# Burms and Retics. Should be on DWA or not?



## Dean Wil (Apr 22, 2009)

A simple question, and im expecting a little bit of flame to be honest....

I dont have a DWA, but it thought it would be interesting to get the opinions of people that have DWA's on this subject. A breif discussion with a guy i met gave me the idea of asking this question.

Should Burms and Retics be on the DWA or not?

My personal opinion is yes they should be, too many irresponsable idiots can get hold of them far too easily, and they can do far too much damage in my opinion. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## Darlo_Gal (Sep 24, 2008)

I honestly can't decide. I'm not sure that putting them on the DWAL is right as that is to protect the public not the 'idiots' that get them. As a big snake keeper myself and as someone who has to take them in when they become to big and/or aggressive I would not be opposed to some sort of guidelines for keeping them...this however throws open a whole new can of worms. Who would impose these and how would they be monitored fairly?
On the whole I would not like to see honest and good keepers pay through the nose or find it impossible to keep them.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

no offence mate but this section is supposed to be about DWA they are not and will never be DWA so why not put this in the snake section where you will get more response.
And anyway this has been done to death a dozen times.......no wonder hardley any DWA holders come on this section any more.


----------



## Dean Wil (Apr 22, 2009)

leecb0 said:


> no offence mate but this section is supposed to be about DWA they are not and will never be DWA so why not put this in the snake section where you will get more response.
> And anyway this has been done to death a dozen times.......no wonder hardley any DWA holders come on this section any more.


As i said, im after the opinions of people that have DWA's, and this is the best place to get them. I also find that the people on the site that hold DWA's tend to be a bit more sensible, although im by no means saying everyone that dosnt hold one isnt. 

Mean no offence mate, and deffos dont want an arguement, if theres an issue with the thread, im happy for it to be removed/moved. Dont want to cause any agro.


From Darlo Gal:


> I honestly can't decide. I'm not sure that putting them on the DWAL is right as that is to protect the public not the 'idiots' that get them. As a big snake keeper myself and as someone who has to take them in when they become to big and/or aggressive I would not be opposed to some sort of guidelines for keeping them...this however throws open a whole new can of worms. Who would impose these and how would they be monitored fairly?
> On the whole I would not like to see honest and good keepers pay through the nose or find it impossible to keep them.


I see where your coming from, and it would be a shame to see good keepers have to shell out a ton of cash! But as you said, they could pontentially become agressive, and if the keeper that ends up with a snake like that isnt experianced or compitent it could all end in tears.


----------



## Khaos (Jul 9, 2007)

I don't believe so, no. They can do damage but only in a small number of situations. You need a weaker person than the snake, who doesn't have the experience to deal with a violent/hungry/scared snake, who doesn't have anyone around to help and who lets it get to that point in the first place. A lot of things have to go wrong for a big constrictor to really hurt someone.

Whereas a hot snake can do a higher amount of damage, consistently, in every situation. All it takes is for one thing to go wrong and you're in hospital, on your arse, or worse...


----------



## Dean Wil (Apr 22, 2009)

Khaos said:


> I don't believe so, no. They can do damage but only in a small number of situations. You need a weaker person than the snake, who doesn't have the experience to deal with a violent/hungry/scared snake, who doesn't have anyone around to help and who lets it get to that point in the first place. A lot of things have to go wrong for a big constrictor to really hurt someone.
> 
> Whereas a hot snake can do a higher amount of damage, consistently, in every situation. All it takes is for one thing to go wrong and you're in hospital, on your arse, or worse...


Obviously a person is at higher risk with venemous, and as you pointed about a few things would probobly need to go wrong for a big contrictor to do serious damage. My point is they have the potential to do that damage, and some people get these animals for the wrong reasons. Placing them on the DWA would prevent that.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2011)

Im not sure about being on the DWA exactly but tighter controls of who does own them are needed mainly due to the amount that have to be rescued due to them getting to big for the owners to handle. I have seen a few threads on here about the burms attacking the owners and coiling them (I am guessing Retics are the same).

The difference I see between the people who do own DWA sp and large constrictors are the DWA keepers are more prepared for what they are letting themselves in to, rather than someone just wanting a large snake as a "pet" after having royals corns etc and not thinking for the more long term and the "what if" factor which is incorperated in to the DWAL for someone to be able to obtain one.

The Whole DWA needs a huge shake up imo, there’s spiders that are not DWA which can kill just as quick as any venomous snake given the right circumstances 6 eye sand spider for example. And there’s things on the DWA like some of the scorpion sp which don’t have a venom as toxic as some of the rear fang snakes which are not on the list, to me it doesn’t make sense.

Before any one jumps on it these are my opinions and based on what i have read on here other forums and the internet, I have no interest in ever keeping any large or venomous snakes.


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

This thread is just aggravating my alcoholism!


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

Khaos said:


> I don't believe so, no. They can do damage but only in a small number of situations. You need a weaker person than the snake, who doesn't have the experience to deal with a violent/hungry/scared snake, who doesn't have anyone around to help and who lets it get to that point in the first place. A lot of things have to go wrong for a big constrictor to really hurt someone.
> 
> Whereas a hot snake can do a higher amount of damage, consistently, in every situation. All it takes is for one thing to go wrong and you're in hospital, on your arse, or worse...


The only people who talk crap like this are people who've never kept a giant constrictor and / or a venomous snake. You are so wrong it's not even amusing. For the record, I keep both venomous and giant currently. Weaker person than the snake? That'd be everyone then.
The topic of giant snakes and DWA is old, boring, and done to death. They are dangerous, they're not DWA listed. Deal with it, shut up, and go away.
I'm so sick of hearing how the DWAL schedule needs revising. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you want something that is on the license, get a license. Don't bitch about how the scheme needs updating. It's really, really boring. If you think something's dangerous and should be included but isn't, so what? Are you going to write to your MP and suggest changes? Are you going to stay quiet and accept that the license system isn't perfect but it's what we've got, and perhaps then learn why large snakes aren't covered? No! You're going to go on a forum and post pointless idiotic rhetoric that's been covered previously but can yet again give the anti's more ammo when they can and will read this.


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

terciopelo_dave said:


> The only people who talk crap like this are people who've never kept a giant constrictor and / or a venomous snake. You are so wrong it's not even amusing. For the record, I keep both venomous and giant currently. Weaker person than the snake? That'd be everyone then.
> The topic of giant snakes and DWA is old, boring, and done to death. They are dangerous, they're not DWA listed. Deal with it, shut up, and go away.
> I'm so sick of hearing how the DWAL schedule needs revising. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you want something that is on the license, get a license. Don't bitch about how the scheme needs updating. It's really, really boring. If you think something's dangerous and should be included but isn't, so what? Are you going to write to your MP and suggest changes? Are you going to stay quiet and accept that the license system isn't perfect but it's what we've got, and perhaps then learn why large snakes aren't covered? No! You're going to go on a forum and post pointless idiotic rhetoric that's been covered previously but can yet again give the anti's more ammo when they can and will read this.


So is that a yes or a no?

:whistling2:


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

bothrops said:


> So is that a yes or a no?
> 
> :whistling2:


Lol. Andy, that would be "we all know they're dangerous, lets leave it at that". Hope you're well mate.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

Although people can talk till the cows come home about what should be removed be there good reasons or not I feel talking about making new additions before the system itself overhauled seems madness.

If more species are added while many keepers are priced out of being able to comply or are living under LA's that try outright to not grant them then what are all these people to do? give up there beloved pets and/or sometimes large investments?, and if owners choose to follow mass disobedience were will the money and man power come from to bring to book all those that can't or won't comply?, in the case of large constrictors that's going to be a fair number of people and animals to deal with.

Just my 12.50 ZWD worth.


----------



## malky201 (Sep 16, 2006)

I put no, because I keep and enjoy keeping them, and I am careful


----------



## dunny1 (Feb 2, 2009)

there both as dangerous as each other. u cld hold a python it cld bite then constrict u. u cld hold a rattler and it cld bite and kill u. in my eyes no single 1 is more dangerous as they can both kill u.


----------



## cbreakenridge (Apr 27, 2009)

Undecided, but leaning more towards yes, because if someone were to get a really cute and cuddly retic baby, they arent going to think about how cute and cuddly when it gets as Steve_d's 21foot girl. 
Steve knows what hes doing, hes been constricted before and handles it perfectly well, not just anyone could do that.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

I said no. The inclusion of large boids has fairly recently been reviewed and was rejected because they were not deemed to be a threat to the _public_.


----------



## dunny1 (Feb 2, 2009)

ive seen headcases on the net handle rattlers and take no bites. ive seen the same with pythons on the otherhand though ive seen It all go wrong with both snakes to. now my rattler aint very toletarable she's a grumpy git. the reason I dont hold her and never will is because she's venomous its common sense. then u have large burms or retics 20 odd ft of sheer muscle would def kill u if it started constricting. remember a rattler can give a dry bit or a little venom. is that large burm or retic gonna give u a dry constrict or a little constrict?? however 1 the hots are dwa and the large constrictors arent both can kill just as easy. if I went to a shop to buy a cobra id be quized and would have to show my license etc. if I bought a burm or retic id hand over money and hey there ive got a killer. now I dont reckon they should b on dwa either. however there should b a little more inplace to stop just any1 getting them. the shop owner should get proof or something to know that the guy getting the snake knows what he's getting into. there should b a regulation to that they are kept as u would keep a dwa snake. not necessarily a big secure room but it should b in a well secured room. if the snake escapes then it should b taken away plain and simple. as they are capable of killing if ur going to keep them do it right. its common sense snakes are escape artists I even have my sand boa locked. anyway should they be dwa they already are but no license needed. should people b quized more before buying a snake like this yeah. it cldnt be a bad thing it may even cut down on the ammount of numptys who let them escape. or even still just plain dont know what theyre getting into. when it comes to hots u know what ur getting into. it should b 100% the same with these or anything that can kill u.


----------



## dunny1 (Feb 2, 2009)

ps. should be in a well secured viv. :lol2:


----------



## AZUK (Jul 9, 2007)

The mere notion that large Boids should require a DWAL is absurd. The practicalities and logistics would be a nightmare , Rescue centers would fill up, animals would be abandoned and thousands of animals would be keep illegally turning everyday folk into criminals.


----------



## DanielF (Oct 31, 2010)

No they shouldnt
It would ruin my hobby & many others who are serious about them two species of snake
I personally think most of the animals on the DWA shouldnt be on there, take Crocs & Gators for example monitors can do the same amount of damage & there not on there.


----------



## snakemum (May 7, 2011)

I don't believe so, no. They can do damage but only in a small number of situations. :whistling2:


----------



## callum b (Sep 8, 2008)

Instead of highlighting the potential danger large snakes pose why not post about how to house, care for and handle these snakes properly. IMO the idiots who end up with large boids get them because the media and people on places like here love to talk about how dangerous these snakes are. They get them for exactly the same reasons they own staffies or pitbulls etc. Because they are 'dangerous' so they will look 'ard' by owning one.
By writing about how good a pet they can make if handled and housed properly the mouth breathers that read it will get bored of the idea of keeping a burm or whatever as there will be no words like kill or aggressive in there and the people who genuinely have an interest in keeping large snakes will have good, relevant information on what to do.


----------



## Dean Wil (Apr 22, 2009)

The general opinion seems to be "no, but there should be more in place to regulate who gets these animals". Which is a fine idea, and somthing i didnt consider, and we know its possible still for somone that might not necsicarily be caipable of looking after the animal properly could still get hold of one, and it could end going bad.


----------



## Khaos (Jul 9, 2007)

terciopelo_dave said:


> The only people who talk crap like this are people who've never kept a giant constrictor and / or a venomous snake. You are so wrong it's not even amusing. For the record, I keep both venomous and giant currently. Weaker person than the snake? That'd be everyone then.


You're only addressing one of my points, and even then I think my point isn't 'crap'. Someone built like SteveD is going to be stronger or on a par with a snake that a five-foot girl isn't. There are snakes that wouldn't be dangerous to him that could to others.

And what about my other points? That for a constrictor to cause a lot of damage takes more things to go wrong than with a venemous snake?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Khaos said:


> That for a constrictor to cause a lot of damage takes more things to go wrong than with a venemous snake?


I don't know if I'd agree with that one personally, Khaos... in both cases, all it takes is for one _critical _thing to go the right kind of wrong (the worst kind of wrong?), and you've got a problem.


----------



## Razorscale (Feb 22, 2010)

I keep large constrictors and hots, i always have another person in the room while i have to do anything with them. If i have a big snake out, the other person(s) help me hold the animal, if im working with hots, the other person makes sure my way is clear if moving the animal, or handing me a second hook if the animal starts to climb etc.

I do feel safer working with the large constrictor's because a bite isnt the end of the world just pain and bleeding, id prefer my 12ft retic climbing me than my vipers climbing the hook . On the other hand if i get bitten by a hot, end of. 

Venomous snakes and crocs are on the list for a reason, and large snakes/monitors are not, as it has being said before "you are entitled to put yourself at risk, not the people around you". If a large snake/monitor gets out 99% of the time it would be a pet(being use to handling and people touching), crocs dont calm down for what ive seen, even with handling and noone with a good head on them would handle a venomous snake like others, so the animal would'nt be used too see people as "pets" do.

The DWA doesnt apply to me personally but this is what i feel, and i thought id throw in my two cents.


----------



## Khaos (Jul 9, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> I don't know if I'd agree with that one personally, Khaos... in both cases, all it takes is for one _critical _thing to go the right kind of wrong (the worst kind of wrong?), and you've got a problem.


True, but a constrictor can bite and latch on and, with technique or helpers, you can get it off. If a venomous snake bites you, you've been bitten, there's nothing you can do but get medical attention as soon as possible. There is no damage limitation with a venomous snake.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Khaos said:


> True, but a constrictor can bite and latch on and, with technique or helpers, you can get it off. If a venomous snake bites you, you've been bitten, there's nothing you can do but get medical attention as soon as possible. There is no damage limitation with a venomous snake.


Conversely, a medium-sized constrictor can - without biting - compress your carotid arteries and cut off blood flow to your brain. If you don't have experienced helpers, that can be fatal, quickly (reference the fellow who died last year in the USA while handling a pet boa - no bite, no "attack" and no intentional constriction, just an animal trying to climb to higher ground using its tail to anchor itself around the handler's neck) - the results of compression on the carotids are likely to be faster than the effects of many types of snake envenomation.

But again... a boa or a burm or a retic around the shoulders of its owner - no matter what potential it has there for its owner - still was not deemed to be a threat to the public. 

For the record: I don't really like ANY snake around my neck, of any size - and as snakes go, I don't think I'd say "large constrictor around my neck" is significantly _less _dangerous than "stepping on a rattlesnake". Neither is to be recommended.


----------



## southwest vipers (Jun 29, 2008)

A few years ago, my old aunt died when she tripped over her Chihuahua dog and banged her head. Does anyone think that we should include Chihuahuas' in the Dangerous Dogs act?


----------



## Khaos (Jul 9, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Conversely, a medium-sized constrictor can - without biting - compress your carotid arteries and cut off blood flow to your brain. If you don't have experienced helpers, that can be fatal, quickly (reference the fellow who died last year in the USA while handling a pet boa - no bite, no "attack" and no intentional constriction, just an animal trying to climb to higher ground using its tail to anchor itself around the handler's neck) - the results of compression on the carotids are likely to be faster than the effects of many types of snake envenomation.
> 
> But again... a boa or a burm or a retic around the shoulders of its owner - no matter what potential it has there for its owner - still was not deemed to be a threat to the public.
> 
> For the record: I don't really like ANY snake around my neck, of any size - and as snakes go, I don't think I'd say "large constrictor around my neck" is significantly _less _dangerous than "stepping on a rattlesnake". Neither is to be recommended.


Oh, definitely, there are situations where it can pretty much kill you, but they are much rarer with constrictors than venomous. I'm not saying that big constrictors aren't dangerous, just that they're not quite as dangerous as venomous snakes.


----------



## OrigamiB (Feb 19, 2008)

I don't think Large snakes should go to DWA. I think that public awareness just needs to be made better. 
I can only assume the ratio of large snakes sold to numpties compared to serious keepers has gone down seeing as alot of people these days are a lot more aware of these snakes and what they do and many pet shops now quiz people upon buying them. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Dogs can also deliver serious damage, potentially fatal. But public awareness and organisations you can report bad keepers/dogs to like the RSPCA and the police seems to be a system that works. We just need to let the public know what to look out for when it comes to good and bad keeping of large snakes, which is happening anyway with the popularity of reptiles rising.

I'm also quite shocked at the DWA keepers here :S This is a pretty healthy debate thread if you ask me and if you don't want to join the debate, why click it on the thread? You don't have to join every thread made in the DWA section. This may be an open forum where anyone can post, but why try and ruin the debate?


----------



## Jade01 (Feb 21, 2007)

How about people who own shops just act responsibly and not sell them to everyone and anyone......


----------



## lovespids (May 10, 2010)

southwest vipers said:


> A few years ago, my old aunt died when she tripped over her Chihuahua dog and banged her head. Does anyone think that we should include Chihuahuas' in the Dangerous Dogs act?


If you met Pogthekillerdog you would believe me!!
:lol2:


----------



## Dean Wil (Apr 22, 2009)

Jade01 said:


> How about people who own shops just act responsibly and not sell them to everyone and anyone......


I wish!! Id imagine shops do somtimes do that, but of course we have to remember a shop is a business, and they have to sell animals to make money, thats the point of them. My opinion is that care should be taken, but you have to look at it from both sides.


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

Khaos said:


> You're only addressing one of my points, and even then I think my point isn't 'crap'. Someone built like SteveD is going to be stronger or on a par with a snake that a five-foot girl isn't. There are snakes that wouldn't be dangerous to him that could to others.
> 
> And what about my other points? That for a constrictor to cause a lot of damage takes more things to go wrong than with a venemous snake?


To khaos: And you claim not to be talking crap!!!!!
Steve is a big guy, yes. But large constrictors have had roughly 100,000,000 years to perfect their art. **** sapiens have been around for about 100,000 years, don't kill prey by strength, and have got weaker. And you think a big guy might be "on par" with a large constrictor??? You are dangerously deluded. I honestly can't believe you just said that. The very notion that a human could possibly compare in strength to a retic is the most staggeringly stupid statement I have ever heard in my 31 years of life. Genuinely you should be ashamed of yourself. 
As regards bites, I've been bitten by a snouted cobra and a 19 foot retic. The snouted cobra bite inconvenienced me for 48 hours. I spent a night in hospital, had elevated white cell and cytokine counts, and myoglobin present in blood and urine. The retic bite to the chest took 3 weeks to stop hurting. It was by far the worse of the 2. 
To everyone: Large constricting snakes are incredibly dangerous. If you think otherwise you're clueless. Full stop. But they shouldn't be DWA listed. A burmese python is, in my opinion, the most dangerous snake you can keep. They're big, strong, dumb, give the illusion of being tame, and are invariably unpredictable. To the best of my knowledge they are the species that has killed more keepers than any other, in the usa at least. But worthy of a place on the DWAL? No. They are dangerous, but when did they last kill someone over here? They aren't wholesale killing the public or the keepers so including them on the list is pointless.
If they were to be legislated, as has been said, rescue centres would be overwhelmed, rates of euthanasia would rocket, and many keepers would simply go underground causing nationwide mass non-compliance. This in turn, if followed up, would need massive government expenditure to police. Therefore, since people aren't being killed or injured left, right, and centre, any legislation of large constrictors would offer a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and would certainly create additional problems. 
There is however a solution to this problem of what to do with giant snakes. It's a radical idea but one I think could work. It's not original because I suspect the majority of shop owners and breeders are using it already. It's called common sense. If you think someone's a dick, don't sell them a retic. Easy. I know not everyone's cottoned on to the idea yet, but if we all group together to protect our hobby, I think it could work.


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

Oh and 1 final thing. Can we please try to keep this forum within the realms of correct spelling and punctuation (Dunny, I'm talking to you)?
There, their, and they're are different. Learn them.
Dyslexia is not an excuse. Dyslexics can spell. They just have an issue with their brains that means they process information differently. If a dyslexic person doesn't know the spelling of a word they will spell it phonetically, if they do then the correct letters will be there but perhaps in the wrong order. This condition does not mean you are predisposed to the use of "txt spk" or that you type "there" when you mean "they're". If you do this you are thick, not dyslexic. Please try harder as I find reading these grammatical mine fields as difficult to negotiate as watching a Jeremy Kyle scum bag special.


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

OrigamiB said:


> I don't think Large snakes should go to DWA. I think that public awareness just needs to be made better.
> I can only assume the ratio of large snakes sold to numpties compared to serious keepers has gone down seeing as alot of people these days are a lot more aware of these snakes and what they do and many pet shops now quiz people upon buying them. (correct me if I'm wrong)
> 
> Dogs can also deliver serious damage, potentially fatal. But public awareness and organisations you can report bad keepers/dogs to like the RSPCA and the police seems to be a system that works. We just need to let the public know what to look out for when it comes to good and bad keeping of large snakes, which is happening anyway with the popularity of reptiles rising.
> ...


This isn't a healthy debate. Believe me. It's old, tired, pointless, and done to death. Search the forum. It's been covered previously. Again, and again, and again, and again, ad nauseum.
Oh, and in case you were in any danger of agreeing with me and thinking I'm an ok guy, allow me to upset you. You quote dogs as an example. The W in dWa means wild. Dogs aint wild. They're domesticated. Moot point.


----------



## OrigamiB (Feb 19, 2008)

terciopelo_dave said:


> This isn't a healthy debate. Believe me. It's old, tired, pointless, and done to death. Search the forum. It's been covered previously. Again, and again, and again, and again, ad nauseum.
> Oh, and in case you were in any danger of agreeing with me and thinking I'm an ok guy, allow me to upset you. You quote dogs as an example. The W in dWa means wild. Dogs aint wild. They're domesticated. Moot point.


It's called an analogy : victory:

analogy
–noun, plural -gies. 
1. 
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

The comparison in this case being the damage both types of animal can do.... eg, a bite/envenomation/constriction

And about it being a healthy debate, I already said you don't have to click and reply to every thread. Seeing as several people including moderators have all come onto this thread and posted opinions and good debate, why can't you or just go on another thread?


----------



## AZUK (Jul 9, 2007)

Jade01 said:


> How about people who own shops just act responsibly and not sell them to everyone and anyone......


with you on that one :no1:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

OrigamiB said:


> And about it being a healthy debate, I already said you don't have to click and reply to every thread. Seeing as several people including moderators have all come onto this thread and posted opinions and good debate, why can't you or just go on another thread?


I think it probably stems from a frustration about this question being asked *so* many times, and the reluctance of the askers (not just this one, but each successive asker) to use the search function to look up previous threads, responses and reasonings. It makes you rather feel as though your previous time spent answering the question (the last five times it was asked) was wasted.

I agree that "not selling snakes to people who can't cope with them" probably should be a common practice in shops and from private breeders, and yes, it would be nice to think that it would be as important as the financial bottom line. I would be upset if our local shop - or a friend - thought it would be appropriate to sell me a Burmese python if I asked them for one, JUST because I asked them for one, without asking me some hard questions about whether I can cope with owning a snake like that.


----------



## AZUK (Jul 9, 2007)

This topic has been done to Death (no pun intended) in the past, but as we have a continuing flow of new members topics will be raised again a fact we must all deal with I'm afraid.
I have already mentioned why I do not believe that a license would work and in fact could be very detrimental.
In my opinion there is far more risk involved with the large constrictors than with your Hots. Let me explain, as every Hot owner knows mistakes can be fatal and at the very least rather nasty, therefore they treat their captives with a greater deal of respect than your average Joe with a large Boa or Burm.
With constrictors people will take risks even if they are unaware they are doing so, very rarely do they abide by the protocols the same way as a Hot owner does when working with their charges.
Now I do make a generalization here and do understand that the vast majority of Forum members are the paragons of virtue but because of the widespread availability and popularity of the large constrictors these snakes often fall into the hands of people who have no common sense or respect for their animals.
Take The Essex Jungle as an example, there was a guy on there that proudly told the Nation he had been bitten by allsorts" _*from your Burms to **ya Boas"*_ now if he was a Hot owner he would be Dead.Full stop.


----------



## dunny1 (Feb 2, 2009)

dave two words for you but would get banned for using them. who are you calling thick? I said my peice then get s..t from you. you can bolt mate for everyone else I use my phone. hence why I use alot of txt speak its touch screen to so a pain in the butt to type on. so for the others I appologise but soon as I have a laptop it'll be easier. oh and 4u dave take ur attitude elsewhere aint got the time 4 folk like u.


----------



## dunny1 (Feb 2, 2009)

oh and dave if u dont wanna read what I say then dont. c im just doing it 2 p.ss u off now I can b childish just like my main man dave. u should go try the whole snouted cobra thing again dave it might work this time. as for everyone else sorry if ive annoyed you. I just hate guy's like that ive never said a single thing to him and he had a go. I never intended to argue with anyone on here. I just wanted to say my bit and this guy who's obviously annoyed about the size of his manhood or something had to start. so to all im soz to you dave please keep your s..t to yourself as I really aint on here to argue. were meant to be a reptile community and help and get along with each other. folk like you though obviously love having a go at folk. got no time for that s..t atall so take it elsewhere away from me.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

It's worth remembering "common sense" once in a while even though it's long since left the modern age.


----------



## Khaos (Jul 9, 2007)

terciopelo_dave said:


> To khaos: And you claim not to be talking crap!!!!!
> Steve is a big guy, yes. But large constrictors have had roughly 100,000,000 years to perfect their art. **** sapiens have been around for about 100,000 years, don't kill prey by strength, and have got weaker. And you think a big guy might be "on par" with a large constrictor??? You are dangerously deluded. I honestly can't believe you just said that. The very notion that a human could possibly compare in strength to a retic is the most staggeringly stupid statement I have ever heard in my 31 years of life. Genuinely you should be ashamed of yourself.


Steady on. I said that SOME people will be on a par with SOME constrictors. I do not for a moment suggest that a person could take on a full size reticulated python in a straight test of strength - feel free to re-read my posts and see this for yourself. 

And while we may have only been around for 100,000 years, we're a damn sight more intellligent than snakes. Not smarter, more intelligent. We can discuss and develop techniuqes and tools for dealing with situations, and creatures, far quicker than nature can. 

At no point have I attacked your or been as insulting as you have, I've kept polite and amiable. It wouldn't hurt for you to try doing the same.



terciopelo_dave said:


> Oh and 1 final thing. Can we please try to keep this forum within the realms of correct spelling and punctuation


That said, people in glass houses... for a man who uses three or more punctuation marks per sentence, this is a bit rich...


----------



## brian-andrews (May 20, 2011)

if they put burms n retics on the list surely large monitors n iggys should be on the list as a big water monitor lizard can do alot more damage then a 8ft python


----------



## StuG (Nov 4, 2009)

The only animal i think needs adding to the DWA list is the Kentucky fried chicken. Ive seen plenty of people in my area who have been regularly envenomated. The swelling is horrific and eventual heart attacks and often death are the end results.


I don't keep anything on the DWAL but i do keep large boids.
Personally i don't like any additions to restrictive legislation as i feel there is far too much in every aspect of lives as it is.
Retics and burms are undoubtedly potentially dangerous however it is very unlikely they would be a threat to the public. They are also undoubtedly more forgiving of bad practice than venomous snakes. 

I regularly see pictures of people with large boids round their necks or youtube video's of poor feeding practices yet the overwhelming majority of times the keeper gets away with it, on the other hand most of the stories i have heard of people being bitten by venomous snakes is through going about day to day husbandry. On their own neither point is really relevant as to whether they should be DWAL but if you consider the risk to the emergency services when attending on the victim then the venomous snake poses a far greater risk.

There are a lot of issue's regarding the safety of keeping large boids in private collections, sales of large boids, the welfare of the snakes themselves etc etc but putting them on the DWAL would address none of these at all but possibly make the situation alot worse imo.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

As a reminder, the DWA is there to protect the PUBLIC not the individual keeper. For this very reason, the giant constrictors have never, and will never, be listed under Schedule 1. Simply because it is inconceivable in the UK that a giant constrictor would be able to escape and then sneak up on someone and kill them.
All the remarks about how dangerous they are is all well and good, but the Act is not there to protect keepers.


----------



## David L (Jul 13, 2009)

I am sick to the teeth of seeing replies like this in Forums:

"We have already been over this countless times"
"This has been done to death"
"Use the search to look for previous postings and stop wasting our time"

Who the hell do you think you are? This is a 'FORUM' which means 'Public open place of discussion'... So what if a question has been asked before? If you have already read it once before, DON'T READ IT AGAIN! And stop complaining. The internet is not yours to determine what does or doesn't get asked, stop being such control freaks.


----------



## p3_arme (Nov 6, 2009)

Although I do not think they should on the DWA list, I would agree to licensing them.

Our Dwarf Burmese python Citrine, she is 9ft long, powerful and needs two people to look after her. One to handle, one to watch.

When our girl accidentally bit herself, it took both my husband and I (plus alcohol and a lot of begging/ pleading  to get her to let go. One person would not of been able to of saved her.

So no to DWA, but yes to a license, plus prove that there is at least 1 person for every 4ft of Snake.

That's my bit said.


----------



## Pirate7 (Apr 7, 2008)

I don't think they should be on DWA...


----------

