'd be asking what *I *did wrong before I asked what the neighbour did wrong. To be honest, I don't think I would want the keeper prosecuted unless it was a calculated and deliberate act that resulted in my exposure to the animal in question - throwing a Gaboon at me is a different story to my trying to catch their dog before it runs out into the road and getting bitten for my trouble. Thing is, the latter's a lot more likely to happen.

But dog owners aren't required to have public liability insurance for their large carnivorous pets.


----------



## Caz

ian14 said:


> I am not sure that this is the case, because it does not provide a complete ban on individuals keeping these species. If that was the case, then it would breach the Human Rights Act, however, because it allows you to keep them under licence then I cannot see that it is in breach of any Article. The fact that councils charge, in some cases, extortionate prices is neither here nor there, the argument would be that if you want to keep them there is nothing to stop you, but you have to pay the costs involved.


Although it's not in breach of any Article it provides an unfair disadvantage to the citizens of some member states.


----------



## SiUK

Caz said:


> Although it's not in breach of any Article it provides an unfair disadvantage to the citizens of some member states.


surely then that makes any license "illegal" from guns to cars??


----------



## ian14

Caz said:


> Although it's not in breach of any Article it provides an unfair disadvantage to the citizens of some member states.


No, it doesn't. The whole point of the DWA is to protect the public, it was originally brought in following a rise in the number of big cats being kept privately. It was never brought in to ban the keeping of them, but to ensure they are housed safely and securely.
It does not provide an unfair disadvantage because the DWA does not ban the keeping of such animals. In fact the DWA makes it clear that a local authority cannot refuse to issue a licence just because they don't want such animals kept within their areas.
The Human Rights Act has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring that "citizens" of all member states have the same laws applied, but to ensure that the laws of each country are complient with the articles. This means that all laws had to be audited to ensure complience.


----------



## MJ75

Ssthisto said:


> Well, from my side of things... I suffered an injury in a car accident that resulted in my losing a week's worth of wages while I was in hospital. Unfortunately... I was a passenger in the *at fault* driver's car.
> 
> Did I get any compensation for the week's lost wages - or the fact that I was on a liquid diet for a month afterward? Does a bear poo in the middle of Trafalgar Square?
> 
> If I was injured by a neighbour's pet I'd be asking what *I *did wrong before I asked what the neighbour did wrong. To be honest, I don't think I would want the keeper prosecuted unless it was a calculated and deliberate act that resulted in my exposure to the animal in question - throwing a Gaboon at me is a different story to my trying to catch their dog before it runs out into the road and getting bitten for my trouble. Thing is, the latter's a lot more likely to happen.
> 
> But dog owners aren't required to have public liability insurance for their large carnivorous pets.


Did you claim against the driver? You could have done from a legal point of view. Whether you chose to or not with the driver being a friend is irrelevant to the post of mine you've quoted though. 

It's all a question of responsibility really. You have to have public liability insurance to keep a DWA. You don't for a dog. But again it's not relevant. If you're not keeping them legally and something does happen you deserve whatever punishment the law chooses to throw at you. And you deserve any compensation claim a civil suit may decide against you. You only have yourself to blame. Saying I can't afford the DWAL cost but I keep one anyway is both pathetic and irresponsible.


----------



## Ssthisto

And there's the rub.

"Legal" isn't always exactly equivalent to "right".

It may have been legal and logical to claim against my friend's insurance - but it would not have been the RIGHT thing to do.

As I said, I don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to keep DWA without a licence.
I also don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to report someone who is otherwise keeping responsibly but does not have a licence, because I would be concerned that their animals would be euthanised. To me, getting someone's animals euthanised out of a desire to see the *legal* thing done is most definitely not the *right* thing to do.


----------



## MJ75

Ssthisto said:


> And there's the rub.
> 
> "Legal" isn't always exactly equivalent to "right".
> 
> It may have been legal and logical to claim against my friend's insurance - but it would not have been the RIGHT thing to do.
> 
> As I said, I don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to keep DWA without a licence.
> I also don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to report someone who is otherwise keeping responsibly but does not have a licence, because I would be concerned that their animals would be euthanised. To me, getting someone's animals euthanised out of a desire to see the *legal* thing done is most definitely not the *right* thing to do.


The right thing would have been for your friend to compensate you (Assuming it was their fault) IMHO. If you dislike a law you can always write to your MP and see if you can have it changed! Good luck there though...

Remember the RIGHT thing to do is only ever your opinion. What you believe is RIGHT may not be shared by others. Hence the need for laws in the first place. As I said, you can always try and change it... You don't know if the animal will be euthanised so it's purely hypothetical...

If an animal is kept "correctly" but illegaly I fail to see how this can be RIGHT as if something does happen, and lets be honest here there is always a possibility no matter how remote (Otherwise the DWAL wouldn't exist would it?) that others may suffer as a result. If it's kept illegaly then the keeper won't be insured and so probably can't meet his or her responsibilities.


----------



## Ssthisto

You've got quite a valid point; "right" is in the eye of the beholder.

That said, the number of DWA-species accidents is vastly smaller than the number of equestrian or canine accidents - even when you consider the unlicenced keepers of the former. I've been injured in accidents involving horses and dogs, too... but I won't be screaming for their owners' blood (and/or money).


----------



## Josh-sama

I'm agree with Ssthisto here. Prices in certain areas are way over the top, and in our current financial state they can't be paid for. I mean you could have someone who barely passed their DWA and keeps their animals irresponsibly and have a person without their licence keeping their animals in perfect conditions, with perfect safety precautions.

If someone doesn;t have a licence and has very bad responsibility for their animals, the keepers and the animals safety. Then yes, it's the right thing to report them.

But if someone keeps their animals in brilliant conditions with brilliant safety precautions but does not hold a licence, it wouldn't be right to report them. It'd be the legal thing to do, but not the right thing.


----------



## ian14

It is, I think, a little ironic that, with the number of recent posts of people asking if large boids should become DWA species, we now have a thread in which the majority of people say they would not report someone illegally keeping DWA!

With the current difficulties caused by the anti brigade, who I am in no doubt regularly visit this site, to be taking a stance of actively ignoring those illegaly keeping DWA species is simply giving them more ammunition!

All along, we have tried to portray ourselves as responsible people ensuring that our animals are kept properly and legally, yet here is a thread with numerous posts stating they would NOT report an illegal collection.

The DWA is NOT there to ensure the welfare of the animal, it is there to protect the public. Whether you agree with the fees charged or not is immaterial.

And as a side note, in this age of "proportinality" before destruction is ordered, all reasonable steps must be taken to rehouse the animal.


----------



## MJ75

ian14 said:


> It is, I think, a little ironic that, with the number of recent posts of people asking if large boids should become DWA species, we now have a thread in which the majority of people say they would not report someone illegally keeping DWA!
> 
> With the current difficulties caused by the anti brigade, who I am in no doubt regularly visit this site, to be taking a stance of actively ignoring those illegaly keeping DWA species is simply giving them more ammunition!
> 
> All along, we have tried to portray ourselves as responsible people ensuring that our animals are kept properly and legally, yet here is a thread with numerous posts stating they would NOT report an illegal collection.
> 
> The DWA is NOT there to ensure the welfare of the animal, it is there to protect the public. Whether you agree with the fees charged or not is immaterial.
> 
> And as a side note, in this age of "proportinality" before destruction is ordered, all reasonable steps must be taken to rehouse the animal.


I agree wholeheartedly. The number of people stating that they wouldn't report anyone shows reptile keepers in a bad light. It's a real shame also that people make reference to the DWA fee being relevant at all. It's totally irrelevant. 

If you can't afford to do thingsproperly and legally then tough. Get a better job, save harder, whatever. Or just concede that it's not for you.


----------



## PDR

I’ve probably got more venomous snakes here than anyone in the UK and I don’t have a DWAL.....because it does not apply to me.

The DWAL is currently under review so hopefully there will soon be a far better system in place. There will then be no excuse for not having the correct licence.
One thing a lot of people here seem to overlook is that this is a PUBLIC forum, anybody can read what you write (they don’t need to register or log in).


----------



## mythicdawn07

ian14 said:


> It is, I think, a little ironic that, with the number of recent posts of people asking if large boids should become DWA species, we now have a thread in which the majority of people say they would not report someone illegally keeping DWA!
> 
> With the current difficulties caused by the anti brigade, who I am in no doubt regularly visit this site, to be taking a stance of actively ignoring those illegaly keeping DWA species is simply giving them more ammunition!
> 
> All along, we have tried to portray ourselves as responsible people ensuring that our animals are kept properly and legally, yet here is a thread with numerous posts stating they would NOT report an illegal collection.
> 
> The DWA is NOT there to ensure the welfare of the animal, it is there to protect the public. Whether you agree with the fees charged or not is immaterial.
> 
> And as a side note, in this age of "proportinality" before destruction is ordered, all reasonable steps must be taken to rehouse the animal.


im sorry but you make no sense what so ever, a piece of paper does not protect the public the keeper does, and i think if a liscense holders pet got out and killed someone that would be worse for the hobby then someone who doesnt own a liscense. mainly because people would be fighting to get the animals banned from everyone instead of fighting to get the guy without a liscence locked up.

like has been stated a HUNDRED times, paper doesnt make anyone a good owner.


----------



## Morgan Freeman

mythicdawn07 said:


> im sorry but you make no sense what so ever, a piece of paper does not protect the public the keeper does, and i think if a liscense holders pet got out and killed someone that would be worse for the hobby then someone who doesnt own a liscense. mainly because people would be fighting to get the animals banned from everyone instead of fighting to get the guy without a liscence locked up.
> 
> like has been stated a HUNDRED times, paper doesnt make anyone a good owner.


In that case there's a problem with the licence, if people without a DWA can be more responsible and better keepers than those with.


----------



## mythicdawn07

Morgan Freeman said:


> In that case there's a problem with the licence, if people without a DWA can be more responsible and better keepers than those with.


 
as far as i know you just need the money + equipment/room. and dont need to prove your knowledge of the animals your going to be keeping.

In my opinion you should have to do a test + have equipment and maybe a 30 pound fee to the council with no recurring yearly fee's afterwards, Maybe a test/inspection every 2-3 years.

plus i think you need to pay for insurance seperately, i dont think the liscence is actually the insurance (Could be wrong)

Right now it just looks like a scheme to take money off people to me.


----------



## Azemiops

mythicdawn07 said:


> im sorry but you make no sense what so ever, a piece of paper does not protect the public the keeper does, and i think if a liscense holders pet got out and killed someone that would be worse for the hobby then someone who doesnt own a liscense. mainly because people would be fighting to get the animals banned from everyone instead of fighting to get the guy without a liscence locked up.
> 
> like has been stated a HUNDRED times, paper doesnt make anyone a good owner.


Of course the piece of paper does not protect the public, in the same way that a certificate of insurance doesnt magically whip out some money in the event of a claim. The 'piece of paper' is infact a certificate for proof of an inspection from the correct licencing body to show that you have met their standards of safety. The fees are paid yearly so that the council can check that you are continuing to uphold these saftey standards. Vets are paid to ensure the animals welfare needs are being met. Otherwise there is nothing to stop a keeper from paying for a one-off licence and then keeping their DWA's all over the house, with no saftey measures in place. This ultimately defeats the object of having the licence in the first place!


----------



## Ssthisto

ian14 said:


> It is, I think, a little ironic that, with the number of recent posts of people asking if large boids should become DWA species, we now have a thread in which the majority of people say they would not report someone illegally keeping DWA!
> ...
> All along, we have tried to portray ourselves as responsible people ensuring that our animals are kept properly and legally, yet here is a thread with numerous posts stating they would NOT report an illegal collection.


*sigh*

Just because I wouldn't report someone right off the bat without thinking about certain other factors first doesn't mean I wouldn't be doing everything I can to encourage the keeper to GET a licence. As I've said, if the keeper is behaving largely responsibly and their only failing is not having a licence, then I personally feel that I can do more by trying to talk them into getting licenced than I can by reporting them to their council. 

And you can bet that if I were invited into someone's home and they had animals in enclosures that were not adequately secured or I was offered the chance to freehandle the animals without any sort of prior experience of having done so (i.e. the keeper is willing to endanger me or anyone else in his/her home) - the sort of people who wouldn't pass the licencing inspection - then yes, under those circumstances I would indeed speak to their local council.

Oh yeah...

I don't think large boids should be on the DWA either.


----------



## FreakOonique

mythicdawn07 said:


> im sorry but you make no sense what so ever, a piece of paper does not protect the public the keeper does, and i think if a liscense holders pet got out and killed someone that would be worse for the hobby then someone who doesnt own a liscense. mainly because people would be fighting to get the animals banned from everyone instead of fighting to get the guy without a liscence locked up.
> 
> like has been stated a HUNDRED times, paper doesnt make anyone a good owner.


You havent a clue, so please refrain from commenting on something that you are not familiar with


----------



## MJ75

PDR said:


> will then be no excuse for not having the correct licence.
> One thing a lot of people here seem to overlook is that this is a PUBLIC forum, anybody can read what you write (they don’t need to register or log in).


Unfortunately I fear a lot of the people you are talking to have no idea of what you're trying to tell them. They don't understand who may be reading and how some of the irresposible comments in this thread could be used aginst the hobby.


----------



## Jczreptiles

I hope someone with some kind of power within the council does read these posts, Just the fact that there are so many people in this country keeping them illegaly proves that the system does not work. A question to any one who has and has for quite some time kept a DWAL, Do the council offer you any justification in writing for the charges just for for example 3 hours administration fee charged at £15 per hour and a vet callout charged at £50 per hour as they just seem to me to pluck a number out of the air, Otherwise why would the actual council cost vary so much throughout the country? Surely a vet is roughly the same price for example in Cornwall as in Somerset? As would be the Admin costs for the council.


----------



## MJ75

Jczreptiles said:


> I hope someone with some kind of power within the council does read these posts,


I wouldn't worry about the councils. It's the antis who have a very nasty habit of twisting things that could use some of these posts in their propaganda that would be the main concern.


----------



## mythicdawn07

Tamz said:


> You havent a clue, so please refrain from commenting on something that you are not familiar with


all my points are valid if you see one that is not then try to specify as to why its not valid or please refrain from commenting on my comments.

: victory:


----------



## MJ75

mythicdawn07 said:


> all my points are valid if you see one that is not then try to specify as to why its not valid or please refrain from commenting on my comments.
> 
> : victory:


Mate, you need to read the post by Azemiops. You appear to have completely missed the point as to why a license is enforced. Thats why Tamz posted what she did.


----------



## mythicdawn07

MJ75 said:


> Mate, you need to read the post by Azemiops. You appear to have completely missed the point as to why a license is enforced. Thats why Tamz posted what she did.


if you read some of my previous posts you would see that im all for the liscence just not how you obtain one, but people are kidding themselves if they think the yearly fee is for anything other then more money for the guy sat in the chair.

I think you should have to undergo some kind of exam to test your knowledge, then pay a SMALL fee for the liscence and a SMALL fee every 2-3 year to renew the liscence and the inspection to make sure everythings in order.

and the point i was trying to make before is that just because someone doesnt have a liscence doesnt mean hes going to drop DWA scorps in your socks.


----------



## paulrimmer69

mythicdawn07 said:


> as far as i know you just need the money + equipment/room. and dont need to prove your knowledge of the animals your going to be keeping.
> 
> In my opinion you should have to do a test + have equipment and maybe a 30 pound fee to the council with no recurring yearly fee's afterwards, Maybe a test/inspection every 2-3 years.
> 
> plus i think you need to pay for insurance seperately, i dont think the liscence is actually the insurance (Could be wrong)
> 
> Right now it just looks like a scheme to take money off people to me.


i can only comment on my inspection in which the vet had done his homework and asked a fair few questions about the species that i wanted to keep, it takes a bit more than just money and the right equipment to get a dwa, some sort of experience with the animals is essential, looking back there is no way i would have been ready to deal with hots without working with people who know what they are doing, your right about the insurance its totally separate from the license and is invalid without it


----------



## Azemiops

mythicdawn07 said:


> I think you should have to undergo some kind of exam to test your knowledge, then pay a SMALL fee for the liscence and a SMALL fee every 2-3 year to renew the liscence and the inspection to make sure everythings in order.


Why could you not pay a small fee every year, why every 2-3 years? What is deemed as a small fee? I only pay £90 a year for my licence which i am happy to do. 
How does taking an exam proove that you are capable of dealing with DWA species? My sister could potentially study hard for a 'DWA exam' and pass, but that wouldnt make her anymore capable of working with any of my snakes.
How would this 'exam' reflect on the different levels of snakes? There is a very big jump between keeping say a white-lipped viper and Papuan Taipan, but both can be kept under the same licence. So would a DWA keeper have to take a test that covers them for all species on snake? Or would the council put together exams for individual snakes? Once they have taken this test, could they keep any species that they want? And as many as they like? If the council can only inspect every 2-3 years, how would they ensure that the DWA keeper is not keeping animals that they shouldnt?
Obvisouly, as it currently stands, councils can regulate what species are being kept by doing regular inspections....something that you appear to be against.

If your problem is with the varying costs of councils, then fine. Yes it must be fustrating if your local council charges a ridiculous some of money. However, instead of the councils 'trying to make money and line their pockets' as you are saying, i feel it is much more likely that they are simply trying to put people off obtaining a licence.


----------



## Incubuss

Azemiops said:


> Why could you not pay a small fee every year, why every 2-3 years? What is deemed as a small fee? I only pay £90 a year for my licence which i am happy to do.
> How does taking an exam proove that you are capable of dealing with DWA species? My sister could potentially study hard for a 'DWA exam' and pass, but that wouldnt make her anymore capable of working with any of my snakes.
> How would this 'exam' reflect on the different levels of snakes? There is a very big jump between keeping say a white-lipped viper and Papuan Taipan, but both can be kept under the same licence. So would a DWA keeper have to take a test that covers them for all species on snake? Or would the council put together exams for individual snakes? Once they have taken this test, could they keep any species that they want? And as many as they like? If the council can only inspect every 2-3 years, how would they ensure that the DWA keeper is not keeping animals that they shouldnt?
> Obvisouly, as it currently stands, councils can regulate what species are being kept by doing regular inspections....something that you appear to be against.
> 
> If your problem is with the varying costs of councils, then fine. Yes it must be fustrating if your local council charges a ridiculous some of money. However, instead of the councils 'trying to make money and line their pockets' as you are saying, i feel it is much more likely that they are simply trying to put people off obtaining a licence.


I'm with you on this. A test means nothing, all you will need to do is study for a week or two before the test. Also, just because you have read how to take a snake out of the viv with a hook doesn't mean you _can_ take one out without the hook. If you had to be tested on each species you want to keep, then the dwal would cost hundreds or even thousands. The council would have to get a specialist to write the questions, sit in the exam and sign the paperwork. Also, a new test would have to done every time you get a new animal, which would be more cost. If the test is a standard one, then image how much you will have to know. If you just wanted a copperhead or diamond back, you would have to know how to care for a wolf, a pola bear, a zebra, apes, and every other animal on the list.

The councils would rather you not keep any dwa's, they would rather you jut stick with the none venomous/dangerous reps. the licence is there to put you off. Plus, a licence is a way to know people have insurance (well, to start with any ways) as you need insurance before the licence is granted.


----------



## Ssthisto

Azemiops said:


> However, instead of the councils 'trying to make money and line their pockets' as you are saying, i feel it is much more likely that they are simply trying to put people off obtaining a licence.


And there's a point there.... it's unlawful for a council to use the fee as a means of preventing keepers from getting licenced. The fee is specified to be used to cover administrative fees, not as a deterrent for licencing.

High fees and/or policies against issuing licences *create* illegal keepers.

I very much hope that the review of the DWA will bring out a standardised licence fee and standardised requirements and/or codes of practice that - no matter which council you live in - will determine whether you can obtain a licence for your chosen species. 

As I said, if I ever intend to go down the DWA route for Gilas and/or _Vipera _species, I'll be doing it completely legally.


----------



## slippery42

I think many of us are in agreement that the licence is a way of detering people from keeping "hots".

It amazes me how many people still seem to concentrate on the actual cost of the licence application fee rather than all the associated costs.

For example my LA charge a little over £100 for the licence application but insist on using the well known international vet for inspection. He does his homework on the applicant before he even arrives.

This vet is obviously highly experienced in inspecting zoos and individuals for the various criteria and he does not come cheap and the applicant has to pay for his entire day!

That added to the licence fee, insurance, security etc etc means big bucks!

Whilst the whole DWAL think is far from perfect it may well deter some form going down a route that is not for them.


----------



## ian14

mythicdawn07 said:


> im sorry but you make no sense what so ever, a piece of paper does not protect the public the keeper does, and i think if a liscense holders pet got out and killed someone that would be worse for the hobby then someone who doesnt own a liscense. mainly because people would be fighting to get the animals banned from everyone instead of fighting to get the guy without a liscence locked up.
> 
> like has been stated a HUNDRED times, paper doesnt make anyone a good owner.


In a way you are right in that a piece of paper does not protect the public, but this goes to show that you really don't know what you are talking about.
The way you get that peice of paper is through a council inspection to ensure that you have the necessary security to safely house such animals. That is what the inspection is for, not to see if you know how to keep the animal, but that you can keepit securely. That way, the public ARE protected. So in this case, a bit of paper does protect the public.


----------



## MJ75

mythicdawn07 said:


> if you read some of my previous posts you would see that im all for the liscence just not how you obtain one, but people are kidding themselves if they think the yearly fee is for anything other then more money for the guy sat in the chair.
> 
> I think you should have to undergo some kind of exam to test your knowledge, then pay a SMALL fee for the liscence and a SMALL fee every 2-3 year to renew the liscence and the inspection to make sure everythings in order.
> 
> and the point i was trying to make before is that just because someone doesnt have a liscence doesnt mean hes going to drop DWA scorps in your socks.


I've read you posts and I see what you're trying to say. But it comes across as if you've not grasped why the current system exists. If what the OP says is true and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't then it's not about "dropping a scorp in your socks". Sometimes people need protecting from themselves.

There are pics on this very forum of people who have been tagges by hots so be under no illusion, people who keep DWA do occasionally get bitten. It's hard to have any real sympathy for them, but it's their choice to keep them. 

I think it should be "challenging" for people to obtain a DWAL. At the end of the day people should be allowed to keep them. But making it tough for people to obtain will sort out the people who are serious about it from those buying on a whim. If you scrapped the DWA or made it easy to obtain (Either by lowering the cost or other means) you'd end up with all kinds of fools wanting a venemous snake. Deluded by thinking their 7 years of boa handling makes them an expert even though they probably have no experience of a venemous snake etc.


----------



## mythicdawn07

MJ75 said:


> I've read you posts and I see what you're trying to say. But it comes across as if you've not grasped why the current system exists. If what the OP says is true and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't then it's not about "dropping a scorp in your socks". Sometimes people need protecting from themselves.
> 
> There are pics on this very forum of people who have been tagges by hots so be under no illusion, people who keep DWA do occasionally get bitten. It's hard to have any real sympathy for them, but it's their choice to keep them.
> 
> I think it should be "challenging" for people to obtain a DWAL. At the end of the day people should be allowed to keep them. But making it tough for people to obtain will sort out the people who are serious about it from those buying on a whim. If you scrapped the DWA or made it easy to obtain (Either by lowering the cost or other means) you'd end up with all kinds of fools wanting a venemous snake. Deluded by thinking their 7 years of boa handling makes them an expert even though they probably have no experience of a venemous snake etc.


i agree it should be challenging but having to pay big sums of money will only create more people keeping DWA without a liscence. as for the 'tests' it could be a standard test for what you want to keep, e.g. venemous snakes, spiders etc. sure anyone can learn and study for a test and thats a good thing because then they will have the knowledge they need to keep them and have to prove that knowledge. 

even if it was simple questions like what to do if one escapes or someone gets bitten etc.


----------



## Owzy

mythicdawn07 said:


> i agree it should be challenging but having to pay big sums of money will only create more people keeping DWA without a liscence. as for the 'tests' it could be a standard test for what you want to keep, e.g. venemous snakes, spiders etc. sure anyone can learn and study for a test and thats a good thing because then they will have the knowledge they need to keep them and have to prove that knowledge.
> 
> even if it was simple questions like what to do if one escapes or someone gets bitten etc.


Have you read this VVVVV.



Azemiops said:


> Why could you not pay a small fee every year, why every 2-3 years? What is deemed as a small fee? I only pay £90 a year for my licence which i am happy to do.
> How does taking an exam proove that you are capable of dealing with DWA species? My sister could potentially study hard for a 'DWA exam' and pass, but that wouldnt make her anymore capable of working with any of my snakes.
> How would this 'exam' reflect on the different levels of snakes? There is a very big jump between keeping say a white-lipped viper and Papuan Taipan, but both can be kept under the same licence. So would a DWA keeper have to take a test that covers them for all species on snake? Or would the council put together exams for individual snakes? Once they have taken this test, could they keep any species that they want? And as many as they like? If the council can only inspect every 2-3 years, how would they ensure that the DWA keeper is not keeping animals that they shouldnt?
> Obvisouly, as it currently stands, councils can regulate what species are being kept by doing regular inspections....something that you appear to be against.
> 
> If your problem is with the varying costs of councils, then fine. Yes it must be fustrating if your local council charges a ridiculous some of money. However, instead of the councils 'trying to make money and line their pockets' as you are saying, i feel it is much more likely that they are simply trying to put people off obtaining a licence.


----------



## mythicdawn07

Owzy said:


> Have you read this VVVVV.


 
indeed i did thats why i said it should be more of a common knowledge test, Besides a test vs no test is better all around in my opinion, Like thats been said it would make it more challenging to obtain a liscence.

As for using money as a deterrant that's probably the case and i see that really unfair and totally agree with ssssiso (Cant remeber how its spelled lol)

I just hope if i ever decide to get a DWAL they will go about thing's abit differently. (Which they probably will because i dont intend on getting one anytime soon)


----------



## ian14

mythicdawn07 said:


> indeed i did thats why i said it should be more of a common knowledge test, Besides a test vs no test is better all around in my opinion, Like thats been said it would make it more challenging to obtain a liscence.
> 
> As for using money as a deterrant that's probably the case and i see that really unfair and totally agree with ssssiso (Cant remeber how its spelled lol)
> 
> I just hope if i ever decide to get a DWAL they will go about thing's abit differently. (Which they probably will because i dont intend on getting one anytime soon)


The problem with a "test" is that someone will have to draw one up, have it quality checked and audited, and mark your results. This will of course cost money and so increase the costs. Not only that, the administration of the Act is not standard through the country, and so until that is changed, then a test is going to at best vary from LA to LA, at worst be non-existant in some.
Added to which, it would be a pointless excercise, as the entire basis of the DWA is to ensure the animals are housed securely in escape-proof enclosures, NOT to test the potential owners knowledge.


----------



## morallywrong

mythicdawn07 said:


> i agree it should be challenging but having to pay big sums of money will only create more people keeping DWA without a liscence. as for the 'tests' it could be a standard test for what you want to keep, e.g. venemous snakes, spiders etc. sure anyone can learn and study for a test and thats a good thing because then they will have the knowledge they need to keep them and have to prove that knowledge.
> 
> even if it was simple questions like what to do if one escapes or someone gets bitten etc.



True, but if it was a standard test, as has been said there are *huge *differences between different types of 'hot' snakes, and as has also been said, because you can *write down* how to use a snake hook, doesn't mean you can *actually use* one.


----------



## paulrimmer69

after all is said and done though i believe nobody has died in this country from a non native snakebite since the dwa act was brought in? and also no member of the public has been bitten by a non native venomous snake so the current system although it has a few flaws isnt doing its job that badly!


----------



## Gomjaba

Why do you guys even bother discussing this, seriously.

Let's face it, unless the council has a warrant and comes with the police, they have to announce their visit .. it takes 10 seconds to hide a tub with a DWA animal ..

If it would upset you that much you would have reported him already, plus, you would need to know where he lives in order to ask the correct council ..


----------



## FreakOonique

Gomjaba said:


> Why do you guys even bother discussing this, seriously.
> 
> Let's face it, unless the council has a warrant and comes with the police, they have to announce their visit .. it takes 10 seconds to hide a tub with a DWA animal ..
> 
> If it would upset you that much you would have reported him already, plus, you would need to know where he lives in order to ask the correct council ..


Because it is a public forum. Because we like to discuss things. Simple.


----------



## Incubuss

mythicdawn07 said:


> indeed i did thats why i said it should be more of a common knowledge test, Besides a test vs no test is better all around in my opinion, Like thats been said it would make it more challenging to obtain a liscence.
> 
> As for using money as a deterrant that's probably the case and i see that really unfair and totally agree with ssssiso (Cant remeber how its spelled lol)
> 
> I just hope if i ever decide to get a DWAL they will go about thing's abit differently. (Which they probably will because i dont intend on getting one anytime soon)


There is no way a common knowledge test could even be written really. Even if the tests where broken up in to seperate parts for, say, one for snakes, one for spiders, one for crocs ect ect. The amount of species of snake (for example) is pretty impressive. There is no way that answering questions about how to use a hook, how to hook a copperhead or a gaboon could make it safe to buy a 15ft king cobra.


----------



## PDR

Gomjaba said:


> Why do you guys even bother discussing this, seriously.
> 
> Let's face it, unless the council has a warrant and comes with the police, they have to announce their visit .. *it takes 10 seconds to hide a tub with a DWA animal ..*
> 
> If it would upset you that much you would have reported him already, plus, you would need to know where he lives in order to ask the correct council ..


With respect, I think you underestimate the capabilities of the authorities.
If there is evidence that someone is keeping illegally and it is decided that a raid will take place, then they will come unannounced. There will probably be Council officials, Police officers, a Vet & / or RSPCA and at least one person who is an expert in dealing with whatever species is being kept illegally.
The Police will be well trained in conducting house searches and reading peoples’ body language. If they know how to find drugs etc. they will be able to find any hidden animals.


----------



## mythicdawn07

Gomjaba said:


> Why do you guys even bother discussing this, seriously.
> 
> Let's face it,* unless the council has a warrant and comes with the police, they have to announce their visit* .. it takes 10 seconds to hide a tub with a DWA animal ..
> 
> If it would upset you that much you would have reported him already, plus, you would need to know where he lives in order to ask the correct council ..


 
i dont think your read his post all the way through. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Gomjaba

PDR said:


> With respect, I think you underestimate the capabilities of the authorities.
> If there is evidence that someone is keeping illegally and it is decided that a raid will take place, then they will come unannounced. There will probably be Council officials, Police officers, a Vet & / or RSPCA and at least one person who is an expert in dealing with whatever species is being kept illegally.
> The Police will be well trained in conducting house searches and reading peoples’ body language. If they know how to find drugs etc. they will be able to find any hidden animals.


Fair comment ... but a forum where someone posts a picture of a DWA scorpion is hardly evidence now is it ...


----------



## PDR

If you have a DWAL the Council may well make an appointment to visit you at mutually convenient time. If you are keeping DWA species illegally and they find out about it they are not going to make an appointment for next Thursday at 10 am because they know darn well that you would have moved any illegal animals to a relative or mates house by next week. So chances are if they have enough evidence they will organise a raid.

As I have said already, this is a public forum. This means that any interested parties can read through the posts here. You would be naive to think that the police can’t track down a person from their e-mail or IP address.


----------



## Owzy

Erased


----------



## FreakOonique

Gomjaba said:


> Fair comment ... but a forum where someone posts a picture of a DWA scorpion is hardly evidence now is it ...


It is when they tell you theyre holding it :whistling2:

The person in question posted a pic of a DWA Scorp being handled by themselves, and told people they have balls of steel:devil:


----------



## garlicpickle

Tamz said:


> It is when they tell you theyre holding it :whistling2:
> 
> The person in question posted a pic of a DWA Scorp being handled by themselves, and told people they have balls of steel:devil:


and a pic is concrete proof that it is actually his own scorpion, and not one that belongs to a friend of his who does happen to possess a valid DWA permit?

you told me the other night you wished you had never started this and were sorry you'd said anything. So why are you carrying it on?


----------



## Colosseum

loooooooooooooool! what a gash thread this really is what buisness is it of anyones, i find it kinda funny that the OP finds it a big thing why the concern looooooooooooool!

*GET A LIFE!*


----------



## mythicdawn07

PDR said:


> If you have a DWAL the Council may well make an appointment to visit you at mutually convenient time. If you are keeping DWA species illegally and they find out about it they are not going to make an appointment for next Thursday at 10 am because they know darn well that you would have moved any illegal animals to a relative or mates house by next week. So chances are if they have enough evidence they will organise a raid.
> 
> As I have said already, this is a public forum. This means that any interested parties can read through the posts here. *You would be naive to think that the police can’t track down a person from their e-mail or IP address*.


You must be VERY naive to think they would track someone down for a picture/messages/chats etc online.


----------



## slippery42

mythicdawn07 said:


> You must be VERY naive to think they would track someone down for a picture/messages/chats etc online.


Hate to say this but you are talking cobblers!

Do you actually know who PDR is ?

*No* because if you did you'd not make such a silly statement!


----------



## MJ75

mythicdawn07 said:


> You must be VERY naive to think they would track someone down for a picture/messages/chats etc online.


The rozzers track people down across the internet on a daily basis. It would be quite easy for them to find the poster. Whether or not they woould choose to pursue such an investigation is a completely different question.

Every time you post here you leave records of an ip address. The website owners would have to supply this to the police if requested. That ip addy can then be traced to someones internet account via their ISP. If it's a home address it wouldn't take much to track them down. Didn't you see the news about the three paedophilles caught over the net this week? One of the women was tracked down in just a few hours.


----------



## mythicdawn07

slippery42 said:


> Hate to say this but you are talking cobblers!
> 
> Do you actually know who PDR is ?
> 
> *No* because if you did you'd not make such a silly statement!


 
i dont and i dont care, if you seriously think they would track someone down over a picture + claims online then you are seriously mistaken. It would cost alot of money + there would be far too many dead ends. things most people say and post online are full of shit the police dont have the time or funding to chase down a lost cause.

Police have to investigate before they take action.


----------



## mythicdawn07

MJ75 said:


> The rozzers track people down across the internet on a daily basis. It would be quite easy for them to find the poster. Whether or not they woould choose to pursue such an investigation is a completely different question.
> 
> Every time you post here you leave records of an ip address. The website owners would have to supply this to the police if requested. That ip addy can then be traced to someones internet account via their ISP. If it's a home address it wouldn't take much to track them down. Didn't you see the news about the three paedophilles caught over the net this week? One of the women was tracked down in just a few hours.


 
i never said they couldnt do it, But they wouldnt waste time and money over a picture of someone holding a pet or claiming to not have a DWAL and keeping illegal animals.

Unless someone came forward with sufficent evidence i really cant see them doing jack.


----------



## MJ75

mythicdawn07 said:


> i never said they couldnt do it, But they wouldnt waste time and money over a picture of someone holding a pet or claiming to not have a DWAL and keeping illegal animals.
> 
> Unless someone came forward with sufficent evidence i really cant see them doing jack.


Actualy I'm not sure if the police are obligated to act if a member of the public makes a formal complaint. Perhaps Ian14 could advise on that one?


----------



## slippery42

As seems to happen too often this section is being frequented by quite a few numbties with little intelligence!


----------



## FreakOonique

I want to make a public apology to Paul/Spit051261/Elliot Ness... or what ever user name he is registered under (I cannot remember)

Paul, I am sorry for starting this thread, and for saying all the things I have. It was no one else's business and I should not have posted this on a public forum. 

I know the damage has already been done, and I know I can never fix that. What I have said is bang out of order. I should not have said the things I have done and stab you in the back like I have. No amount of apologising with put things right. I dont know what I posted this thread, or said what I did. I truly am sorry for tarnishing your name and saying what I have. I know you wont ever forgive me for this, but in time I hope you can accept my apology.

If I am able to make it to Kempton I hope I get the chance to meet you an apologise to your face


----------



## mythicdawn07

Tamz said:


> I want to make a public apology to Paul/Spit051261/Elliot Ness... or what ever user name he is registered under (I cannot remember)
> 
> Paul, I am sorry for starting this thread, and for saying all the things I have. It was no one else's business and I should not have posted this on a public forum.
> 
> I know the damage has already been done, and I know I can never fix that. What I have said is bang out of order. I should not have said the things I have done and stab you in the back like I have. No amount of apologising with put things right. I dont know what I posted this thread, or said what I did. I truly am sorry for tarnishing your name and saying what I have. I know you wont ever forgive me for this, but in time I hope you can accept my apology.
> 
> If I am able to make it to Kempton I hope I get the chance to meet you an apologise to your face


 
he's banned, not sure if he would of even read this post lol.


----------



## FreakOonique

mythicdawn07 said:


> he's banned, not sure if he would of even read this post lol.


He knows its here


----------



## invertasnakes

Just been reading the posts about the police etc and its not actually up to them to prosecute with regards to illegaly keeping DWA listed animals. The environment agency are the people that would have to put forward the evidence and a case to the police to prosicute. The police wouldn't be the first authority to get involved. Just thought i'd throw that in the mix.


----------



## PDR

I know of one case where a private snake keeper had a friend call around who brought another new friend along.... that third party saw two illegally held snakes (vipers) and then reported the keeper..... 
The person making the report did not know what type of viper they where (he thought they might be White Lipped Tree Vipers). Even with this scant information a team was put together comprising the local council, police and a venomous snake specialist who travelled over 250 miles up to Scotland the day before.

The lady of the house seemed to take a rather long time to get dressed and come downstairs....the upstairs reptile room was searched and nothing was found..... but the lady of the house seemed to be hovering near the bedroom...... a look under the bed revealed a plastic box with a pair of Atheris inside....... yes it probably only took the lady 10 seconds to dash into the bedroom and hide those snakes but the Policeman had read her body language and knew she was hiding something.

If a person calls the Police they may tell them to contact the Local Council as they are normally responsible for dealing with DWA issues. The local authorities may then ask and pay for the police assistance, vet attendance fees and specialist help which may amount to thousands of pounds. Think about it, the local council hear that someone is keeping dangerous animals on their patch, of course they are going to investigate, it human nature and probably more interesting/exciting than raiding the Sunday market for pirate DVD’s

Times have changed, with far more people using forums, u-tube, facebook etc. It is probably easier than ever to investigate what people are up to. 

I’m just trying to illustrate the time, effort and expense local authorities are prepared to go to in dealing with illegally held dangerous animals.


----------



## rainbowboa69

Lets not forget the original post is wanting to report someone for keeping a dangerous scorpion at the end of the day its far too easy to import these scorpions from europe and that is what needs sorting regarding ilegal keeping of DWA inverts.


----------



## ian14

MJ75 said:


> Actualy I'm not sure if the police are obligated to act if a member of the public makes a formal complaint. Perhaps Ian14 could advise on that one?


The DWAA is one of those rare Acts of Parliament in which councils have primacy to deal with. I will double check however as far as I am aware, this is an Act which the local authority have a responsibility to enforce, not the police. I am aware however, that the preferred option in any illegal collections is for the owner to surrender the animal/s.


----------



## Jczreptiles

If someone did not want to pay extorionate fees for a DWAL could they not just cut corners by getting a Pet Shop Licence? the fees are not quite so bad for this.


----------



## joeyboy

Jczreptiles said:


> If someone did not want to pay extorionate fees for a DWAL could they not just cut corners by getting a Pet Shop Licence? the fees are not quite so bad for this.


do pet shops not need a DWA to sell DWA animals?


----------



## Jczreptiles

No they can keep and sell DWA under the Pet Shop Licence although not everyones terms will be the same.


----------



## emergency0311

actually, you can only keep dwa on a pet shop licence if the pet shop licence has a dwa entitlement on it. some PSL's have, some don't. for example, Horsham district council offer a PSL with a dwa entitlement on it for £73.50 per annum, but next door in adur district, a psl will cost £67 with no dwa entitlement on it. If you wish to have a dwa entitlement in adur it has to be a seperate DWAL which will cost you;
 
Vertebrates – 1​st species: one animal 610.90 Non-Business
Each additional species 360.00 Non-Business
Each additional animal 60.00 Non-Business
Invertebrates – 1st species up to 50 animals 360.00 Non-Business​
Each additional species 30.80 Non-Business

PER YEAR!

Its disgusting! When I asked them why its so expensive, they replied "we don't know why and no we will not alter the price."
:bash::whip::devil::censor::censor:


----------



## Gomjaba

emergency0311 said:


> actually, you can only keep dwa on a pet shop licence if the pet shop licence has a dwa entitlement on it. some PSL's have, some don't. for example, Horsham district council offer a PSL with a dwa entitlement on it for £73.50 per annum, but next door in adur district, a psl will cost £67 with no dwa entitlement on it. If you wish to have a dwa entitlement in adur it has to be a seperate DWAL which will cost you;
> 
> Vertebrates – 1​st species: one animal 610.90 Non-Business
> Each additional species 360.00 Non-Business
> Each additional animal 60.00 Non-Business
> Invertebrates – 1st species up to 50 animals 360.00 Non-Business​
> Each additional species 30.80 Non-Business
> 
> PER YEAR!
> 
> Its disgusting! When I asked them why its so expensive, they replied "we don't know why and no we will not alter the price."
> :bash::whip::devil::censor::censor:


:gasp: :gasp: :gasp:


----------

