# 1000 hours....



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

Just watched 'Snake Underworld' on National Geographic Wild.


In California you need to log 1000 hours of hands on experience with another venomous keeper in order to be able to obtain your license to keep venomous snakes yourself.


Damn fine idea or impractical, impossible to police pipedream?


----------



## eddygecko (Feb 14, 2007)

Sounds slightly impractical and over the top. Our current system is perfect I think, it stops people who may not have the right motives for keeping venomous and makes sure they have atleast the basic knowledgerequired. I still strongly believe the same license should be required to keep larger lizards and snakes in an attempt to reduce the alarming number being dumped or passed from home to home.


----------



## blood and guts (May 30, 2007)

eddygecko said:


> Sounds slightly impractical and over the top. *Our current system is perfect I think*, it stops people who may not have the right motives for keeping venomous and makes sure they have atleast the basic knowledgerequired. I still strongly believe the same license should be required to keep larger lizards and snakes in an attempt to reduce the alarming number being dumped or passed from home to home.


Our current system is still a joke due to how its run diffrent from one area to the next, id be all for some form of mentoring be a requirment befor being given a liscense..


----------



## kirky1980 (Apr 4, 2010)

i saw this aswell. the guy was training for 10 year to get his licsense. i suppose one thing it shows was the guy is commited to keeping hots to take that long to do it lol


----------



## john09 (Mar 31, 2009)

Impractical in my opinion - no wander that guy was keeping Hots illegally.

I mean the majority of even the most dedicated and motivated keepers are going to be put off by having to log 1000 hours, when you can just purchase one online without anyone blinking an eye. 

Im all for people being mentored and getting a bit of hands on experience as I think it should be nesceserry.


----------



## kopstar (Nov 6, 2010)

Got to agree that it would be impractical. It would drive people underground and keeping DWA's illegally and that would be worse. At least with the current system the council knows where they are and who has them to a great extent.

Maybe a buddy system where the buddy has to sign off his apprentice as being capable would form some sort of middle ground.


----------



## Ste123 (Apr 30, 2011)

Can you imagine the payments you'd be expected to pay someone to buddy them for 1000 hours it be cheaper to train for a pilots licence. And who would be allowed to be a licenced buddy from day one? People already with an old licence? If so then what's the point as I'm sure their are plenty of idiots with licences as there are good people.


----------



## SilverSky (Oct 2, 2010)

it seems like a good idea but i think 1000 hours might be a bit excessive, thats 6 weeks non stop!


----------



## rinkels (Jun 17, 2011)

SilverSky said:


> it seems like a good idea but i think 1000 hours might be a bit excessive, thats 6 weeks non stop!


the dwal will always be a joke in the country until its handed back to defra to set the rules and fee.end of.?


----------



## john09 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ste123 said:


> Can you imagine the payments you'd be expected to pay someone to buddy them for 1000 hours *it be cheaper to train for a pilots licence.* And who would be allowed to be a licenced buddy from day one? People already with an old licence? If so then what's the point as I'm sure their are plenty of idiots with licences as there are good people.


Really? my Private Pilots License cost me £6200 and thats cheap for the UK


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

john09 said:


> Really? my Private Pilots License cost me £6200 and thats cheap for the UK


I doubt it would be cheaper but it would be a tight run thing, I would imagine a 1000 hours training would be knocking on the door of 6K.

A 1000 hours seems a purely excessive. Mainly because even in a 1000 hours there will still be things that will come along and catch you out. So whats the point? In my opinion it is purely there to remove the liscence from the reach of anyone. I agree a mentoring system is a great idea though. But a 1000 hours? Nope. 


I am willing to bet you didnt log a 1000 hours flying time for you PPL? And statisticaly thats far more dangerous to you then keeping hots...


----------



## john09 (Mar 31, 2009)

Lord Vetinari said:


> I doubt it would be cheaper but it would be a tight run thing, I would imagine a 1000 hours training would be knocking on the door of 6K.
> 
> A 1000 hours seems a purely excessive. Mainly because even in a 1000 hours there will still be things that will come along and catch you out. So whats the point? In my opinion it is purely there to remove the liscence from the reach of anyone. I agree a mentoring system is a great idea though. But a 1000 hours? Nope.
> 
> ...


 For my PPL I had to log a minimum 45 Hours, I can't get my head round this 1000 hour system, and what makes it even more suprising is the fact there are rattlesnakes, coral snakes and copperheads, to name but a few venomous snakes wild in america.


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

john09 said:


> For my PPL I had to log a minimum 45 Hours, I can't get my head round this 1000 hour system, and what makes it even more suprising is the fact there are rattlesnakes, coral snakes and copperheads, to name but a few venomous snakes wild in america.


 
1000 hours sounds like a random number plucked out of the air to be honest. I can see costs being extortinate as well. Especially as the instructor is probably going to require a higher amount of insurance. 

How many hots keepers are going to dedicate 1000 hours to one person? Or even a group of people? Most dont care for hots as their wage paying job so assuming that they are willing to give up 2 hours every week (I imagine thats a reasonably realistic figure for the average hobbiest keeper) thats 10 years! 

And you are right, its just... crazy.

I think something like the log system for PPL would work. Easily administered and tried and tested model, potential for condensed training courses etc. Say 50 hours? Could easily do that in a year, hell you could do that in a month of weekends. 

Its a very ill conceived idea.


----------



## kelboy (Feb 10, 2009)

Lord Vetinari said:


> Its a very ill conceived idea.


That's entirely dependent upon it's real intention.


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

kelboy said:


> That's entirely dependent upon it's real intention.


Even if its intention is good and not a political manouever, its still ill conceived idea - in the sense of being badly devised or formed. As has been pointed out - it will drive most hots keepers to illegality. 

As I stated previously, I am in favour of recognised training for hots keeping. But a 1000 hours? To me it seems like the sensationlist numbers the American authorities love. Such as: 

“Dreadlocks Bandit” Sentenced to More Than 1,000 Years in Prison for Conviction of Multiple Bank Robberies

put it like this; I would love to see how the authorites expect that training to be broken down.


----------



## kelboy (Feb 10, 2009)

Lord Vetinari said:


> Even if its intention is good and not a political manouever, its still ill conceived idea - in the sense of being badly devised or formed. As has been pointed out - it will drive most hots keepers to illegality.
> 
> As I stated previously, I am in favour of recognised training for hots keeping. But a 1000 hours? To me it seems like the sensationlist numbers the American authorities love. Such as:
> 
> ...


What I mean is: If it's true intention is to put people off going through all the rigmaraul of getting their permit, it will work. 

The majority of those people who are put off, won't keep illegally.

Therefore, the original number of potential venomous keepers has been dwindled down to; those who are comitted enough to go through the process and those who will keep illegally.

I'd bet my last penny that, had there not been a requirement for the 1000 hours hands on "training", the total number of venomous keepers would be a huge amount more than it is.


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

kelboy said:


> What I mean is: If it's true intention is to put people off going through all the rigmaraul of getting their permit, it will work.
> 
> The majority of those people who are put off, won't keep illegally.
> 
> ...


Indeed. It will.

I see where you're comming from.

I agree that it isnt even a disguised attempt at essentially making keeping hots illegal. It seems a cheap attempt at basicaly killing off hot keeping. 

However that would be hard to prove. For example how many people keep hots in the UK without a DWAL? You can only record the ones that get caught - and that will likely only happen if someone gets bit. It would put me off. But then I am a generally law abiding person. And only really dumb people will admit they are doing something illegal to a stranger. 

Its just impossible to police for the reasons above, a nightmare to administer (even if the intention is to stop hot keeping), and generaly pointless. 

So yes, definately ill conceived whichever way you look at it.


----------



## blood and guts (May 30, 2007)

john09 said:


> Really? my Private Pilots License cost me £6200 and thats cheap for the UK


Does not mean that mentoring would not be cheaper, with ppl theres the cost of plane hire and fuel for starters.


----------



## john09 (Mar 31, 2009)

blood and guts said:


> Does not mean that mentoring would not be cheaper, with ppl theres the cost of plane hire and fuel for starters.


Indeed, but that is still considered part of the cost when learning to fly : victory:


----------



## blood and guts (May 30, 2007)

john09 said:


> Indeed, but that is still considered part of the cost when learning to fly : victory:


but this is not about learning to fly:Na_Na_Na_Na:

May be 1000 hours is ott but there should deffently be a minimum standard but we all need to remember the dwa is not about the animals welfare itself but public protection witch some councils also dont get..


----------



## gaz2374 (Aug 29, 2005)

If I recal the guy at the expo said the 1000hrs was for Florida were north of the border as long as you are 18 and sign a ( I know it can kill me form) then you can but what the hell you want , now that is far worse I think


----------



## snakekeeper (Oct 29, 2008)

The problem with having a time period attached to an application is that the limit, in this case 1000 hours can be fiddled. One off payment, a friend of a friend etc.. It's a non-starter and would be tatamount to robbery or corruption.


----------



## joeyboy (Jul 19, 2008)

I think our system is pretty good, though maybe instead of a few councils charging £50, and some charging £1000+. There's a nation wide cost, say £150. INCLUDED in this price, could be say one or two(probably just the one)1-2hr annual check up of your collection by a qualified expert, basically to make sure your husbandry and also techniques are up to scratch. This check up would occur regardless of whether you'd increased the number of species you kept or quantities of the species you already had.


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

How would it be logged and monitored - and what actually would count - if you were at a mates house while he cleaned out his crotalus would that count or would it have to be actual hands on time?

Who would choose the mentor and how would the timings be check

I just dont think it would be practical and would be so open to abuse, interpretation etc that it would be of little value


----------



## mikeyb (May 8, 2011)

think about it like this u inherit or win alot of money in the uk have had no expirience ever with snakes so then you decide u wat to get hots u can in the uk money talks u need no expirience at all this imo is completely irresponsible of our government and you should at least have some expirience or prove your expirience with hots before you can own one imo


----------



## snakekeeper (Oct 29, 2008)

I completely agree with what certain people are saying here in regards to experience before DWAL, however, the system would have to be well thought out prior to it being enforced. Perhaps it could work it there were a team of experienced venomous keepers (not inspectors working for the LEA) trained to mentor potential applicants wishing to get into DWA. These mentors would have to prove their experience, knowledge and practical skills and be certified by some sort of governing body or institute. The whole procedure should lead to a type of course (both involving practical and theory work, even the odd test perhaps) which at the end, assuming the hours have been met and the course passed successfully, offers a recognized certificate which is a pre-request when applying for a DWAL. Of course, there are always disadvantages, one being that the whole procedure will lead to the underworld of HOTS. But how many people are keeping DWA illegally already anyway? The cost alone deters people and leads them to keep DWA illegally. The procedures above should lead to a drop in the fees for a DWAL since the course and the mentors would come at a cost. The whole thing has to be balanced and well thought out. I can't see the LEAs handing over potential revenue to DWA keeper/mentors.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

rinkels said:


> the dwal will always be a joke in the country until its handed back to defra to set the rules and fee.end of.?


Amen to that, the whole system is ridiculous here, for those saying our system is good have obviously never experienced how bad it can be, its a total post code lottery and very unfair in places.


----------

