# Should monkeys be kept as pets?



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The BBC are doing a two part look at weather private primate keeping should be banned! Part was one was on BBC breakfast news this morning, the second part will be tomorrow. 

Here is a link to the first part:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17724743


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2012)

Chris Newman said:


> The BBC are doing a two part look at weather private primate keeping should be banned! Part was one was on BBC breakfast news this morning, the second part will be tomorrow.
> 
> Here is a link to the first part:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17724743


Whats your opinion on it Chris?


----------



## kris74 (May 10, 2011)

I wouldn't do it after looking at how these behave..


----------



## yugimon121 (Oct 4, 2009)

I understand that some people care for them properly, But there are so many bad keepers out there it may be best. Possibly a primate permit may be needed, an inspector would check out the enclosure etc.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I saw this this morning and to my mind it seemed surprisingly balanced.

I couldn`t understand the granny with the marmoset though.I thought that its a strange pet to buy for your grandson.The other thing that I couldn`t understand was the estimated number of private keepers being from two and a half to five thousand,is it really that many?


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

Private primate keepers have better breeding results with small primates than zoological collections.

An MP tabled a Bill under the '10 minute rule' to ban the keeping of primates - according to my MP it's likely to fail.

Interestingly the data quoted by the MP is grossly exaggerated - in other words, false. Question is, did she lie to The House of Commons, or did the RSPCA and friends lie to the MP who proposed the Bill?

The Charities, psuedo-charities and 'sanctuaries' behind the Bill and television programme hope to profit by obtaining confiscated (read free) primates that they can display for profit.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

i dont think banning is the way to go (after all it dosent work - look at dangerous dogs) but i would definitely support some form of licencing scheme similar to the DWA licence. there such highly complex animals, i feel that having to prove you can cater to its needs should be mandatory, and god knows enough of the threads on here on the subject show that some breeders and shops arnt doing that...

it dosent seem right that in this country there are strict regulations regarding the keeping of primates for laboratory testing, yet anyone can buy a pet one, keep it on its own in a parrot cage and feed it hot dogs.


----------



## red foot marg (Feb 19, 2008)

keeping them in family group's is one thing but keeping them as pet's should be banned , just aload of selfish people thinking about what they want instead of what's best for the animal.
100% ban from me !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Jaggers said:


> Whats your opinion on it Chris?


In terms of a ban on private ownership I would be fundamentally opposed, just as I would be opposed to a ban on reptiles, birds or any other taxa. I support responsible keeping of animals. In terms of what do I think of the programme, well let’s see what tomorrow brings. I did a very long interview and asked some very important, and very difficult questions about those who are proposing this ban, lets see how much they used and what they show before I comment further!


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2012)

Chris Newman said:


> In terms of a ban on private ownership I would be fundamentally opposed, just as I would be opposed to a ban on reptiles, birds or any other taxa. I support responsible keeping of animals. In terms of what do I think of the programme, well let’s see what tomorrow brings. I did a very long interview and asked some very important, and very difficult questions about those who are proposing this ban, lets see how much they used and what they show before I comment further!


 
After all it is our right to keep these animals if we want to but on the flip side of the coin, a lot of poor keepers out there so a level of permit or licence may not be a bad thing?


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Tried and tested.
There will never be a ban on private keeping.

Should be a ban on pet trade selling...

Same old sxxt diffrrent day....

A10 breeding programmes etc...

Stop the cages and selling to numpties.
There not pets and never will be


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Rather than crusades why dont they track down the people 
Selling solo and babies...

Or like i keep saying licence selling..

But the black market...

You never hear or see the good guys...

Banning will never happen.
Tried often...

Think theres half a dozen posts on here alone...

Not all are the same in morals and ethics.
Should be though.


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Rather than crusades why dont they track down the people
> Selling solo and babies...
> 
> Or like i keep saying licence selling..
> ...


Im not a primate keeper, though I know of a few, If they just made it illegal to sell single ones, half the problem would be solved but I'm kinda liking the licence way, but UNLIKE DWAL which is not uniform for all, it could be a "PAL" primate animal licence and LIKE DWAL *should be*, its the same for all people and a fixed fee (not high) so that people will use it rather than go down the black market route.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Here is a link to the RSPCA report which is behind this move to ban private ownership of primates:

*http://www.politicalanimal.org.uk/RSPCA/Primates%20brief%20eng.pdf*

Monkey business is a very apt title, this is I would suggest primarily about the RSPCA perusing their Animal Rights agenda, and making a fast buck in the process along with the other campaigning bodies, Wild Future, Monkey World – all make money out of primates, This really is monkey business, and what a huge multy million pound business it is! 

It is also important to understand that this is not about banning primates as ‘pets’ this is about banning private ownership of primates, there is a huge difference. The keeping of primates as pets is already effectively banned under the Animal Welfare Act and the Code of Practice. This is all about private ownership full stop, “it will never happen” – really? 

The driver behind this is all about Animal Rights and nothing to do with Animal Welfare, this is chipping away at the periphery of animal keeping, ban primates today what next reptiles, birds…....


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Wild future
Monkey world

Privately owned.
They are the same as us

I work with sspca.

They send resues here as you know.

I can rehome to suitable keepers.

Its been tried before but too many were fighting to close themseves.

Wont happen in our life time.

But i for one would back them in banning in the pet trade.


----------



## Junior13reptilez (Oct 17, 2010)

As with alot of other 'specialist' animals, even if there is a licence implemented for the keeping of them alot of the people who hand out these licences have no clue as to what they are on about...


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

Interesting list of participants quoted by Chris Newman.

If my information is correct, one of the 'companies' named was set up, 'stealing' the name of respected organisation (originally set up by the father of John Williams, the classical guitarist), by a person accused of fraud in another country. In addition, it seems that the original 'operating capital' was supplied by a Research company which paid a lot of money for them to maintain primates used for research! An estimated 1/3 of the Macaques were killed by the 'rescue' organisation - despite the small fortune paid to them for maintaining the animals. Said 'rescue' organisation is now a very profitable company courtesy of the gullible public! 

Many of the Charities, pseudo-charities and so-called 'sanctuaries' challenging the keeping of primates by private individuals are interested in one thing only - MONEY! Welfare of the animals is secondary!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Wild future
> Monkey world
> 
> Privately owned.
> ...


The SSPCA and the RSPCA are entirely separate organisations with I would suggest different agendas, the prime motivator for the SSPCA is animal welfare, not so with the RSPCA they are driven by an Animal Rights agenda. I have enormous respect for the SSPCA and the work they do, this does not mean I always agree with them but they hold my respect, sadly I cannot say the same for the RSPCA.

There is a subtle difference between Wild Futures, Monkey World and the average private keeper, and you are right they are just private keepers, but they are private keepers who exploit the animals they keep for financial gain, and in my mind that is a very big difference! 

Of course if any such ban should happen it would not apply to them, they are different, special – it ok for them to keep primates but not others!!!!!!


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Jim Cronin tried..

He was asked who owned MW he said him etc etc..

Was told to all it wouldnt happen.

They wouldnt know where to start


----------



## Ron Magpie (Oct 11, 2009)

Jaggers said:


> After all it is our right to keep these animals if we want to but on the flip side of the coin, a lot of poor keepers out there so a level of permit or licence may not be a bad thing?


It is not our 'right' to keep anything; it is our privilage, though, if we keep them right.


----------



## spinnin_tom (Apr 20, 2011)

the woman says she should be left to enjoy the wild. they don't enjoy wild life, they survive

i think if people like kids pester to get them, then what do you expect?


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

I think that primates are too easily available and shouldn't be allowed to be sold in petshops, if I had wanted a monkey when I was a kid I still would have been under the assumption that 'only zoos have monkeys', that kid must have seen them in a pet shop.

If she knows her husbandry is poor and is_ for_ banning primate keeping, then why isn't she doing anything to impove it's quality of life?? :hmm:

Also, Capuchins are DWA aren't they? so shouldn't have been as easily aquired as the marms, in that case I blame the council if they allowed that enclosure and quality of care.

It would be a shame if it completely got banned just because of some people, that one woman seemed to keep hers very well, and kept them as monkeys rather than 'pets'. 

I also don't understand why, exotic animals get such pressure when dogs, cats, rabbits etc. are also kept in horrific conditions, they'd never ban them. I know primates are more 'intelligent', but I don't think it's right to keep any animal in inadequate situations. I'm sure my dog would go crazy if I kept it in a cage 24/7 too. 

Banning animals really isn't the way forward, I think maybe stricter sales regulations and pushing knowledge, like the people who go into schools etc. I think I think it's important in this age where exotics are becoming more popular. (But they'd need to not just show them as cuddly and tame but say how complicated they were to care for too)


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Ron Magpie said:


> It is not our 'right' to keep anything; it is our privilage, though, if we keep them right.


Couldnt agree more, i know this is a little off topic but quite frankly im getting tired of the 'i have the right to own what i want because i want it' attitude by some keepers, regardless of how this would impact the individual animal and the species population as a whole.

We have no right what so ever to remove animals from the wild, breed them and sell them on to 'pet owners' who lack the ability to provide them with the proper basic care. Specialty animals such as primates should never fall into the hands of the average pet owner...they just require too much stimulation etc to be classed as suitable.

I am honored to be able to share my life with the animals i have however if it was in their best interest i would gladly return them to the wild.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

Well, its clear to see that the woman who bought her son the lone, what looks to be hybrid, Marmoset bought it from a money-maker, not a true primate keeper. And we all know that she hasn't kept it correctly. It is this scenario that we must end. The woman who had Squirrel Monkeys, White-Faced Capuchins, etc is the scenario we should commend & encourage, & use as an example to those who think it would be cool to have a pet monkey.

BTW, Peter, did you get a PM from someone wanting to interview you for his journalism study?


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Wasnt hybrid Colin.
PENCILLATTA.
Yes got msg but on other forum.

Not interested though...

No time anyway.
Busy time.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Wasnt hybrid Colin.
> PENCILLATTA.
> Yes got msg but on other forum.
> 
> ...


Ah, I first thought Black-Eared, but thought twice.

Im not interested in taking part either Peter, I just suspected that you would also have recieved the same PM as me. : victory:


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

Watched second part this morning on bbc,showed old footage of capuchins rescued by monkey world.From what i can tell these are main influence behind the primate ban being wanted,and yet most of their small primates were rescued from labs,have they got a campaign to stop primates in labs?
Also the black and white ruffed lemur that nearly killed her husband was just unfortunate where he got bit.Also the fact she has had the lemurs for 9 years and is now unsure if to keep or not seems very strange indeed.
All the old footage of capuchins rescued ,these people broke the law by having no dwa,so these same people would break the law if primates were banned-so nothing gained there.
Parrots i believe are intelligent and live naturally in flocks,many show signs of stress and stereotypical behaviour,but they are still sold by the thousands to live their lives in parrot cages.
I think the rspca only go for high profile subjects,most of the general public will not know anyone who keeps primates and on being shown the old capuchin footage would staight away agree on a ban.


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

Peter Robertson

You commented :-
"Wild future
Monkey world

Privately owned.
They are the same as us"

Peter, Wild Future (ex-Woolly Monkey Sanctuary, ex- Monkey World) is a 'charity', Monkey World Limited is a money making company - same as us, they aren't!

You come across as very knowledgable within the field of small primates, you don't beg for money - in other words you are a genuine keeper and breeder of primates - which puts you in a totally different world from the con merchants such as Wild Future & Monkey World Limited!

On a slightly different note, 'Young' Newman came across very well this morning on BBC1. The footage of 'rescues' looked very, very old - but then we expect the antis to delve into the archives and expect us to believe it happened yesterday!

If the figures quoted on the programme were correct - 90% of DWA's beneath the radar - then every street in UK would have an illegal primate in residence! The reality is that there are very few illegally held primates - but the RSPCA invariably produce inaccurate data and MP's and others believe the lies. If the RSPCA wish to quote figures to back uop their campaigns - prove them!


----------



## Disillusioned (Jan 3, 2012)

Is there a link to the 2nd part?
Watched the first one yesterday but didn't catch todays....

Although there is no license needed to keep some monkeys, there is still an animal welfare act that should be followed eg. An animals need to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. This would surely include being with others of it's own kind?
If people, such as that lady yesterday, are then found to be keeping a primate on it's own, then they should have their animal removed and housed with someone who can follow these basic welfare needs more strictly.

Denying such a sociable animal the company of it's own kind is mental torture and should be taken more seriously in my opinion.
People like that lady are just spoiling it for the devoted keepers who really do have the animals best interests at heart.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

duffey said:


> Peter Robertson
> 
> You commented :-
> "Wild future
> ...


When i say the same as us.

I meant they are private keepers which is irelevant to being a charity or other.

Was at a meeting a good few years ago for exactly the same campaign.

Jim Cronnin was alive and was heading the campaign.

He was shot down(not mentioning any names) and told he was pushing to abolish himself as he owned the parks.

As far as being a rescue centre i could tell you a few stories that not much are aware of about them...

Rescue should be what it says and not involving any form of payment from the previous owner.

Not gripping but i know for a fact that its true.

Three chimps were rescued from an owner who couldnt care for them.

They went to another as the owner had no money.

But dont want to get too political as it could lead to trouble..

These places are in the limelight especially on tv.
All looks really good but if the general public were aware of what went on behind the scenes i think they would see it different...

In our circle there are all sorts and we do tend to find out whats going on..

All the stumpys that went there came from a guy that we know well.

Very good in his studies of marmies.

One of the most knowledgeable guys i know.

Pioneered in wasting disease amoungst other things..

Through his no how one of my geoffs survived for a very long time.

He advised the treatment--and it worked....

As you say its old soap and archive footage...

Im comfortable that it will never happen in my life time.....


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Disillusioned said:


> Is there a link to the 2nd part?
> Watched the first one yesterday but didn't catch todays....
> 
> Although there is no license needed to keep some monkeys, there is still an animal welfare act that should be followed eg. An animals need to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. This would surely include being with others of it's own kind?
> ...


Dissagree (spellings not my fortay)

Should be the breeders letting them go single etc that should be in trouble


----------



## Disillusioned (Jan 3, 2012)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Dissagree (spellings not my fortay)
> 
> Should be the breeders letting them go single etc that should be in trouble


My spellings and grammer is bad too lol

I agree that the breeders should not be able to sell them to live alone and should definitely take the responsibility but a responsible owner who has done their research wouldn't want to house one alone anyway.
Even if there was a new law to say they couldn't be sold on their own there are still thousands that are already alone so would continue to be so?
It should just be that they can't be sold or kept alone.

Doesn't help that so many bad breeders are out to make a quick buck and give out such bad information. Makes people think that they are cuddly pets that don't need a friend as long as they are handled daily!


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

The government would no way have the resources to enforce such laws. Either they bring it in and it is rarely enforced, or it is haphazard like dwa, or they won't bother because they know they wwould have to spend a hell of a lot of money doing so!
Personally I agree that monkeys kept in inappropriate situations (alone, small enclosures, lack of stimulation/enrichment etc) should be the targets of these laws but let's face it, to be implemented properly they would need a team of KNOWLEDGEABLE individuals (where will they find them- arent they all too busy looking after their own properly??) doing inspections, searching through classifieds, chasing leads etc etc etc , not to mention they'd also need some sort of public awareness campaign so the 'thousands' of bad keepers actually get reported in the first place. And where are all these seized primates going to go? Will the g'ment also purpose build sanctuaries (staffed by experts) too? I think not and if there truly are thousands out there to be rescued, theres not enough room in existing zoos, er sorry, sanctuaries for them all!
I sincerely hope they don't bother because I highly doubt any of the above will be done, especially not in the current financial climate.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Is this the thin edge of the wedge?Primate keepers are a small community compared to other exotic pet keepers? Primates appeal to the general public so its easier to get them onside.

If this is sustaned will "they " go for exotic birds,reptiles and insects next?


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

colinm said:


> Is this the thin edge of the wedge?Primate keepers are a small community compared to other exotic pet keepers? Primates appeal to the general public so its easier to get them onside.
> 
> If this is sustaned will "they " go for exotic birds,reptiles and insects next?


I 100% think if they get anywere with primates there then go for other animals, hence why they should not get a ban, could look at it another way if they ban everything the RSBCA dislike the RSPCA wouldn't be here, I personly thing someone should ban the RSPCA how many healthy animals do they put down each day?????????? if the public new the answer to this they 100% would not keep donating money to them, unlike others who care for ALL the healthy animals nomatter what: victory:


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

not only do they put healthy animals down but they also use bolt guns to the head and leave them to die, because it's cheaper than lethal injections :bash:That kind of treatment isn't _even_ allowed on farms. 

I find it rediculous that they 'blame the law' when actually, ill-treating animals is illegal anyway, so if they decided to, they could confiscate the ones that were kept badly without changing the law. Keeping animals in such small enclosures and feeding them the wrong diet and not allowing sunshine so their bones don't form etc. that's already illegal... as it's cruel! There is no reason to change the law, and how would they enforce it? just change the law and hope everyone hands over their primates when they already estimate that 2000 or whatever have them, and no one knows who they are. 

And the people who push the line 'they belong in the wild' (even though they were captive born,) aren't they then just going to be pushing people into releasing them into the wild?

Haven't seen part 2 yet, see if I can find it online.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

philipniceguy said:


> I 100% think if they get anywere with primates there then go for other animals, hence why they should not get a ban, could look at it another way if they ban everything the RSBCA dislike the RSPCA wouldn't be here, I personly thing someone should ban the RSPCA how many healthy animals do they put down each day?????????? if the public new the answer to this they 100% would not keep donating money to them, unlike others who care for ALL the healthy animals nomatter what: victory:


Oh-er can of worms :lol2:
I won't tell you what I think of them.. but to be fair they do do some good work. I personally support the pdsa if I want to donate my hard earned cash..


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

em_40 said:


> I find it rediculous that they 'blame the law' when actually, ill-treating animals is illegal anyway, so if they decided to, they could confiscate the ones that were kept badly without changing the law. Keeping animals in such small enclosures and feeding them the wrong diet and not allowing sunshine so their bones don't form etc. that's already illegal... as it's cruel! There is no reason to change the law, and how would they enforce it? just change the law and hope everyone hands over their primates when they already estimate that 2000 or whatever have them, and no one knows who they are.


Good point, couldn't agree more..so lets see the current 'anti-cruelty' laws implemented to the full before we consider introducing more!


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

They estimate that of the DWA animals kept that 85 -95% of people don't have a license :gasp::gasp::gasp:

Well they sound like people who would care about a change of law then :whistling2:


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

em_40 said:


> They estimate that of the DWA animals kept that 85 -95% of people don't have a license :gasp::gasp::gasp:
> 
> Well they sound like people who would care about a change of law then :whistling2:


That can't be right surely! I don't think I've EVER seen an ad (in this country) that doesn't mention dwa where it applies..is there really that many irresponsible sellers out there who don't check where the animals are going?!


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2012)

Ron Magpie said:


> It is not our 'right' to keep anything; it is our privilage, though, if we keep them right.


In the current way things are done it is our right, if a licence or permit scheme came in then it would be a privilage. Maybe I didnt word or explain what I was thinking right


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

5plusmany said:


> That can't be right surely! I don't think I've EVER seen an ad (in this country) that doesn't mention dwa where it applies..is there really that many irresponsible sellers out there who don't check where the animals are going?!


I don't think that's true either, certainly not with things bred in this country, I imagine there are some DWA snakes and inverts etc. brought back from Hamm without licensing, but never enough to bring it up to 95%, that's a rediculous amount of illegally kept animals.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

To be honest they have probably just pulled the figures about DWA out of thin air.

We were asked to go on the program and refused. She asked how we kept ours and explained in large enclosures, social groups etc.

They then went on to ask the following questions

Did I know anyone keeping DWA species without a licence ?, 

Did I know anyone selling DWA species to people without a licence ?, 

Do I know anyone who would sell a primate to live in a cage in the front room ?. 

Needless to say my reply was rather short and to the point. 

I think we have a problem in the Uk with the authorities not been able to differentiate between the '' pet '' keeper and the '' primate keeper ''. As usual i suspect if legislation comes in it will involve everyone and punish the concencious keeper too.

Neil


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

em_40 said:


> not only do they put healthy animals down but they also use bolt guns to the head and leave them to die, because it's cheaper than lethal injections :bash:That kind of treatment isn't _even_ allowed on farms. .


would love to know which animals? with all my time with them i have never seen a bolt gun used on any animal and then 'left to die'
Can assure you they are used to dispatch livestock. There is no way euthanasia drugs would be allowed to enter the food chain.


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

Drayvan,

Presume you did not see photos in the press where the RSPCA used a boltgun on deer.

It was also well publicised in the press when the RSPCA (aka Animal Gestapo) used boltguns to kill a number of German Shepherds!

To quote Tim Wass - ex-head of RSPCA Inspectorate - the RSPCA don't euthanise animals, they kill them!


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Dont think RSPCA should have any input..

Put marmies to a place calling itself a rescue centre...

Another member went on there website and saw youngsters for sale.

With a cage etc...

Too late as dead was done....

Still there for all to see.

Google rescue centre and look at for sale...

Seperate place or double standards....

As far as dwa goes...

Who knows who has what.?

As said before we had to apply for a10 permition.

Vetted and inspected before they could come...

Ive no fear of ours going anywhare....

Maybe RSPCA will do for there area...

Unlike it usually is with all else...

Trial run everywhrre else.....

Old news
Old delemmas...
Same old archive footage....


----------



## jona (Jan 1, 2009)

I've always thought they should'nt be kept as pets.But if you have the space/time/money/expertise & kept within a group like the 2nd woman interviewd called Dawn then it maybe ok.Alot of people buy these wild animals because they have seen them in comady movies featured with capuchin & marmoset monkeys e.g The hangover & freinds & think "WOW, I want one".........It :censor: me off...


Butttttttt........



Then on the other hand I hate the goverment telling us what we can & can't do so :censor: them too!!!!!!!!!!!.


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

jona said:


> I've always thought they should'nt be kept as pets.But if you have the space/time/money/expertise & kept within a group like the 2nd woman interviewd called Dawn then it maybe ok.Alot of people buy these wild animals because they have seen them in comady movies featured with capuchin & marmoset monkeys e.g The hangover & freinds & think "WOW, I want one".........It :censor: me off...
> 
> 
> Butttttttt........
> ...


Dont hold back..say it how it is...lol


----------



## Junior13reptilez (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm intrigued as to where the figures that 85-95% of DWA animals are being kept illegally came from, I doubt the people keeping them illegally openly admitt to it... Something needs to be done about animal welfare in general, bans won't help anything.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

5plusmany said:


> That can't be right surely! I don't think I've EVER seen an ad (in this country) that doesn't mention dwa where it applies..is there really that many irresponsible sellers out there who don't check where the animals are going?!


Don't be so sure....I've known many people over the years keeping DWA animals illegally. It's not hard to get a capuchin monkey at all! I could get one tomorrow if I wanted to. Just because all the ads on here say "must have DWA", doesn't mean to say that applies to the population as a whole. 

This may come as a shock to many on here, but the world does not begin and end with RFUK and internet forums.


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Drayvan said:


> would love to know which animals? with all my time with them i have never seen a bolt gun used on any animal and then 'left to die'
> Can assure you they are used to dispatch livestock. There is no way euthanasia drugs would be allowed to enter the food chain.


Bolt guns are used to stun not kill livestock.



mrcriss said:


> Don't be so sure....I've known many people over the years keeping DWA animals illegally. It's not hard to get a capuchin monkey at all! I could get one tomorrow if I wanted to. Just because all the ads on here say "must have DWA", doesn't mean to say that applies to the population as a whole.
> 
> This may come as a shock to many on here, but the world does not begin and end with RFUK and internet forums.


Equally just because_ you_ know how to get hold of DWAs without a license it doesn't mean the population as a whole does. 85% to 95% is a whole load of people... I reckon most have a license, you just know some dodgey people XD 
Also if you were very well trusted and respected as a keeper people might sell you animals on the basis that they think you are responsiblee enough. Again, not the population as a whole... 

They must have just plucked the figures out of nowhere.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Junior13reptilez said:


> I'm intrigued as to where the figures that 85-95% of DWA animals are being kept illegally came from, I doubt the people keeping them illegally openly admitt to it... Something needs to be done about animal welfare in general, bans won't help anything.


The figure of 95% noncompliance with the DWAA in terms of primates is entirely disingenuous, in the original review of the DWAA back in 2001 Defra conceded that in general noncompliance with the DWAA _could_ be as high as 95%, however, this related to all DWAA species and not just primate. This figure was drawn from looking at the number of DWAA reptiles imported into the UK compared to the number of animals held on licences, it’s a very rough figure and clearly did not apply to primates. Whilst I have no doubts there are some primates kept without a DWAA the numbers will be very low, especially as *tamarins* have been removed.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Im well aware of exactly what a bolt gun is used for thankyou Em40....iv been trained to use one :whistling2: Yes they are used to put deer to sleep, you cant expect drugs to be carried around in an RSPCA van do you? Not exactly health and safety... and i dont need to see media propaganda thankyou iv WORKED there...i KNOW what goes on, I also dont believe everything i read and can see the bigger picture, what was done was done with the animals welfare as top priority : victory: 

But yeh, iv been there and looked into animals eyes as they die....but what would i know, iv clearly not read enough in the papers :2thumb:


----------



## ferretman (May 11, 2008)

I havent read the previous posts but my thoughts on it are as follows.

I can only dream of keeping marmmies etc i dont think i could ever meet their demands for the long term. They shouldnt be advertiesed for the domestic enviroment and i think to many people see programmes manily from america were monkeys are in nappies etc. I think the breeders who are selling primates to the domestic enviroment are doing it for the price tag. On the other hand private keepers who can provide large enclosures the right diet ect if absolutely fine i have no problem with anyone who wants to keep anything be it a stick insect to a elephant aslong as you can provide the propper care then so be it. But most intellegent animals such as parrots, skunks etc are also neglected in their mental needs aswell banning the animals will only make their price higher.

Thats my thoughts anyway.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

em_40 said:


> I reckon most have a license, you just know some dodgey people XD
> 
> 
> They must have just plucked the figures out of nowhere.


Although I appreciate (or at least hope) that this comment was a silly joke, I'd like to assure you that I don't hang around dodgy people, thank you. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but it _really isn't that hard_ to get DWA animals without the necessary paperwork........_NOR_ for that matter, is it particularly hard even to get a DWA License! 

Consider all the pet capuchins that you see on supposed comedy items on animal shows....they're kept in parrot cages or wardrobes and fed curry and lollipops for the audience to laugh at and coo over. Do you honestly think those owners managed to score a license? And they put those on TV!!!

And that's not to mention all the illegally kept DWA reptiles etc. There's a guy up here in the north west (a complete arse), that has a caiman without a license. I know of another fellow that has a number of illegal DWA scorpions.

The DWAL doesn't work.....'nuff said. So how could you really make another license (that everyone seems to be suggesting here) that's just for monkeys work? Piling legislation on top of more legislation never really has the desired effect. 

Earlier in this thread, someone said that an outright ban wouldn't stop the black market trade in primates. It would certainly slow it down a hell of a lot! Purely because you wouldn't be able to get veterinary treatment for your illegal primates anymore.

For the record, I'm not in favour of a ban....but as I'm not quite so blinkered as some on this subject, I can see _and understand_ the thinking behind such a ban. It's certainly a thorny issue that is not going to come to a happy solution.


----------



## sharpstrain (May 24, 2008)

I can also confirm that unscrupulous people will sell dwa animals without a licence - I know this because I was offered a wdb and when I said I would love one but dont have a licence, the person responded we wont let that get in our way

I didnt and wouldnt get an animal without the appropriate paperwork, however I could have if I wanted and I wasnt even trying


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Of course there are unscrupulous people out there who will buy and sell not within the law. Just don't think its very ethical for the bbc to use figures that they have no way of proving.
At the end of the day if more was being done, working within the current system, to improve animal welfare across the board, so many fewer animals would be kept in innapropriate conditions. Not just primates, its a jungle out there y' know!
The organisations/individuals pushing this ban on primate keeping, I strongly suspect, have ulterior motives, but what they SHOULD be doing is supporting the good keepers and tracking down the bad.


----------



## xx-SAVANNAH-xx (Jan 9, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> The BBC are doing a two part look at weather private primate keeping should be banned! Part was one was on BBC breakfast news this morning, the second part will be tomorrow.
> 
> Here is a link to the first part:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17724743


No private keeping of animals should be banned if someone is capable of giving it what it needs.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

5plusmany said:


> Of course there are unscrupulous people out there who will buy and sell not within the law. Just don't think its very ethical for the bbc to use figures that they have no way of proving.
> At the end of the day if more was being done, working within the current system, to improve animal welfare across the board, so many fewer animals would be kept in innapropriate conditions. Not just primates, its a jungle out there y' know!
> The organisations/individuals pushing this ban on primate keeping, I strongly suspect, have ulterior motives, but what they SHOULD be doing is supporting the good keepers and tracking down the bad.


Not starting a fight here (can't be arsed), but just out of interest......what kind of "support" would you like to see being given to good primate keepers? And how exactly would you go about tracking down the bad? You can hardly go door to door. 

All of that sounds like it would cast a lot of money to do.....from the perspective of the (albeit blinded) powers that be, a ban would be easier to implement.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

How would a ban be easier ,people would just hide there primates ,people with primates in nice enclosures outside will just take them indoors to hide them ,as you say what will they do go door to door looking for primate keepers ,so no it wont make things easier ,nothing will make things easier


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

xx-SAVANNAH-xx said:


> No private keeping of animals should be banned if someone is capable of giving it what it needs.


Well, I do disagree with that.....there has to be limits. Polar bears, for one, shouldn't ever be kept in captivity. Not a fan of orcas being held captive either. 

Also (to go off on a tangent for a bit) consider the very rare.....there are people keeping a single individual of highly endangered species with NO intention of breeding (kind of sick really!). It's my belief that the keepers have a responsibility to breed these animals, or give them away to someone that will!


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

mrcriss said:


> Not starting a fight here (can't be arsed), but just out of interest......what kind of "support" would you like to see being given to good primate keepers? And how exactly would you go about tracking down the bad? You can hardly go door to door.
> 
> All of that sounds like it would cast a lot of money to do.....from the perspective of the (albeit blinded) powers that be, a ban would be easier to implement.


I meant support in terms of a bit of good press and not tarring everyone with the same brush. And if you read my earlier post about what the gov. would need to do to properly implement a ban, thats basically what I think they should be doing now.
And yes it would cost a lot of money which is probably why the 'system' is pretty rubbish:lol2:


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

animalsbeebee said:


> How would a ban be easier ,people would just hide there primates ,people with primates in nice enclosures outside will just take them indoors to hide them ,as you say what will they do go door to door looking for primate keepers ,so no it wont make things easier ,nothing will make things easier



I really don't want to argue over this, got better things to do today and need to stop procrastinating. 

As I've already said, a ban would make it impossible (or harder) to get vet treatment. Sad, but true.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

sharpstrain said:


> I can also confirm that unscrupulous people will sell dwa animals without a licence - I know this because I was offered a wdb and when I said I would love one but dont have a licence, the person responded we wont let that get in our way
> 
> I didnt and wouldnt get an animal without the appropriate paperwork, however I could have if I wanted and I wasnt even trying


Under current legislation there is no requirement for a vendor to ask to see a prospective purchasers licence, no offence is committed by buying a species scheduled on the DWAA. The offence is ‘keeping’ without a licence, which is entirely different.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> Under current legislation there is no requirement for a vendor to ask to see a prospective purchasers licence, no offence is committed by buying a species scheduled on the DWAA. The offence is ‘keeping’ without a licence, which is entirely different.


There lies problem number one...


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

mrcriss said:


> Although I appreciate (or at least hope) that this comment was a silly joke,It was I'd like to assure you that I don't hang around dodgy people, thank you OK. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, It is a nice bubble but it _really isn't that hard_ to get DWA animals without the necessary paperwork easy to get reps and inverts, and suprisingly it's quarentine laws that make it harder to get mammals rather than the DWA........_NOR_ for that matter, is it particularly hard even to get a DWA License! Agree, easy enough to get a license
> 
> Consider all the pet capuchins that you see on supposed comedy items on animal shows....they're kept in parrot cages or wardrobes and fed curry and lollipops for the audience to laugh at and coo over. Do you honestly think those owners managed to score a license? And they put those on TV!!!
> 
> ...





Chris Newman said:


> Under current legislation there is no requirement for a vendor to ask to see a prospective purchasers licence, no offence is committed by buying a species scheduled on the DWAA. The offence is ‘keeping’ without a licence, which is entirely different.


Perhaps this is the part of the DWA legfislation they should consider changing, aswell as the rules and regulations being the same across the board as that seems to get to a lot of responsible keepers who want to do things properly.


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> consider the very rare.....there are people keeping a single individual of highly endangered species with NO intention of breeding (kind of sick really!). It's my belief that the keepers have a responsibility to breed these animals, or give them away to someone that will!


The problem with this statment is Zoos are the worst for this:bash:, and many just kill them off (fact) as another zoo/s does not want the babies on the rare times they have any in zoos that is. Private keepers (good ones) have way more luck at breeder rarer animals and finding perfect homes for them the problem is when they have a rare animal zoos willn't trade/lend or what ever to a private keeper who could bring the rare animals numbers up. I can think of at least 5 keepers of very rare mammals on here who have tried for years to swap/trade with zoos in order to breed but always zoos would say no and allow the species to die out:bash::bash::bash:, and before anyone starts but the private keeper will be in it for the money, take a little step back and think they fund all the enclosures,food,vet bills so on by themselfs, were as a zoo makes all it's money from people coming to see the rare animals and therefor pay nothing out of there own pockets, zoos are in it for the money not the animals and thats wrong:bash:,


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Under current legislation there is no requirement for a vendor to ask to see a prospective purchasers licence, no offence is committed by buying a species scheduled on the DWAA. The offence is ‘keeping’ without a licence, which is entirely different.


I beg to differ and i quote from the petshop license legislation.

14.3 Licensees selling animals on the Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act must
inspect the purchaser’s DWA licence or zoo licence to keep such an animal and inform
the issuing authority of the details of the purchase.

Heres the link if anyone wants to check for themselves. 
http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk/documen...010_final_version_conditions_to_be_issued.pdf

Obviously this however doesn't cover private breeders and Mr. Newmans statement still stands for those nor is anything said of an offence of buying....just selling and keeping.


----------



## sam gamgee (Apr 8, 2009)

Yes but the private breeder who is making money from what he\she sells on, even to a good home, is perhaps as bad as the zoo.

Why? He/she is surely keeping the animals for himself, not to show the spp off, as in a Zoo. So, the keeper understands the cost of `keeping` before he/she starts out along that particular road, yeah? Therefore is also doing it for profit?

There are a fair few out there making, one way or another, a little fortune from thier creatures and that is thier business, fair enough but lets not make out they are all animal loving angels...personally, I am no serious keeper, never will be but all that we do keep are kept very well and are, essentially, pets. 

Not saying breeders are all bad, far from it, simply an observation, nothing else.

No, primates (poss exception of Marmosets maybe) not best as pets, have always thought that.....

Just my h`appeneth worth...x

Dave.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

sam gamgee said:


> Yes but the private breeder who is making money from what he\she sells on, even to a good home, is perhaps as bad as the zoo.
> 
> Why? He/she is surely keeping the animals for himself, not to show the spp off, as in a Zoo. So, the keeper understands the cost of `keeping` before he/she starts out along that particular road, yeah? Therefore is also doing it for profit?
> 
> ...



Very very true Dave. It's very easy for breeders to demonise zoos/rescues/RSPCA on internet forums because they won't answer back...so it's always a very one sided argument. But you're right - breeders aren't all angels with the best interests of the species, their wild habitat, or the environment as a whole at the forefront of their minds. I'm sure that quite often they're in it for the money, or simply to have the "coolest" or most exotic animal they can. *I'm in no way saying this is true of everybody *

Maybe I'm walking a controversial RFUK line here (hey, what's new?), but I've seen people online and in real life with a single individual of an extremely rare species, and no intention to procreate from that animal. These keepers have a responsibility to the species (and the planet), to get that animal bred...._even if it means giving that beloved animal to another collection through a studbook!_ To not do so is the most selfish act that an otherwise responsible private animal keeper can commit.

Sorry for the rant on a tangent (it's rapidly veering from the subject of this thread:blush, but I just thought it was a point worth making and discussing.


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

The Bill proposed in the House of Commons in Jan 2012 and the recent television 'propaganda' are linked - and are just a small part of the actions orchestrated by Animal Rights organisations, including the RSPCA.

Animal Activists, DEFRA and others view this and other sites
- so please try to engage the brain before posting.

The figures quoted by the RSPCA and other organisations are invariably false or grossly inflated - but instead of 'twittering' about it - challenge them to prove it! The MP who presented the Bill in January quoted false figures - I'll pass the link to anyone via PM - so write to your MP and question why an MP can quote false figures to The Houses of Parliament. The RSPCA and TRAFFIC quoted false data to the Enviromental Audit Committee on Wildlife Crime - details available via PM - challenge them via the Committee and your MP!

All areas of livestock keeping are under threat, not just the keeping of Primates - they are seen as a small, specialised minority that can be attacked with impunity. The RSPCA are doing the same with keepers of British Birds.

The only real voice that livestock keepers have is Chris Newman - so support him, and do not be afraid to put pressure on your own MP.

Mike J Duffey


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Very good point John...

Thing is this all isnt news..

I for one was expecting it...


Not the tv to back it but we were aware it was going on...

I still stand and say it wont happen....

The biggest problem i think is some fighting for it think theres nobody like them..

If pushed thrre corruption will hit the lime light...


----------



## fantapants (Jan 4, 2008)

Has anybody posted a link for the second part? 

For me, it's not more legislation that's needed it more education. For pet shop owners, the school curriculum etc. . It's amazing how many people believe that it's illegal to keep ALL species of tortoise since the 60s.......and I know of several people that have been on holiday, found a lizard/tortoise/snake on the side of the road and thought nothing of putting it in a shoe in a suit case to bring home. A lot of people really have no idea that that is even illegal :lol2: I know people that have never bothered to get their dogs or cats vaccinated let alone spayed or neutered. we need to increase education in order to address all of the problems involved with animal care etc. personally I would like to see part of the school curriculum dedicated to just that sort of thing. Even if it was just one day a year, responsible pet owner ship is important and every child she learn about it and the responsibilities it entails.

As for primates being banned, I don't think any animal should be banned . placed on the DWA maybe but not banned outright. That would just open the door to more animals being brought under the spotlight as being "unsuitable"


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

To me the first step would be go for all advrrtised.

Forums included..

Singles..youngsters ripped away before they learn to become monkeys.

Bann them and prosecute...

I dont know anybody close that advrrtise
Or that ever would..

Said it before on here and got shot down.....

Its money....

Thats the problem.

I work to have our hobby...

If i needed to sell to do it.

Id buy a goldfish.


----------



## aliburke (Jun 20, 2011)

Hands up :surrender: I'm one of those people that bought marmies out of an 'exotic pet shop' :blush: I honestly did not do indepth research before I bought them, if I did then I certainly would not have considered them. 

To be honest I didn't buy them as pets, more because I knew they were being sold singly and very young and I bought them because I felt so sorry for them and knew I would endevour to give them in the best life they could possibly have in captivity.

I have been on this forum and looked up as much info as possible to ensure their future is a bright one, my life revolves around them (not to mention every penny I have!), I have had them in a large enclosure (heated) and have just sold it and ordered a fully insulated one with an outdoor enclosure attached, it will be heated, have trees, cargo nets, everthing else I can imagine to keep them occupied and exercised.

I am 100% committed to my marmosets but to be totally truthful I actually have very strong views against them being kept in captivity after all the research and reading the forums on them. Unfortunatley breeders and 'pet shops' don't give a :censor: so the vicious circle continues and It breaks my heart to think that so many will be alone and stuck in cages. 

In my opinion there should be very strict regulations/licenses imposed to try in the least to put people off unless they have the money, knowledge, commitment fully in place (like Peter, Zooman, Neil etc :notworthy


----------



## aliburke (Jun 20, 2011)

Link (If this works!)

BBC News - Are regulations to keep primates working?


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

Banning of keeping certain animals is not only an unnecessarily heavy-handed action, but it also would be hard to police, & may well mean the increase in underground keeping & selling. Look at the Dangerous Dogs Act. I see Pit Bull type dogs on a daily basis on the street. 

Its also one of those subjects where people will think that their species of interest could be next for the ban. If primates are banned from being privately kept, what will be next, parrots, raccoons, meerkats, etc?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Drayvan said:


> I beg to differ and i quote from the petshop license legislation.
> 
> 14.3 Licensees selling animals on the Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act must
> inspect the purchaser’s DWA licence or zoo licence to keep such an animal and inform
> ...


What you are quoting is a condition attached under the Model Standards for a licence issued under the Pet Animals Act – NOT a condition of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. Some Local Authority will attach this as a requirement for the sale of a species scheduled under the DWAA by pet shops, but not all Local Authorities do. 

No such requirements exists under the DWAA its self, it is quite remarkable that such a condition was not added during the recent review of the Act but parliament saw fit not to do so.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> What you are quoting is a condition attached under the Model Standards for a licence issued under the Pet Animals Act – NOT a condition of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. Some Local Authority will attach this as a requirement for the sale of a species scheduled under the DWAA by pet shops, but not all Local Authorities do.
> 
> No such requirements exists under the DWAA its self, it is quite remarkable that such a condition was not added during the recent review of the Act but parliament saw fit not to do so.


Cheers for that, havent really read through much of the DWAA in terms of sale...only the pet shop license legislation, looks like il have to. What a ridiculously bungled together piece of law...it doesn't even compliment the other regulations it should work with by the sounds of it!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

In principle the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is entirely laudable, the failing is in the administration of the Act. For more then three decades government has failed to ensure the Act is implement as parliament intended, this is entirely unacceptable. The Act is an enabling Act not a prohibition Act and its high time government got its act together and issued strong guidance to Local Authorities on how to implement the bloody thing responsible.


----------



## Woodyofcastle (Jun 23, 2008)

They should not be kept alone?
they should be kept in a small group.


----------



## BOiiL3D_FROG (Feb 21, 2010)

Should anything be kept for a pleasure of owning? 

we do it anyway , thats what people are best at 

that and being a**holes


----------

