# Why certain DWA?



## Razorscale (Feb 22, 2010)

I got asked this question today and wondered: "Why are gila's dwa in the uk but false water cobras and king baboons are not?"

From what I understand is that the DWA is there to protect the public, a gila couldn't kill anyone but FWC and king baboons have a nasty venom and could do possibly more damage to a person than a gila(from what I understand in reading up on each of their venoms).

If anyone can clear this up for me would be great.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

A gila is not to be underestimated, apparently the pain will make you wish you were dead. FWC also dont have as efficient a delivery system as front fanged venomous there venom is relatively strong but delivery isnt as good. 

If you get hit by a king baboon or a FWC its (likely) to not have significant medical consequences.


----------



## steve111 (Jun 7, 2009)

same as the beaded lizards yet if you have the doe you can go buy a croc monitor with no dwa that can cause alot of damage if a mestake is made


----------



## coldestblood (Jun 4, 2011)

I can't answer the question, but it's worth remembering that the DWAA came in force back in the 70's, and back then, we knew a lot less about venomous animals than we do today. It's been updated a few times since, where species have been either added or removed from the act, but to my knowledge; that's about it.


----------



## waynegarland (Feb 1, 2007)

Heloderma species in my opinion should be on DWA and stay there because if they were not their popularity would grow and everyone would want one and bites would become more common. Although highly unlikely to be fatal there's always a potential.

If anyone is serious about keeping heloderma they wouldn't mind going through the hassle and expense of obtaining a DWAL.

I've recently spent a small fortune getting my DWA room ready for keeping Beaded Lizards and I'm nearly there. We have been pre approved and just waiting for the council to issue the license.


----------



## Bradleybradleyc (May 7, 2012)

waynegarland said:


> Heloderma species in my opinion should be on DWA and stay there because if they were not their popularity would grow and everyone would want one and bites would become more common. Although highly unlikely to be fatal there's always a potential.
> 
> If anyone is serious about keeping heloderma they wouldn't mind going through the hassle and expense of obtaining a DWAL.
> 
> I've recently spent a small fortune getting my DWA room ready for keeping Beaded Lizards and I'm nearly there. We have been pre approved and just waiting for the council to issue the license.


Nice one mate, let us know when you have them and I'll be up for a cuppa and a look at these amazing beasties, I love them.... :whistling2: 

Any chance you could put a picture up of you room when your done, I would love to see the setup required for beadeds


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Razorscale said:


> I got asked this question today and wondered: "Why are gila's dwa in the uk but false water cobras and king baboons are not?"
> 
> From what I understand is that the DWA is there to protect the public, a gila couldn't kill anyone but FWC and king baboons have a nasty venom and could do possibly more damage to a person than a gila(from what I understand in reading up on each of their venoms).
> 
> If anyone can clear this up for me would be great.


Because DEFRA ran a lengthy conultation involving numerous people who know their stuff to amend the DWAA list. This amendment came into effect in October 2007.


----------



## Herpalist (Jun 17, 2009)

No Tarantula species requires DWAL. There are also more suppossed medically significant Tarantula venoms over that of the King Baboon.


----------



## Cleopatra the Royal (Nov 29, 2008)

I think I'd rather take a hit from a FWC or a King Baboon than a Heloderma. The only recorded deaths from Heloderma (I think) are suicides from the pain of the bite, which is saying something!


----------



## PDR (Nov 27, 2008)

waynegarland said:


> Heloderma species in my opinion should be on DWA and stay there because if they were not their popularity would grow and everyone would want one and bites would become more common. Although highly unlikely to be fatal there's always a potential.
> 
> If anyone is serious about keeping heloderma they wouldn't mind going through the hassle and expense of obtaining a DWAL.
> 
> I've recently spent a small fortune getting my DWA room ready for keeping Beaded Lizards and I'm nearly there. We have been pre approved and just waiting for the council to issue the license.


I'm in two minds over Heloderma being listed on the DWAL but would agree that it is probably a good idea if only to keep them out of the hands of unsuitable people. The venom of the Gila Monster is more potent than that of the Beaded Lizard but given the fact the Beaded Lizards attain a larger size than Gilas, the bite from an adult from either species would be comparable. Although there are no recorded deaths directly attributed to their venom, it can, apart from the intense pain, cause shock and a lowering of the blood pressure. 

Personally I don't consider Heloderma to be anywhere near as dangerous as venomous snakes.... just because they are venomous does not mean that they want to, or are going to bite. I've been Keeping Heloderma for almost a year now and they have been handled every day... they have become as "tame" as you could ever hope for... the Gilas regularly come out to meet students... the only other lizards that ever came as near to being as tame as these Gilas were the Rhino Iguanas I used to look after while at Chester Zoo.... and I can think of plenty of more troublesome species, such as Tokay Geckos, Basilisks or even Green Iguanas.

I am in the lucky situation not to need a DWAL, Pet Shop or Zoo Licence ... I just went over to Germany and bought them... then informed the Government we had them.


----------



## SiUK (Feb 15, 2007)

PDR said:


> I'm in two minds over Heloderma being listed on the DWAL but would agree that it is probably a good idea if only to keep them out of the hands of unsuitable people. The venom of the Gila Monster is more potent than that of the Beaded Lizard but given the fact the Beaded Lizards attain a larger size than Gilas, the bite from an adult from either species would be comparable. Although there are no recorded deaths directly attributed to their venom, it can, apart from the intense pain, cause shock and a lowering of the blood pressure.
> 
> Personally I don't consider Heloderma to be anywhere near as dangerous as venomous snakes.... just because they are venomous does not mean that they want to, or are going to bite. I've been Keeping Heloderma for almost a year now and they have been handled every day... they have become as "tame" as you could ever hope for... the Gilas regularly come out to meet students... the only other lizards that ever came as near to being as tame as these Gilas were the Rhino Iguanas I used to look after while at Chester Zoo.... and I can think of plenty of more troublesome species, such as Tokay Geckos, Basilisks or even Green Iguanas.
> 
> I am in the lucky situation not to need a DWAL, Pet Shop or Zoo Licence ... I just went over to Germany and bought them... then informed the Government we had them.


See I think the same about scorpions, they are very hard to get stung by unless you are doing something stupid, they cannot climb glass like a spider and its not hard to keep your fingers out of the way.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Hopefully one day we will review the DWAA and make it a workable Act, rather then the infective bureaucratic white elephant it is today. What we need is a tired system, A, B and C, with A listed species being the most restricted i.e. tipans mambas etc. The requirements for C scheduled species, i.e. scorpions, beaded lizards etc being little more than a registration process.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> Hopefully one day we will review the DWAA and make it a workable Act, rather then the infective bureaucratic white elephant it is today. What we need is a tired system, A, B and C, with A listed species being the most restricted i.e. tipans mambas etc. The requirements for C scheduled species, i.e. scorpions, beaded lizards etc being little more than a registration process.


To make it workable will need a section added creating a warrant to enable Local Authorities to enter premises - while the enforcement powers that exist are great on paper they do fall down when there isn't an power to enter the premises to enforce it in the first place! A tiered system is a great idea. Standardised fees and security requirements would also help. Perhaps, given the relatively low number of licenses issued, the whole system should be revised and centralised with DEFRA being responsible for conducting visits and assessing the applications, using their wildlife inspectors, thus ensuring a set standard fee across the UK, along with having the same standards for security and housing?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

ian14 said:


> To make it workable will need a section added creating a warrant to enable Local Authorities to enter premises - while the enforcement powers that exist are great on paper they do fall down when there isn't an power to enter the premises to enforce it in the first place! A tiered system is a great idea. Standardised fees and security requirements would also help. Perhaps, given the relatively low number of licenses issued, the whole system should be revised and centralised with DEFRA being responsible for conducting visits and assessing the applications, using their wildlife inspectors, thus ensuring a set standard fee across the UK, along with having the same standards for security and housing?


I have historically argued that these should be the ability for Local Authorities to have power of entry but Defra have rejected this saying there are legal difficulties (unspecified) and it was not necessary as LA’s had other options under other public protection legislation. Most unhelpful in my view.

To make the DWAA workable the absolute key requirement is to remove the administration from LA’, as long as it resides with Local Authorities it is doomed to failure as the overwhelming majority are simply not competent to administer it. 

The licensing should be brought under the auspices of Defra and inspection done by Defra Inspectors (probably wildlife). The mandatory requirement for veterinary inspection must also be removed as it is unnecessary and expensive. 

These two simply changes would suddenly make the DWAA workable and I have know doubts we would see a significant increase in compliance. I would also very much like to see a tired system introduced.

Sadly commonsense is unlikely to prevail and the current abysmal system will continue to be abused by incompetent Local Authorities and as a result noncompliance will continue to be rife….!!


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

Local Authorities simply dont have the capacity to deal with DWA appropriately. The staff do not have the expertese and there are insufficient resources to administer and police the system appropriately. The DWA like several other peices of reponsibility passed on to them are seen as a pain and extra work with no resources to complete correctly. This is one of the main reason why many LA's try to avoid issuing - it just makes extra work. I very much doubt that the system will get better as that would require investment and resourcing and I dont believe there is the will to do so.


----------



## chrismisk (Oct 6, 2008)

Razorscale said:


> I got asked this question today and wondered: "Why are gila's dwa in the uk but false water cobras and king baboons are not?"
> 
> From what I understand is that the DWA is there to protect the public, a gila couldn't kill anyone but FWC and king baboons have a nasty venom and could do possibly more damage to a person than a gila(from what I understand in reading up on each of their venoms).
> 
> If anyone can clear this up for me would be great.



Hehe was this after one of the ones I sparked off? Can't remember when it it was.
But wondering as to why are mangroves still on over here but not the mainland and in that case how do others like the fwc not feature


----------



## Razorscale (Feb 22, 2010)

chrismisk said:


> Hehe was this after one of the ones I sparked off? Can't remember when it it was.
> But wondering as to why are mangroves still on over here but not the mainland and in that case how do others like the fwc not feature


Yeah Chris, can't even remember who asked me that now.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

chrismisk said:


> Hehe was this after one of the ones I sparked off? Can't remember when it it was.
> But wondering as to why are mangroves still on over here but not the mainland and in that case how do others like the fwc not feature


Because when Northern Ireland introduced their DWAA they used the pre-2007 Schedule 1 list. In 2007 we had an amended list but it didn't affect NI. So here, mangroves and certain others can now be kept but across the water you need a DWAL to do so. Conversely, there are rear fangled colubrids that you can keep that we can't due to them being added to the list here.


----------

