# Ban the DWAL!!!!



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Ok i know this will cause a few arguments! But what are your feelings towards keeping "dangerous" inverts? I mean like with the need of a license. My feelings are very clear on this i do not believe that we should need to have a license to keep these animals. My reasons why are simple too. I've been keeping spiders for 15 years and would love to move onto DWA inverts, but this isn't possible because i couldn't afford the cost that would be needed to renovate a room to keep spiders in a tub! And also to be fair there are far more dangerous things out there which the goverment seem to do nothing about!


----------



## HalcyonInverts (Jul 22, 2009)

I agree in part. Inverts should probably be taken off, but the rest should remain, although all the species should be re-evaluated.

Most of the inverts pose zero threat to the public (the purpose of the DWAL) as they would rapidly perish outside (One reason that large snakes wernt added to DWAL). Most DWA inverts arnt fatal, just nasty ass symptoms. Even the Latrodectus have around a 5% chance of death untreated, and since the intoduction of the antivenin in the US there has been virtually zero casualties.

The only things that should stay on are _some_ of the Buuthid scorps as the cardio-active parts of thier venom are very nasty and can lead to rapid death.

You can buy a stonefish or a BR octopus. Why not a Latro? i know which id rather take a hit from...


----------



## jack_rep (Sep 11, 2008)

you take then off and any old fool could walk in and buy a lethal invert. yes renovating a room might be costly, but when it protects the risk of it escaping and killing someone.

Its bad enough you can buy a anacondo delivered to your door for a few hundred quid. 

To me i would have some things added to the DWA, not removed


----------



## HalcyonInverts (Jul 22, 2009)

jack_rep said:


> you take then off and any old fool could walk in and buy a lethal invert. yes renovating a room might be costly, but when it protects the risk of it escaping and killing someone.
> 
> Its bad enough you can buy a anacondo delivered to your door for a few hundred quid.
> 
> To me i would have some things added to the DWA, not removed


Thats the point though. Most of the DWA inverts are not fatal. not even nearly fatal. Its just media fire has spurred the governemt into action. The truly fatal species should remain, but most are not fatal. (by fatal i mean like 'really' fatal. obviously most will have deaths attatched to them)

Look at countries with no DWA type law. Very little accidents.

My main problem with it, is the species chosen. There are more dangerous animals not on the list, and some that are on are relatively safe in comparison.

I think at least the conditions of an Invert DWAL should be reduced. You dont need a locking double door, with a window in, when you could have your whole collection under lock and key in a locked viv.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Yeah but the thing is just as HalcyonInverts just pointed out, most inverts that are on that list aren't fatal. Where as you can get a big snake without any form of licensing. Now to be honest with you i'd much rather take a bite off a Lactrodectus and be somewhat ill rather than have a reticulated python wrapped around my neck!


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

I believe that competent adults (although I'm not how comptency would be evaluated in this instance, as being over 18 is no guarantee of possession of common sense) should be able to keep DWA invertebrates, provided it does not impact on others.

There shouldn't be a need to build a special hots room, apply for an expensive DWAL and arrange a vet inspection, if all you want to do is keep a couple of black widows. All you really need is a double RUB setup with a small padlock on the outer one, to prevent accidental interference and possible risk to somebody else.

Maybe a restricted invert-only "DWAL" would be the way to go, so that your local authority a) was aware that you owned them and b) could inspect your setups to make sure the risk of the animal escaping was minimised.

Also, to add to the points above, Sicarius hahni is thought to be far more dangerous than Latrodectus, and it's not even on the DWAL!


----------



## HalcyonInverts (Jul 22, 2009)

garlicpickle said:


> I believe that competent adults (although I'm not how comptency would be evaluated in this instance, as being over 18 is no guarantee of possession of common sense) should be able to keep DWA invertebrates, provided it does not impact on others.
> 
> There shouldn't be a need to build a special hots room, apply for an expensive DWAL and arrange a vet inspection, if all you want to do is keep a couple of black widows. All you really need is a double RUB setup with a small padlock on the outer one, to prevent accidental interference and possible risk to somebody else.
> 
> Maybe a restricted invert-only "DWAL" would be the way to go, so that your local authority a) was aware that you owned them and b) could inspect your setups to make sure the risk of the animal escaping was minimised.


A system like this could mirror the Shotgun Certificate. You apply, they come do a quick check of your set ups, and a quick Q+A with the keeper, then any new animals purchased you have to declare within a week.

They know what youve got, everyones happy.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

My point exactly! There are far more dangerous things out there that anybody can get hold of! I think a lot of it with the inverts is the media, i feel that headlines like "DEADLY BLACK WIDOWS" do very little to help our hobby, as this also leads to everybody thinking that a bite from one of these means instant death! Maybe there are people we can mail and try to argue our cases? Anyone know where's best to start?


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

The reason is one of 'weaponry'

Remember a few months ago some chav gits got hold of a royal python and terrorized some poor kid wth it...

Imagine those same kids with a Recluse, a fat tailed scorp or a funnel web in a pot. Kids wouldn't need guns or knives anymore, not when you got something as dangerous as a tiny venomous spider which you can buy online for a few quid, no questions asked.

That thought terrifies me. I remember when I was called to Customs and Excise in Hull, someone was trying to Illegally import in an eyelash vipers, sawscales, Russels and others and I said to the Cites rep, John why I couldn't keep one of the eyelashes and why do we need a DWA as I was responsible enough.?..

He sad simply, "If you can have one without a licence, anyone can have one without a licence, that means that anyone can have a dangerous deadly weapon in their home."



Timi.. I have every faith that you are the one of most responsible and thoughtful keepers there is, and I reckon YOU should be allowed to keep them, but not everyone should. And unfortunately to show that you are capable to those that matter means meeting certain criteria that everyone should follow... and that means spending the cash to give the authorities some peace of mind....

Sorry, but this time (And probably the ONLY time) I will agree with the authorities...


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

HalcyonInverts said:


> A system like this could mirror the Shotgun Certificate. You apply, they come do a quick check of your set ups, and a quick Q+A with the keeper, then any new animals purchased you have to declare within a week.
> 
> They know what youve got, everyones happy.


Totally agree. I think basically all dangerous inverts should be controlled, but not in the ridiculous way they are now. I really can't see why I can't have a widow, which is not as dangerous as it's reputation suggests, yet I can have an S. Hahni or BR octopus which are both absolutely deadly. Regardless, inverts are something which are easily controllable, and if you are treating them with the respect they deserve, there is little or no chance of them ever escaping or you getting tagged by one. 

The question is whether people treat them with the respect they deserve. I have seen on other boards around then net, idiots deliberately getting bitten by spiders and centipedes to see what the effects are, so not all keepers have brains, but I can't even see them being dumb enough to test the effects of a Phoneutria nibble.

If they were controlled in the way you suggested, I think that would be fine. I keep almost all my inverts in a locked cabinet anyway, so would work perfectly for me!


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

David L said:


> The reason is one of 'weaponry'
> 
> Remember a few months ago some chav gits got hold of a royal python and terrorized some poor kid wth it...
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but that is just an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Yeah ANYONE could have a deadly weapon in their home. Let me think of what I have within 
my immediate grasp which i could kill someone with a damn sight faster that trying to coax a spider into biting someone.

How about:

A Kitchen Knife
A screwdriver
A broken glass or bottle
A baseball bat or any relatively heavy blunt object
A Hammer

...the list could go on for some time. I'm sorry but with that as your sig, you've got to expect a bit of grief for that statement!


----------



## SWMorelia (May 15, 2007)

jack_rep said:


> you take then off and any old fool could walk in and buy a lethal invert. yes renovating a room might be costly, but when it protects the risk of it escaping and killing someone.
> 
> Its bad enough you can buy a anacondo delivered to your door for a few hundred quid.
> 
> To me i would have some things added to the DWA, not removed


With a statement like that it's lucky we don't have numpties making the rules....


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

I understand what your saying and the thought of these animals being used as a weapon is awful, but you also need to look at countrys like Germany where they do not ask you to have a license. I'd like to know from facts how that's going over there though, although i've heard there are next to no accidents. I think the real scary thing here is that people can get hold of the real animals that can do damage to people freely! And don't forget most of the inverts on the DWAL aren't really that lethal....


----------



## Joe So (Dec 27, 2009)

I agree with the re-evaluation of DWAs all over the board, I think if propper research was done then alot more animals/inverts would be available to more experienced keepers. The American big constrictor ban is stupid (Banning the 9 biggies baisically) their studies were flawed and had some snakes that weren't even commercially kept...
Sadly there has to be someway to deter fools from getting dangerous things they arent ready for, be it cost or effort fo converting a room. But it'd be great if there wasn't give it afew years and no idiots would be left :whistling2: I guess thats kinda why in countries without DWAs there are little accidents since they all know what they are facing. This is also similar to drug related crimes in areas where drugs are legal I guess, certain governments deal with things in different ways.

To sum up god bless the United States of Holland :mrgreen:


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

jakakadave said:


> A Kitchen Knife
> A screwdriver
> A broken glass or bottle
> A baseball bat or any relatively heavy blunt object
> ...



Or perhaps one of the many breeds of dangerous dogs? Guns (that seem more easily available) or just go into a shop and buy one of the ornamental swords that are everywhere?

Having that in my sig is simply just a statement to one of the questions people ask me all the time, "why keep something that bites you?".


----------



## ryanr1987 (Mar 7, 2009)

Taking any venomous animals off the dwa would be stupid. Although i don't keep inverts i do know that people have died from bites, and saying that they are rarely fatal is an excuse to take them off is just silly imo.


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Or perhaps one of the many breeds of dangerous dogs? Guns (that seem more easily available) or just go into a shop and buy one of the ornamental swords that are everywhere?
> 
> Having that in my sig is simply just a statement to one of the questions people ask me all the time, "why keep something that bites you?".


LOL no I meant David L's sig saying "If youre(sic) gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough." 

To have a sig like that and then come out agreeing with a statement that ANYONE could have a deadly weapon in their homes, when EVERYONE has very many deadly weapons in their homes is just really dumb and asking to be given some stick for saying it.

I agree with some level of control of dangerous inverts, just not the way it's done right now. I think the real difficulty in getting anything changed about it though is that there are probably only a few hundred people, if that, in the UK who give a monkeys about whether they can keep DWA inverts or not anyway, so we ain't changing anything any time soon I don't think.


----------



## cascadingstylez (Aug 31, 2007)

This is the reason they should remain DWA so idiots dont do this YouTube - A. australis (fat tail scorpion) gets free handled

and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKhjOpICOZA&feature=related

Idiots like this would kill themeselves.


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

cascadingstylez said:


> This is the reason they should remain DWA so idiots dont do this YouTube - A. australis (fat tail scorpion) gets free handled


That's a disgrace - not only do I give people credit for more intelligence than they are due, because clearly handling A. australis and letting it run around on the floor is mind bendingly retarded, but that is clearly animal cruelty, both to the scorp and to the poor rat they are trying to kill solely in the name of fun. Bastards. I hope they do get tagged by something nasty.


----------



## Kamike (Aug 3, 2009)

You might think they need to be removed as you can look after them and so could a lot of people on this and other forums in the UK but that is very very small if not a fraction of a percentage of the population that could do so sensibly. If you make them avaliable to the masses there will be problems, would UK hospital be able to care for you in the event of a bite or sting, would they be able to care for 100 people? Would you want your tax to go up to pay for the treatment of the numpties that are bound to get hurt?

There's much more to it than meets the eye, other than just letting people have one because they want one.

I would love to keep DWA inverts but respect that the rules are there for a reason.


----------



## cascadingstylez (Aug 31, 2007)

jakakadave said:


> That's a disgrace - not only do I give people credit for more intelligence than they are due, because clearly handling A. australis and letting it run around on the floor is mind bendingly retarded, but that is clearly animal cruelty, both to the scorp and to the poor rat they are trying to kill solely in the name of fun. Bastards. I hope they do get tagged by something nasty.


Let me give you the follow up ...... where he gets tagged by it. YouTube - mike gets stung by the fat tail scorpion (A. australis)


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

But one idiot shouldn't ruin it for the rest of the world, and no matter what happens license or not you will allways get idiots no matter what! But saying that's a good reason that the DWA is a good thing isn't a good argument as most people in the hobby have common sense


----------



## cascadingstylez (Aug 31, 2007)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> But one idiot shouldn't ruin it for the rest of the world, and no matter what happens license or not you will allways get idiots no matter what! But saying that's a good reason that the DWA is a good thing isn't a good argument as most people in the hobby have common sense


Without DWA every curious or experienced owner would have their Komodo's, Tigers and other cat speicies etc.

If you own a DWA and it happens to harm/kill someone, and you dont have a license your in **** street. The fines and penalties are enought to put a lot of people off. Without that restriction in place there would be a lot more DWA owners. And the potential for a lot more fatalities to themselves, their family/friends, neighbours etc.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

But that's the thing here. Were not talking about Tigers etc cos they are dangerous! But were talking about inverts, there not as dangerous as people will have you believe. Like take Lactrodectus for instance, say black widow to someone in the street and they will come out with something like "they will kill you within 2 minutes", where as in reality a bite from even the L. mactans isn't going to kill you unless your in pretty bad health allready


----------



## Mutley.100 (Nov 3, 2008)

I think DWA inverts should be banned from being privately kept . 

I can't think of a good enough reason for someone to keep them in their home .


----------



## matto2k (Nov 30, 2006)

the only possitive of the DWA is that it stops people who have only been in the hobby 6 months and have a couple of T's from going out and buying something that there not ready for!

that said there needs to be an over haul of the system as councils have abused their power by over charging. but untill some one has a better idea this is the best there is :crazy:


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

jakakadave said:


> I'm sorry but that is just an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Yeah ANYONE could have a deadly weapon in their home. Let me think of what I have within
> my immediate grasp which i could kill someone with a damn sight faster that trying to coax a spider into biting someone.
> 
> How about:
> ...


Hmmm.. so are you telling me that people DONT use these items as weapons? Try and attack someone with a hammer and you better know what you are doing, as there is always the chance that the person will be able to retaliate or someone will see you doing it. (hence prison term and no more bending in the showers) I could conceal a dangerous spider in your post and you would never know what hit you... (you think people wouldn't do that? If people are so determined to hurt you my refining Anthrax then they certainly could do something easier and cheaper) this is one of many factors that influence the decision making process when assessing what is dangerous to you and those around you...

So, I am sorry, but as far as I am aware, the reasons these licences exist is to protect members of the public from harm, as such there are controls in place to make sure that keepers are responsible enough to look after the animals they keep. 

I thought I was fair in my assessment that anyone who felt that they had the level of controls in place and the suitable enclosure that would prevent escapes, should be able to keep them. But not every one should.
If you honestly think that a black widow or a fat tailed scorpion couldn't be used to injure someone then you are very stupid and naiive. If they were harmless, they would be available as much as tarantulas or less dangerous scorps are. 

As for the comment that guns are freely available... Where? When was the last time you saw a firearm on sale in the UK? Where can you buy a shotgun without a licence?.. Maybe some people live in more disreputable areas that I do, and see guns on a constant day to day basis, but I cannot remember the last time I saw a gunshop or heard of anyone shooting someone in the street...and I live in a rural area where fox hunting used to happen. But it used to happen regularly when firearms were easy to get hold of.

WHY DO YOU NEED A LICENCE TO OWN A SHOTGUN!!! BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS! WHY DO YOU NEED A LICENCE FOR A DANGEROUS ANIMAL? BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS! 

As for the comment that you can buy dangerous animals abroad, you can also buy dangerous firearms abroad... I dont know, maybe the people of Germany, Switzerland and Canada are more responsible that we are. But what happens in this country when firearms are available? Moss side gang wars, high school shootings, etc ad infinitum. British people can't own dangerous firearms or dangerous animals with licences, and we shouldn't, end of......

'If you gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough' Is the name of one of my favourite songs by Roger Alan Wade and was used in the soundtrack to Jackass the Movie.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Because a shotgun will kill someone with ease, a "dangerous" invert will not in most cases. Thing is i feel like it is all about the councils now and they use it as an excuse to over charge and make more money


----------



## billsy (Nov 29, 2008)

HalcyonInverts said:


> I think at least the conditions of an Invert DWAL should be reduced. You dont need a locking double door, with a window in, when you could have your whole collection under lock and key in a locked viv.


i agree, i think they should stay on the list but the whole 'escape proof' room is a bit too much for inverts.

i think you would need it for reps, but not for inverts, maybe kept in a locked cabinet???

thats just my opinion

: victory:


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Dont get me started on councils..... I'd string them all up from the town hall steps if I could get my way!

Like i said Timi, there is no reason why you shouldn't keep DWAL, but you have to prove to that you aren't some sociopath who could be a nutjob or an irresponsible keeper. I know your probably not, most people on here know that you are not. But to be honest, I don't know you from Adam and neither do the athorities. And you need to prove that you can keep them safely, not just your own, but others.

I am like you, I would love to keep a female Black Widow, but I have kids in the house and know that one small accident, one of a number of possible events that take place that could cause this spider to escape... (how many times have you read on here about people losing their escaped spiders? And this is from people who are extremely experience and respected forum members) The Black Widow may not be a killer per se, but it is dangerous and extremely painful. And a stay in the hospital is inevitable (not to mention a massive lawsuit if it bit someone else).

So I am afraid that to satisfy the skeptical, you need to flash the cash, a sad factor in todays society.


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

I think there should be a license and i think it should be different to the one we have now.

I think maybe you should have to go on a course of some sort before you can keep DWA inverts. There should always be some sort of safety protocol followed, such as double tanks/box/units rather than having a safe room as that is more expensive than the license itself (can easily run into thousands). I do agree with the keeper being over 18 and i do agree with them having liability insurance. BTW i do not include snakes etc in this, i think that should be left up to DWA snake keepers to decide.

OH has also owned a firearms license for many years and interestingly enough they do alot less checks with that than they do with his DWAL.


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

David L said:


> As for the comment that guns are freely available... Where? When was the last time you saw a firearm on sale in the UK? Where can you buy a shotgun without a licence?.. Maybe some people live in more disreputable areas that I do, and see guns on a constant day to day basis, but I cannot remember the last time I saw a gunshop or heard of anyone shooting someone in the street...and I live in a rural area where fox hunting used to happen. But it used to happen regularly when firearms were easy to get hold of.



You'd be very surprised how easy it is to get hold of one...:whistling2:

And to buy one legally, there's 3 gun shops in this town. One 5 mins walk from me.


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

cascadingstylez said:


> This is the reason they should remain DWA so idiots dont do this YouTube - A. australis (fat tail scorpion) gets free handled
> 
> and this YouTube - MAN STUNG BY SCORPION MULTILPLE TIMES
> 
> Idiots like this would kill themeselves.


Oh well, less crap in the gene pool :whistling2:



cascadingstylez said:


> Without DWA every curious or experienced owner would have their Komodo's, Tigers and other cat speicies etc.


Komodos arent DWA, as far as i know (please correct me if i am wrong) there are no monitors on the DWAA


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Komodos aren't DWA?

That's unusual because they have found them to be venomous (not the bacteria that was once thought, but actual venom glands...)

I like the idea of the less than dangerous DWAL... an additional licence that is less strick, but still controlled. Certain rules apply, like age, signed responibility, locked cages and an RSPCA check to make sure every things on the up and up. Like an 'Exotic Pets Licence' Incidentally I would also add certain reptiles to this licence which aren't DWA, like retics, burmese pythons, the larger varanids and alligator snapping turtles. Stuff you can buy as a tiny little hatchling that will grow into a 15 ft monster that you can't look after, that sort of stuff.

Anything that requires a large amount of responsibily to keep, I suppose. (Before someone mentions it... I had already thought of adding Bull Terriers to this list)

Did you know that the Walrus wasn't DWAL? :lol2: I Want one!


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

David L said:


> Komodos aren't DWA?
> 
> That's unusual because they have found them to be venomous (not the bacteria that was once thought, but actual venom glands...)
> 
> ...



Thats crazy! you add Bull terriers (which i have previously owned and never had the slightest aggression from), yet want a Walrus!...Ive worked with Walrus in zoo's and let me tell you they are not to be messed with :gasp:

Pretty sure Walrus would be covered under a zoo license


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Muze said:


> Thats crazy! you add Bull terriers (which i have previously owned and never had the slightest aggression from), yet want a Walrus!...Ive worked with Walrus in zoo's and let me tell you they are not to be messed with :gasp:


Dude I was joking!:lol2:

I know Walrus are nasty, I was being ironic

(But I am sure they are not on the DWA list - but I could be wrong, and I just didn't see them)


----------



## memmarmite (Jan 2, 2010)

David L said:


> Did you know that the Walrus wasn't DWAL? :lol2: I Want one!


Sorry to piss on your kebab, but... yes they are.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/documents/dwa-animallist.pdf


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

memmarmite said:


> Sorry to piss on your kebab, but... yes they are.
> 
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/documents/dwa-animallist.pdf



Thank god for that...i knew you needed something for them. I know they can be real nasty **** when they want to be


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

memmarmite said:


> Sorry to piss on your kebab, but... yes they are.
> 
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/documents/dwa-animallist.pdf


Too late

Already played my own Devil's Advocate Card!


----------



## memmarmite (Jan 2, 2010)

David L said:


> Too late
> 
> Already played my own Devil's Advocate Card!



Dammit!

Next time, Gadget, next time...


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

You have to be gifted a komodo by the king of indonesia (i think) to own one, hence why only very few places have them.

I think thats why they arent included on the DWAA


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Incidentally, Muze

Which zoo did you work in that had a walrus? I seem to recall London zoo had a walrus in the 60's called Alice, but I wasn't aware of any more in the UK. I could be mistaken, as it's not something I am overly fascinated in, but I have been to tons of UK Zoos and can never ever actually recall seeing one.


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Muze said:


> You have to be gifted a komodo by the king of indonesia (i think) to own one, hence why only very few places have them.
> 
> I think thats why they arent included on the DWAA


 
He could make a fortune in RFUK!
Just goes to show, it's not 'what' you know, it's 'who' you know.....


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

David L said:


> Incidentally, Muze
> 
> Which zoo did you work in that had a walrus? I seem to recall London zoo had a walrus in the 60's called Alice, but I wasn't aware of any more in the UK. I could be mistaken, as it's not something I am overly fascinated in, but I have been to tons of UK Zoos and can never ever actually recall seeing one.



I love the way you assume its in the UK :whistling2:

I have worked in a couple of UK zoo's, but i have also volunteered in a couple abroad when i was younger.


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Sorry .. easy assumption to make, though...


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

David L said:


> Sorry .. easy assumption to make, though...


Its ok np : victory:


----------



## deansie26 (Apr 28, 2009)

*Dwa*



cascadingstylez said:


> Without DWA every curious or experienced owner would have their Komodo's, Tigers and other cat speicies etc.
> 
> If you own a DWA and it happens to harm/kill someone, and you dont have a license your in **** street. The fines and penalties are enought to put a lot of people off. Without that restriction in place there would be a lot more DWA owners. And the potential for a lot more fatalities to themselves, their family/friends, neighbours etc.


Granted, but there are countless responsible folk out their who own DWA inverts without a licience, I think common sence comes into it a great deal. Owning a tiny brown recluse for example is not comparible to a komoda lol.


----------



## mark elliott (Feb 5, 2007)

if a member of your family was tagged by something potentially life threatening then you would want to know why the person that owned this animal was allowed to keep it in the first place . lets just say the envenomation caused paralysis of a limb and the person couldn't work anymore ? ah yes public liability insurance that will take care of that problem but still wont change the fact that this animal has changed a member of your families life for good but (and there is always a but) if the animal in question is not on the dwa list you don't need insurance to keep it so now your family member is screwed. you would be the first to complain to the council about the reasons this animal is no longer classed as dwa.
my point is who is to say what may or may not cause harm to a person?. two people can react differently to an envenomation as there are lots to take into consideration. its best to have anything even slightly dangerous on the list, at least if there should be a problem then you have insurance to cover this.
the price of the dwa should be the same across the country and this may at some point be the case. i just had my inspection for renewal yesterday and the EHO was actually considering asking me to put a lock on the Viv for my hognose but in the end we left it without. this showed me that he didn't have a full understanding of the snake but health and safety came first for him and i could see his point.
the DWAL at the moment is about to change from yearly to two yearly but the price, i have been told won't be double, so that's is a reduction in cost which has to be good for everyone. 
the last thing the council want is members of the public suing them for what could be classed as negligence on there part for allowing the wrong kind of person to keep something that could take your or a member of your families life so i totally agree with the way things are at the moment , but that doesn't mean i think it's run perfectly.
regards mark 

p.s sorry about grammar and spelling.


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

p.s sorry about grammar and spelling.[/QUOTE said:


> Welcome to the club, mate...:lol2:


----------



## mark elliott (Feb 5, 2007)

David L said:


> Welcome to the club, mate...:lol2:


yea i never was any good and i usually get the other half to do this for me as she has a uni degree in English but is still in bed at the mo, typical eh .


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

mark elliott said:


> if a member of your family was tagged by something potentially life threatening then you would want to know why the person that owned this animal was allowed to keep it in the first place . lets just say the envenomation caused paralysis of a limb and the person couldn't work anymore ? ah yes public liability insurance that will take care of that problem but still wont change the fact that this animal has changed a member of your families life for good but (and there is always a but) if the animal in question is not on the dwa list you don't need insurance to keep it so now your family member is screwed. you would be the first to complain to the council about the reasons this animal is no longer classed as dwa.
> my point is who is to say what may or may not cause harm to a person?. two people can react differently to an envenomation as there are lots to take into consideration. its best to have anything even slightly dangerous on the list, at least if there should be a problem then you have insurance to cover this.
> the price of the dwa should be the same across the country and this may at some point be the case. i just had my inspection for renewal yesterday and the EHO was actually considering asking me to put a lock on the Viv for my hognose but in the end we left it without. this showed me that he didn't have a full understanding of the snake but health and safety came first for him and i could see his point.
> the DWAL at the moment is about to change from yearly to two yearly but the price, i have been told won't be double, so that's is a reduction in cost which has to be good for everyone.
> ...


I understand what you are saying, but to me even alot of tarantulas are dangerous because of a medical condition i have (anything that has neurotoxin is a big no no). So we take the sensible approach and my OH deals with anything that has a medically significant bite to me.

There is simply such a thing as not allowing someone to get bitten\stung in the first place, if the correct protocols are followed this really should not be able to happen (double tanking etc), agreed there is always a very small possiblity no matter what precautions are put in place, but i certainly would not be running to the council to complain as the keeping of DWAA inverts is something we both agreed to and are interested in.

As i said before i think there should be something in place, but not what we have now for inverts.


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

LOL... I got two degrees. a AAT work one for Accounting and a BA Philosophy degree from the OU

I still cant do maths fer sh*** and my grammar is bad as, like, whatever...

Good ter see our education is werking!


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

Muze said:


> You have to be gifted a komodo by the king of indonesia (i think) to own one, hence why only very few places have them.
> 
> I think thats why they arent included on the DWAA


A terminally ill chap who owned the local reptile shop when I was a teen, and kept all sorts of stuff, offer my Dad and I his Komodo when he passed. He reckoned it was tame and house trained! It was all very under the counter and hush hush though, which I assumed to be because they were DWA. Perhap's its like Sicarius, where they are too random to be on there because a Komodo is clearly extremely dangerous.

We couldn't take it off him unfortunately, we just didn't have the facilities to be able to look after something like that. Would have been cool though.


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

jakakadave said:


> A terminally ill chap who owned the local reptile shop when I was a teen, and kept all sorts of stuff, offer my Dad and I his Komodo when he passed. He reckoned it was tame and house trained! It was all very under the counter and hush hush though, which I assumed to be because they were DWA. Perhap's its like Sicarius, where they are too random to be on there because a Komodo is clearly extremely dangerous.
> 
> We couldn't take it off him unfortunately, we just didn't have the facilities to be able to look after something like that. Would have been cool though.



Good job you didnt take it ...sounds like a paperwork nightmare aswell
http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/dwa-species/238687-lizards-dwa-4.html

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/dwa-species/333766-komodo-any1-got-2.html


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Damn this has been a good topic....


We need more like this...

although I might get in trouble of work get hold of my internet records.....:gasp:


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

David L said:


> Damn this has been a good topic....
> 
> 
> We need more like this...
> ...


Agreed, vigorous discussion is... AWESOME!


----------



## mark elliott (Feb 5, 2007)

Muze said:


> I understand what you are saying, but to me even alot of tarantulas are dangerous because of a medical condition i have (anything that has neurotoxin is a big no no). So we take the sensible approach and my OH deals with anything that has a medically significant bite to me.
> 
> There is simply such a thing as not allowing someone to get bitten\stung in the first place, if the correct protocols are followed this really should not be able to happen (double tanking etc), agreed there is always a very small possiblity no matter what precautions are put in place, but i certainly would not be running to the council to complain as the keeping of DWAA inverts is something we both agreed to and are interested in.
> 
> As i said before i think there should be something in place, but not what we have now for inverts.


 yes that is my point, a bite can and will be different for different people and yes i see what you are saying about inverts and maybe something differnet is appropriate, i don't know, but my only real point is making sure public liability would be in place for these animals. as a responsible keeper i would hope that you would agree.
keeping venomous creatures is a risky hobby but no more than any other like motor sport or rugby but at some point you have to expect an accident. i know people who have been keeping for 30 to 40 years but only been tagged once, for a person with an underlying health issue once is all it could take.
regards mark


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

mark elliott said:


> yes that is my point, a bite can and will be different for different people and yes i see what you are saying about inverts and maybe something differnet is appropriate, i don't know, but my only real point is making sure public liability would be in place for these animals. as a responsible keeper i would hope that you would agree.
> keeping venomous creatures is a risky hobby but no more than any other like motor sport or rugby but at some point you have to expect an accident. i know people who have been keeping for 30 to 40 years but only been tagged once, for a person with an underlying health issue once is all it could take.
> regards mark


Im in total agreement with you and have previously said that the age limit should be 18 and liability insurance is a must :2thumb:


----------



## Herpalist (Jun 17, 2009)

Thankfully, we dont have DWA in effect here in Rep of Ireland.

Basically, if you can get it, you can keep it :mf_dribble:Cool or what !!


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

Herpalist said:


> Thankfully, we dont have DWA in effect here in Rep of Ireland.
> 
> Basically, if you can get it, you can keep it :mf_dribble:Cool or what !!


Im moving...i love Ireland too :2thumb:


----------



## matto2k (Nov 30, 2006)

Muze said:


> Im moving...i love Ireland too :2thumb:


 
would follow you but car tax is crippling! would rather pay the £100 DWA here.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Lol tell me about it! If i didn't have kids i would be gone out of here! I'd be keeping so much stuff


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Lol tell me about it! If i didn't have kids i would be gone out of here! I'd be keeping so much stuff


My son has decided he wants to keep mambas when he grows up :gasp:

I think we may be a bad influence lol


----------



## cmullins (Feb 20, 2008)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Ok i know this will cause a few arguments! But what are your feelings towards keeping "dangerous" inverts? I mean like with the need of a license. My feelings are very clear on this i do not believe that we should need to have a license to keep these animals. My reasons why are simple too. I've been keeping spiders for 15 years and would love to move onto DWA inverts, but this isn't possible because i couldn't afford the cost that would be needed to renovate a room to keep spiders in a tub! And also to be fair there are far more dangerous things out there which the goverment seem to do nothing about!


 
yea ban the licence so loads of idiots get hold of dangerous animals and kill themselves, people about them, kids...yea great idea mate


----------



## jakakadave (Dec 29, 2009)

matto2k said:


> would follow you but car tax is crippling! would rather pay the £100 DWA here.


Eh? DWAL is £100? That seems very reasonable? I understood it to be more like a couple of grand per year - not that I have investigated it much as I don't have an appropriate room to use.


----------



## Young_Gun (Jan 6, 2007)

The DWAL shouldn't be banned, the idea of it is just daft, there are changes needed to the current system but primarily down to councils having free reign over the pricing system, the actual DWA is perfectly suitable and would only need minor adjustments to be as close to perfect as a licensing system could get.

People who want to own DWA animals have two choices, do the graft, pay your money and get the license or get them illegally and face the consequences when caught.


----------



## chondro13 (Aug 18, 2008)

jakakadave said:


> Eh? DWAL is £100? That seems very reasonable? I understood it to be more like a couple of grand per year - not that I have investigated it much as I don't have an appropriate room to use.



Depending on your council the cost of the licence itself could be anything from tens to thousands of pounds. 

The room that is REQUIRED to have that licence granted to you will have cost you thousands before you worry about the cost of the licence itself.

I feel the DWAA is fundamentally flawed. As a nation we are too stupid to be trusted not to have restrictions on venomous/dangerous species (in most of the EU there is no restriction whatsoever and very few accidents happen). So i do think we should have some kind of licencing system, but i would like to see it become reasonable and fair - i.e. every council ask the same requirements and same price and there should be different categories - as has been said, it would cost far less to sort out protocalls for a black widow than it would for any venomous snake. The licencing should cost less and have less riddiculous requirements for this reason.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

cmullins said:


> yea ban the licence so loads of idiots get hold of dangerous animals and kill themselves, people about them, kids...yea great idea mate


Have you actually read up on any of the "dangerous" inverts? If you did then you would also realise that many of the so called dangerous ones aren't really that dangerous. So calm down 

Also allthough i called this thread ban the DWAL i don't mean like in all cases let's all go mad! I still believe something needs to be in place, but not what we have now. What we have now is just crazy and seems to be invented to help councils get richer and keep the media happy. Like for instance the well known black widow spider (L.mactans) is on the list, it's not that likely to kill you if it bites you. And then you take a look at Sicarious sp, any of you can buy one of these and they have something like a 50% death rate from a bite and the other half will lose a limb. So yeah i believe it's there to keep idiots happy and help greedy goverments charge us for something else


----------



## matto2k (Nov 30, 2006)

jakakadave said:


> Eh? DWAL is £100? That seems very reasonable? I understood it to be more like a couple of grand per year - not that I have investigated it much as I don't have an appropriate room to use.


 
east cambs council gotta love them, they decided to raise there funds by speed cameras rather then DWA  £100 for up to 5 death stalkers when i wanted to get a DWA thats all i asked for. scorpions are about the easist DWA to keep


----------



## mark elliott (Feb 5, 2007)

jakakadave said:


> Eh? DWAL is £100? That seems very reasonable? I understood it to be more like a couple of grand per year - not that I have investigated it much as I don't have an appropriate room to use.


 the DWAL fee here is at the moment £236 per year but as in my previous post this should all change with the possible introduction of a two year licence at the end of this month.
regards mark


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

It is £638 here plus vet fees, and then £64 a year after that to renew.


----------



## spider_mad (Mar 8, 2007)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Ok i know this will cause a few arguments! But what are your feelings towards keeping "dangerous" inverts? I mean like with the need of a license. My feelings are very clear on this i do not believe that we should need to have a license to keep these animals. My reasons why are simple too. I've been keeping spiders for 15 years and would love to move onto DWA inverts, but this isn't possible because i couldn't afford the cost that would be needed to renovate a room to keep spiders in a tub! And also to be fair there are far more dangerous things out there which the goverment seem to do nothing about!


It is crazy that to buy centruroids or what have you are cheap as hell species but cost so much with the license doesn't seem to weight up and is an awful lot.


----------



## The Sandman (Nov 3, 2009)

garlicpickle said:


> I believe that competent adults (although I'm not how comptency would be evaluated in this instance, as being over 18 is no guarantee of possession of common sense) should be able to keep DWA invertebrates, provided it does not impact on others.
> 
> There shouldn't be a need to build a special hots room, apply for an expensive DWAL and arrange a vet inspection, if all you want to do is keep a couple of black widows. All you really need is a double RUB setup with a small padlock on the outer one, to prevent accidental interference and possible risk to somebody else.
> 
> ...



I'd go with this. prevents the idiots from getting dangerous inverts but with less restrictions, less cost and less hassle than having a DWAL as they are currently


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

I believe that maybe a kinda system where you have to declare what you have? Like i wouldn't mind paying out the insurance either. Because keeping inverts on the same license as a tiger or a lion is a bit extreme. And they need to be really researched because the kind of inverts they have on the DWA list aren't as bad as media reports will make you think


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

I bet the council will charge a really high premium for DWAL because of the Vet bills and inspectors (who will not doubt be billed an astronomical amount.) And also because councils charge whatever they want because they can... and do... because they suck... and they hate you... and they hate me.... hate them... because they suck.. a lot. (I told you... don't get me started on councils! :censor: I wont sleep tonight now, my blood is boiling too much, I need to lie down!)

But unfortunately, I don't think a smaller licence which covers you for public liability insurance will be that much cheaper. I pay public liability for my PA and Disco hire and this year it will be £365. I guess I better Compare the Meerkat this time around, because it's double what I paid last year.

If we successfully lobbied this in petition to H.O.C to get a less rigid invert licence, we would end up paying just as much or close enough for a DWAL, so why bother? Save up your pennies and get the genuine article...


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

But to keep something that i really want i would happily pay a certain amount a year, but i can't afford to buy my own house to modify it and then the license fee etc.....


----------



## Muze (Jun 20, 2007)

In regards to insurance:

DWA Info, Dangerous Wild Animals Act, Venomous Reptiles~ CaptiveBred.co.uk (im not sure if this site will allow me to link this)

It gives some very interesting statistics in regards to DWA and the amount of injuries etc.


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

Hmmm.. the annual cost of a DWA in my council (NE DERBYSHRE) is on the website as £118.35, I cant believe it is so cheap, 

And my wooden summer house needs converting into somethng which I haven't decided yet... do you think the other half would kill me if I insisted that I convert it into a DWA reptile house?... :naughty:

I always wanted to keep elapids, caimans and rattlers! :2thumb:

Mind you, Muze, the link you sent mentioning that no DWA licence holder had ever died or serious injury from a DWA bite? Knowing my bloody luck I'd probably be the first.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Yeah that doesn't seem to expensive! But then it's the cost of getting the room etc with about 50 doors before you even get to your animals.....


----------

