# liscence technicality??



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

Hi all, oof hand - can't give an example but.. I don't have a DWA, so say if I bought a croc monitor and then after a year or so of me owning it it went on the DWA would I need a liscence or would I just slip under the radar on a technicality?

Matt : victory:


----------



## Razorscale (Feb 22, 2010)

Few points:
1. Id say 99.9% it wont, i dont think any _Varanus _will go on the list, maybe the komodo dragon *IF* they become readily available.
2. From your list of animals you have posted in your sig, i would say don't get a croc monitor, you wouldnt be experienced enough to have one.
3. If they somehow manage to get themselves on the list, yes you would have to get licensed i would guess.


----------



## Spuddy (Aug 24, 2009)

Interesting question, I suppose you would be required to obtain a DWA License if that did happen to meet the requirements of the current law. 


On the other hand, as long as you didnt tell anybody, nobody would be any the wiser and wouldnt have a clue you owned one. Not that Im promoting breaking the law of course :whistling2:


Spuddy.


----------



## SWMorelia (May 15, 2007)

Imagine you had a car and you drove it around for a while and then asked about the licence... No you wouldn't slip under the radar... They would confiscate the car and they would fine you and bann you from driving for a while....
Now substitute DWAL animal for car....
It would be exactly the same....


----------



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

Razorscale said:


> Few points:
> 1. Id say 99.9% it wont, i dont think any _Varanus _will go on the list, maybe the komodo dragon *IF* they become readily available.
> 2. From your list of animals you have posted in your sig, i would say don't get a croc monitor, you wouldnt be experienced enough to have one.
> 3. If they somehow manage to get themselves on the list, yes you would have to get licensed i would guess.


I arent after one, just an example.. Does seem that one you had it and the law changed, theres going to be no way of anyone knowing except ofcourse for forums like this. If, in the hyperthetical event, I did get one then it went DWA and I came to sell it, do DWA sellers have to rpove they have the liscence or is it just the buyer?



Spuddy said:


> Interesting question, I suppose you would be required to obtain a DWA License if that did happen to meet the requirements of the current law.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, as long as you didnt tell anybody, nobody would be any the wiser and wouldnt have a clue you owned one. Not that Im promoting breaking the law of course :whistling2:
> ...


It works both ways though, think of all the people who got a DWAL for a mangrove afew months or even days before they came off :lol2:


----------



## Spuddy (Aug 24, 2009)

Razorscale said:


> Few points:
> 1. Id say 99.9% it wont, i dont think any _Varanus _will go on the list, maybe the komodo dragon *IF* they become readily available.
> 2. From your list of animals you have posted in your sig, i would say don't get a croc monitor, you wouldnt be experienced enough to have one.
> 3. If they somehow manage to get themselves on the list, yes you would have to get licensed i would guess.


 
He's not on about getting a DWA or a Croc Monitor, its all a hypothetical situation if you read it. 

"What would happen if"... sort of scenario. 

Also you cant judge somebody's keeping abilities by the animals they list in their signature. That could be a none updated list, he could own several larger varanids and just not put them in his signature, or doesnt want to put them in his sig. He could of also worked with challenging species in the past but no longer owns these animals, or his job could be working around these animals. 


Spuddy.


----------



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

SW-morelia said:


> Imagine you had a car and you drove it around for a while and then asked about the licence... No you wouldn't slip under the radar... They would confiscate the car and they would fine you and bann you from driving for a while....
> Now substitute DWAL animal for car....
> It would be exactly the same....


Not really because I wouldnt ride a croc monitor around.. would you!? :lol2:. The only way it could be policed is by other people alerting the authoritys.. Also if you've had your monitor for say 6 years then the liscence comes into effect and you cant afford the DWAL but you're clearly compitent at looking after it, doesn't that make it abit harsh?


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

snakeskinshoes said:


> Not really because I wouldnt ride a croc monitor around.. would you!? :lol2:. The only way it could be policed is by other people alerting the authoritys.. Also if you've had your monitor for say 6 years then the liscence comes into effect and you cant afford the DWAL but you're clearly compitent at looking after it, doesn't that make it abit harsh?


While i see where your coming from, yes it would seem a little 'harsh', but have a bit of a think about it...

The cost of having an adequate room for a croc monitor is well into the thousands when you factor in the cost of the animal itself. If you can afford the animal - its extremely likely that you can also afford the licence.


----------



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

Spuddy said:


> He's not on about getting a DWA or a Croc Monitor, its all a hypothetical situation if you read it.
> 
> "What would happen if"... sort of scenario.
> 
> ...


Aye true that lol. My OH should be on the dwa



chondro13 said:


> While i see where your coming from, yes it would seem a little 'harsh', but have a bit of a think about it...
> 
> The cost of having an adequate room for a croc monitor is well into the thousands when you factor in the cost of the animal itself. If you can afford the animal - its extremely likely that you can also afford the licence.[/QUOTE
> 
> Were getting hung up on the rock monitor, what if it was something cheap.. Again hyperthetical but say pirranah? I know its never gonna happen but say it did. Personally I'd keep shtum and not get the liscence


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

snakeskinshoes said:


> Were getting hung up on the rock monitor, what if it was something cheap.. Again hyperthetical but say pirranah? I know its never gonna happen but say it did. Personally I'd keep shtum and not get the liscence


 
Each to their own, 'hypothetically' you have just two options if these animals 'hypothetically' did become licenced for some reason. Option 1: get the licence, or Option 2: keep quiet and take the risk. Simples, not sure why this requires such in-depth discussion but you know.. :lol2:


----------



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

chondro13 said:


> Each to their own, 'hypothetically' you have just two options if these animals 'hypothetically' did become licenced for some reason. Option 1: get the licence, or Option 2: keep quiet and take the risk. Simples, not sure why this requires such in-depth discussion but you know.. :lol2:


Thst what I was getting att, who polices it? Answer noone they just expect us to be honest.

I just wanted to know what other people thought or would do that's all, don't discuss it if you don't want to :whip: i can think of duller subjects that get posted on here :lol2:


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

snakeskinshoes said:


> Thst what I was getting att, who polices it? Answer noone they just expect us to be honest.
> 
> I just wanted to know what other people thought or would do that's all, don't discuss it if you don't want to :whip: i can think of duller subjects that get posted on here :lol2:


 
... it just seems a really strange thing to bring up. Obviously keeping without a licence is illegal.. 

'They just expect us to be honest' - surely we are all 'expected' to behave in a manner that does not break the law. By your rationale selling drugs or driving without car insurance etc. would be fine if nobody finds out about it...

If you dont particularly care about living within the law, thats cool - each to their own, its just odd that your publicising it!

:lol2:


----------



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

I think ur taking it out of context, those things stated have a negative impact on other people, keeping an animal you've cared for for possibly 10+ years due to a change in the law is totally different. 
What would you do iif an animal or sevral animals in your collection 'hyperthetically'went DWA and you simply couldn't afford the liscrence? You have to admit its a tough descission and somewhere inside you you must think. :censor: em??


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

It's not likely to happen, but take for example, the European Protection Legislation, those who already had protected species were exempt (but had to have as much proof as possible that they'd owned the animals previously). Take the Dogs Protection Act, those who owned restricted breeds were generally allowed to keep them, under certain conditions (no breeding, muzzles, etc).

If it happens (which isn't likely, considering in the last decade only one species has been removed I believe, and none added? Going from memory there, could be wrong...) it's likely that as long as those who have the animals can prove that they owned them before the act is changed, and do not breed them, they will probably be allowed to keep them - or at the very least, would probably be given some leeway (ie. a year) to actually get a DWA license or rehome the animals.


----------



## mikeyb (May 8, 2011)

this is what i was thinking if uve owned and bred and kept them for like 20yrs your in youe 70's and have a perticularly snotty council and dwa prices surely they have to just give u a dwa for nothing or some kind of exemption they cant exactly expect a pensioner to pay out like 1k plus all the housing regs they might now require etc etc when surely if someone was going to get injured they would of in the 20yrs previous so they have a proven track record of keeping. And this would also avoid the flip side of these older keepers going underground like in the 80's and things like the beast of bodmin turning up lol. imo support is far better that demanding and rules.


----------



## Spuddy (Aug 24, 2009)

chondro13 said:


> Simples, not sure why this requires such in-depth discussion but you know..


Then dont comment? ...



snakeskinshoes said:


> I think ur taking it out of context


 
Just a little bit :whistling2:




Athravan said:


> It's not likely to happen, but take for example, the European Protection Legislation, those who already had protected species were exempt (but had to have as much proof as possible that they'd owned the animals previously). Take the Dogs Protection Act, those who owned restricted breeds were generally allowed to keep them, under certain conditions (no breeding, muzzles, etc).
> 
> If it happens (which isn't likely, considering in the last decade only one species has been removed I believe, and none added? Going from memory there, could be wrong...) it's likely that as long as those who have the animals can prove that they owned them before the act is changed, and do not breed them, they will probably be allowed to keep them - or at the very least, would probably be given some leeway (ie. a year) to actually get a DWA license or rehome the animals.


 
Some good info there, always good to know. : victory: ... Like you say, Id hopefully expect the council to give you a set time in which to either obtain a license or move the animal on at the very least. 

Or maybe even a discounted price on your first year or something, to help with these unexpected extra costs of licensing and insurance. I know the licensing costs vary up and down the country, some places been pretty high. Its only £56 a year here, then you have insurance of course on top of that per year. 

I suppose a £56 unexpected isnt too bad, especially if you have the money to be able to house and care for such animals in the first place, would probably suggest you have abit of spare cash floating around. But maybe, I dont know £700 could come as abit of a sting, I know I wouldnt like to be paying £700 a year for DWA, unexpected or fully expected.


----------



## mrhoyo (Mar 29, 2007)

Look what happened when DWA was brought in originally. It would be the same again. You'd either have to get rid or hope nobody grasses.

You could get a DWAL for it of course...

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk


----------



## snakeskinshoes (Apr 6, 2010)

Athravan said:


> It's not likely to happen, but take for example, the European Protection Legislation, those who already had protected species were exempt (but had to have as much proof as possible that they'd owned the animals previously). Take the Dogs Protection Act, those who owned restricted breeds were generally allowed to keep them, under certain conditions (no breeding, muzzles, etc)
> 
> If it happens (which isn't likely, considering in the last decade only one species has been removed I believe, and none added? Going from memory there, could be wrong...) it's likely that as long as those who have the animals can prove that they owned them before the act is changed, and do not breed them, they will probably be allowed to keep them - or at the very least, would probably be given some leeway (ie. a year) to actually get a DWA license or rehome the animals.


Good info there cheers.



mikeyb said:


> this is what i was thinking if uve owned and bred and kept them for like 20yrs your in youe 70's and have a perticularly snotty council and dwa prices surely they have to just give u a dwa for nothing or some kind of exemption they cant exactly expect a pensioner to pay out like 1k plus all the housing regs they might now require etc etc when surely if someone was going to get injured they would of in the 20yrs previous so they have a proven track record of keeping. And this would also avoid the flip side of these older keepers going underground like in the 80's and things like the beast of bodmin turning up lol. imo support is far better that demanding and rules.


Yea this would probs be the best scenario, I think insurance should be put into place straight away though.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*The facts.....*

When a species is added to the DWAA Schedule you will have effectively 90 days from the laying of the Statutory Instrument to either acquire a licence or dispose of the animal. There is no provision for the Local Authority to give you special consideration or dispensation, you will simply be required to apply for a licence and it would be treated as any other application. That is of course assuming you are aware the species has been added in the first place! However, ignorance is no defence in law and although you could argue you were not aware of the change this would be mitigation, not a defence. As there is now no provision for retrospective licensing the animal would be seized. You could argue your Human Rights have been breached, and indeed I would suggest there would be significant merit in such an argument, nevertheless you would have to be in a position to fund such as case in the European Courts which might be a challenge in its self. This is why any additions to the DWAA Schedule need to be considered very carefully.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

snakeskinshoes said:


> Hi all, oof hand - can't give an example but.. I don't have a DWA, so say if I bought a croc monitor and then after a year or so of me owning it it went on the DWA would I need a liscence or would I just slip under the radar on a technicality?
> 
> Matt : victory:


The same thing that happened with big cats would happen when they gat put on DWAL, Your left with find a legal home, Get a DWAL, Or put to sleep,Keep ilegally, And like what happened with the big cats some would stupidly let go(Not likly with Croc monitors:lol2, But with large pythons/Boas "IF" thay was to happen to go on DWAL, Sadly i think a percent of people would dump them due to resuse centers not being able to take them'etc.


----------

