# Vipera berus



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

Does anyone know who breeds vipera berus in the uk?


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

Don't think you will find anyone


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

Nobody anymore mate. The late Luke Yeomans was the only one.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

In a different thread someone mentioned you can get them in Europe from 90euros.


----------



## dcap (Sep 3, 2011)

Purely out of interest
And I ask this as someone who does not have - and does not want - a DWAL

How would getting any venomous snake over from Europe work?
Does your DWA Licence list the species you keep? Numbers of each?
Or is it just a licence that says: snakes YES, crocs NO
Do you need to add a new species before you buy it, or shortly after?
Do you then declare this new snake at Dover port and hand over your DWAL?
Or do you declare it when you are back at home?

And what happens if your 3rd or 7th DWAL annual inspection is a fail?
Do you get a list of things to change by a certain time and then a re-inspection?


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

dcap said:


> Purely out of interest
> And I ask this as someone who does not have - and does not want - a DWAL
> 
> How would getting any venomous snake over from Europe work?
> ...


*It works the same way as if you're caught with animals without a license. You will have a list of things that need to be done and a timescale to complete them. The only change to this may be if there is a risk to either public health or the animals*


----------



## Shellsfeathers&fur (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks both for raising the questions and answering them :2thumb:


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

can someone post a link up for me please?. thank you


----------



## rogersspider2007 (Apr 2, 2007)

dcap said:


> Purely out of interest
> And I ask this as someone who does not have - and does not want - a DWAL
> 
> How would getting any venomous snake over from Europe work?
> ...


you can buy DWA and add it to the DWAL but there is normally an a fee and also my local authority would probably come out to make sure that i have an adequate size enclosure to house the animal.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

> It works the same way as if you're caught with animals without a license. You will have a list of things that need to be done and a timescale to complete them. The only change to this may be if there is a risk to either public health or the animals


Thats not correct. A licence cannot be granted retrospectively. Either you are licenced or not. So if you keep specimens you are not licenced for and get caught you cannot then ask for a licence. The local authority will seize them and dispose as they see fit. 
I'm not sure on the 28 day grace period either. I'm not aware of that in any part of the DWAA. Off the top of my head there is mention somewhere of a 72 hour period which is basically to cover transport times. As the owner you must have he licence in place first.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

ian14 said:


> Thats not correct. A licence cannot be granted retrospectively. Either you are licenced or not. So if you keep specimens you are not licenced for and get caught you cannot then ask for a licence. The local authority will seize them and dispose as they see fit.
> I'm not sure on the 28 day grace period either. I'm not aware of that in any part of the DWAA. Off the top of my head there is mention somewhere of a 72 hour period which is basically to cover transport times. As the owner you must have he licence in place first.


Indeed, the 72 hour exemption is only granted to those with a licence already in place. It's absolutely not 28 days - or at least it shouldn't be by law from what I recall. It's been a while since I last read the legislation.
It would probably take 72 hours for your initial application to arrive at the relevant office of the council and be read; processing, inspections and the final decision takes far longer.

It's alarming that so many people - even licence holders - believe that the 72 hour rule applies for absolutely everybody. It doesn't, and to have a defence in court one would need to prove that the animals in their possession were purchased within the previous 72 hours _and_ that it was on the behalf of a licensed keeper, or they will be convicted as an unlicensed keeper and sentenced accordingly.


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

ian14 said:


> Thats not correct. A licence cannot be granted retrospectively. Either you are licenced or not. So if you keep specimens you are not licenced for and get caught you cannot then ask for a licence. The local authority will seize them and dispose as they see fit.
> I'm not sure on the 28 day grace period either. I'm not aware of that in any part of the DWAA. Off the top of my head there is mention somewhere of a 72 hour period which is basically to cover transport times. As the owner you must have he licence in place first.


The DWA is granted by your L.A (environmental health department) and is subject to the conditions that they require. The prosecution is also done by the L.A.

I have known well over a dozen people that have had their license granted retrospectively by various L.A's. This has ranged from Wolf hybrids, lemurs, monkeys, crocodiles and snakes. If the animals are kept correctly and many are, licensed or not. The L.A will usually do its best to reach a compromise rather than seize. As you can imagine seizing specimens is a major issue for any council. 

Most people that hold a D.W.A have a period once every two years were they do not hold a valid licence at the time of renewal. The L.A will only grant a license once the old one runs out and they all run out on the 31st of December. Then you have to wait for a vet inspection, L.A inspection, also possibly the fire brigade and police. Once these have been completed then you have to wait for it to be processed. As you can imagine this is not a quick process and certainly not completed by the 3rd of January. 

Most L.A's take a pragmatic view with those individuals that have a license. I know of someone who's L.A does not require all the animals to be in locked cages. He breeds a reasonable amount and successfully argued that it was impractical to have a lock on each rub in his hatchling rack. My L.A does not take this view. 

Please remember the purpose of the license is to protect the public and the animal, not to protect the keeper. A lot depends on the relationship you have with your L.A and this is built up over time. I have held mine for 25 years and my L.A is reasonable when it comes to naming the animals on your license and time spans. 

Whether in law or not things have to be practicable. When I first got my snouted cobras they were under _Naja Haje ssp_ and on my license as such. They then got reclassified to _Naja annulifera_. Would this mean that I suddenly don't have them on my license and open to prosecution or re-applying for my license? If an animal dies or is added I just notify my L.A, to change it on each occasion would be idiotic and no reasonable person would expect this to be done. Especially if you a large quantity, my license at one point had over 70 animals listed on it.

Ian how long have you held a DWA?


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

ViperLover said:


> Indeed, the 72 hour exemption is only granted to those with a licence already in place. It's absolutely not 28 days - or at least it shouldn't be by law from what I recall. It's been a while since I last read the legislation.
> It would probably take 72 hours for your initial application to arrive at the relevant office of the council and be read; processing, inspections and the final decision takes far longer.
> 
> It's alarming that so many people - even licence holders - believe that the 72 hour rule applies for absolutely everybody. It doesn't, and to have a defence in court one would need to prove that the animals in their possession were purchased within the previous 72 hours _and_ that it was on the behalf of a licensed keeper, or they will be convicted as an unlicensed keeper and sentenced accordingly.


the time span has to be reasonably practicable. 72 hours is not as you have already stated yourself. The license is handled by environmental health and applications are probably not their highest priority. Most L.A's only have a small amount of people in each department. What happens if their work load does not allow them time to answer it with one or two weeks. Nothing as they are the ones that carry out the prosecution? 

L.A's are more concerned with animals being removed from a license as they need to confirm that they have gone to a legally correct keeper.

You do not need to prove anything in court, the prosecution does have to prove it is over a time span that is reasonable. You are innocent until proven guilty in the U.K, with the exception of transport tribunals where you are guilty too proven innocent.


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

GT2540 said:


> The DWA is granted by your L.A (environmental health department) and is subject to the conditions that they require. The prosecution is also done by the L.A.
> 
> I have known well over a dozen people that have had their license granted retrospectively by various L.A's. This has ranged from Wolf hybrids, lemurs, monkeys, crocodiles and snakes. If the animals are kept correctly and many are, licensed or not. The L.A will usually do its best to reach a compromise rather than seize. As you can imagine seizing specimens is a major issue for any council.
> 
> ...


If you don't notify the L.A. of the nomenclature change, then id have said yes. All species, numbers and sexes must be on your licence, it's your responsibility to stay up to date with changes in the nomenclature. 



GT2540 said:


> the time span has to be reasonably practicable. 72 hours is not as you have already stated yourself. The license is handled by environmental health and applications are probably not their highest priority. Most L.A's only have a small amount of people in each department. What happens if their work load does not allow them time to answer it with one or two weeks. Nothing as they are the ones that carry out the prosecution?
> 
> L.A's are more concerned with animals being removed from a license as they need to confirm that they have gone to a legally correct keeper.
> 
> You do not need to prove anything in court, the prosecution does have to prove it is over a time span that is reasonable. You are innocent until proven guilty in the U.K, with the exception of transport tribunals where you are guilty too proven innocent.


Any evidence of this please?


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

ViperLover said:


> I
> Any evidence of this please?


Which bit?


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

GT2540 said:


> Which bit?


All of it because I am not convinced your 28 days claim is correct.

72 hours is to take in to account the transit time. This is the UK, not Texas. North to South can be driven in a day or less, depending on how far north.

The changes do not need to be on the licence within 72 hours, you just need to NOTIFY them within 72 hours. That's your job, theirs is to process it and if that takes longer than three days, well that becomes their problem because legally you did your bit.

Ian is also a serving police officer who specialises in wildlife and animal law, he has consulted on several DWA Licence cases throughout his career that I know of. He knows what he's talking about.


----------



## GT2540 (Jan 31, 2012)

ViperLover said:


> All of it because I am not convinced your 28 days claim is correct.
> 
> 72 hours is to take in to account the transit time. This is the UK, not Texas. North to South can be driven in a day or less, depending on how far north.*Rather strange, as many people ship animals from all over the world, including Texas? *
> 
> ...


 *Well that's nice for him, but his comment about you don't have a license you lose your animals there and then from my experience is not always the case or in fact possible. Usually a compromise will try to be reached with a period of grace to meet the requirements. Especially if it is problematic to remove them.

Just think about the logistics of moving a large collection of dangerous snakes without notice. Say an individual has 50 cobra's without a license and has been keeping them for many years without incident. The husbandry is sufficient along with the security. Is it not the sensible thing to make them apply for their license retrospectively and leave the animals in situ? Who would have the space and experience to take such a sudden influx, Zoo's won't because of the risk of disease. I don't think Heathrow custom holding area would be be too impressed either. And I very much doubt there is a private individual that has the space, and then they would probably fall short in the notification period as they try to identify each specimen?

I have seen animals taken when the conditions/security is poor or the individual will fall short of the licensing requirements, usually when they are arrested/dead.

At the request of the Police someone like me has to go and collect the animal and house it temporarily. The Police put the needs of a dangerous animal being in a secure/safe environment far above any minor licensing issue that may arise because of this.*


----------



## ViperLover (Jun 7, 2009)

GT, just keep in mind that not all LA's follow the law mate.


----------

