# dwa otters?



## TommyBurt (Dec 14, 2009)

i don't come on the mammel section much but i have to share this at my local college there getting otters and it turns out there on the dwa list why what could a cute little otter do to harm someone lol


----------



## naja-naja (Aug 26, 2009)

their bites are very nasty and the original aim of the dwa was to control animals that could cause more damage then a domestic cat.... however it has become less strict in recent years and a lot of reptiles like giant snakes and monitors were never included on it haha.

but for otters i think its their bite, they may be taken off in the future ut for now they are on the list.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

They have very, very sharp teeth - the author of Ring of Bright Water had a number of impromptu piercings as the result of Mijbil getting enthusiastic about the "chomp" game; I'm sure I remember hearing about someone else who lost part of a finger.

Cute they are, but they're also carnivores.


----------



## TommyBurt (Dec 14, 2009)

i guess your right but when i think of all the toothy snakes such as my amazon tree boa that bite a lot compared to those little otters i begin to ponder that they should change some things i want a dwa license but it turns out bedford is the most exspensive place in the country to try and get it lol


----------



## TommyBurt (Dec 14, 2009)

a finger i never expected that from otters okay keep them on the dwa lol im not gonna look at them in the same way lol


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

You are talking about asian short clawed i would imagine,there is no way these can cause as much harm as for instance,raccoon,coati,squirrel monkey(which i have had a bite from needing 12 stitches).My council could not even beleive these were dwa,sometimes it just does not make sense what is dwa and what has been removed.


----------



## Whosthedaddy (Nov 29, 2009)

Terry Nutkins lost the tops of a couple of fingers as a child from a 'pet' otter.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

animalsbeebee said:


> You are talking about asian short clawed i would imagine,there is no way these can cause as much harm as for instance,raccoon,coati,squirrel monkey(which i have had a bite from needing 12 stitches).My council could not even beleive these were dwa,sometimes it just does not make sense what is dwa and what has been removed.


Have to agree !!!!.

To be honest I think the DWA list is a bit of a joke.

You can't own an otter because of its bite but you can own a 20ft snake that could easily kill you. I believe no one has ever been killed by one in the UK but the potential is there. ( by the way not anti snake ). I have looked after big snakes such as Rock Pythons etc and they possess unbelievable strength.

As you say Raccoons and Coati's can inflict serious damage, yet they have been taken off. Obviously we are pleased about that, as we own both :2thumb:.

Best Wishes

Neil


----------



## Jack W (Feb 9, 2009)

kodakira said:


> Have to agree !!!!.
> 
> To be honest I think the DWA list is a bit of a joke.
> 
> ...



Although I agree that the DWA list needs revision, you fail to see the point of the DWA. It is to prevent injury, first and foremost, to the public. Part of the reason large snakes are not on the DWA is that it is unlikely that anyone other than the owner could be injured as they are kept indoors and most wouldn't survive in our climate, they are also very slow. It's not really possible for a burmese python to go on a made killing rampage through modern Britain. Obviously the same could be said for the venomous snakes that are listed on the DWA, but these are so dangerous that their ownership must be controlled. It also has to be reiterated that no one has ever, to my knowledge, received an injury as severe as a finger being bitten off from a large snake.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

Its a bit of a joke when you can own a very dangerous dog,horse,bull,these cause deaths all the time,i have kept highland cattle and was more wary going in the field with them than going in with the big cats,sure you dont want people keeping tigers in flats ,but an animal does not have to be wild to be dangerous.


----------



## RaccoonsRule (Aug 24, 2009)

animalsbeebee said:


> Its a bit of a joke when you can own a very dangerous dog,but an animal does not have to be wild to be dangerous.


I completely agree with that there are some very well know breeds of dog that has recently ripped young babies/children appart!! what have they done about this???.... Total JOKE!!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

I've been savaged by a usually friendly canadian otter, and it bloody hurts! Short-clawed otters have a nasty nip too. They were some of my favourite animals to care for (after binturongs), but I don't envy whichever poor sod has to clean them out coz their s:censor:t is VILE!


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

Jack W said:


> Although I agree that the DWA list needs revision, you fail to see the point of the DWA. It is to prevent injury, first and foremost, to the public. Part of the reason large snakes are not on the DWA is that it is unlikely that anyone other than the owner could be injured as they are kept indoors and most wouldn't survive in our climate, they are also very slow. It's not really possible for a burmese python to go on a made killing rampage through modern Britain. Obviously the same could be said for the venomous snakes that are listed on the DWA, but these are so dangerous that their ownership must be controlled. It also has to be reiterated that no one has ever, to my knowledge, received an injury as severe as a finger being bitten off from a large snake.


So an Otter is going to go on a killing spree ???.

When I said I looked after big snakes, quite a few were escapees that I was asked to look after for a well known animal welfare charity. What was to stop one of these grabbing a child playing in a garden. One was found in the summer in a local pond that children used to frequent. Children are naturally curious and could have quite easily fallen prey. Just because it has not happened, does not mean it wont.

So yes I do understand it is about the publics protection and it is my opinion that it is stupid to have Otters and a number of other animals on DWA and not big snakes.

Neil


----------



## jabs2398 (Nov 30, 2010)

a 20 ft snake is more likely to go out of its way and plus most people do not like snakes and are more likely to run away screaming, whereas an otter is going to have more of a cute factor and there for people wil want to touch it if it was to escape. plus if you have ever come across a territorial otter its not the nicest thing in the world. trust me ive worked with them!!!!!!!


----------



## Jack W (Feb 9, 2009)

kodakira said:


> So an Otter is going to go on a killing spree ???.
> 
> When I said I looked after big snakes, quite a few were escapees that I was asked to look after for a well known animal welfare charity. What was to stop one of these grabbing a child playing in a garden. One was found in the summer in a local pond that children used to frequent. Children are naturally curious and could have quite easily fallen prey. Just because it has not happened, does not mean it wont.
> 
> ...


I would be incredibly shocked if a large snake attacked and killed a child, even in the wild where large pythons and boas come into contact with people, including children, such attacks are incredibly rare. So rare in fact that I can't think of one case were anyone, other than an owner (in what was probably a feeding mistake), has been killed by a large snake. Snakes are fearful of large animals. Plus if children are unsupervised around in an area where large snakes could hide I would be more worried about the parenting.

BTW I also reckon that all otters, apart from possibly giant otters (Pteronura brasiliensis), should be taken off the DWA and there needs to be a rethink on the whole idea. But to suggest large snakes should be on the list provides the herpetology hobby with bad publicity that it really doesn't need. Large snakes have already been considered for the DWA and rejected, because they pose so little risk. FACT.


----------



## Jack W (Feb 9, 2009)

RaccoonsRule said:


> I completely agree with that there are some very well know breeds of dog that has recently ripped young babies/children appart!! what have they done about this???.... Total JOKE!!


Again this is a complete generalisation, it is the dog and it's upbringing by it's owners that cause it to be aggressive or attack. It is also stupid for a person to leave a large animal of any kind around a child. It is not the breed at all. I have owned three Rottweilers, a german shepard/ greyhound cross and a boxer. All large dogs, the Rottweilers one of these 'devil breeds'. Out of all the animals I have kept the Rotties were the kindest and most docile breed, they never hurt anyone so why should they be put on the DWA and kept only in fields with huge fences. It's crazy. Plus there is already a provision for 'dangerous' breeds, called the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Everyone in the hobby of keeping exotics, be it reps, inverts, amphibs or mammals needs to be suggesting taking certain species off the DWA not encouraging putting more animals on it.


----------



## ami_j (Jan 6, 2007)

Jack W said:


> Again this is a complete generalisation, it is the dog and it's upbringing by it's owners that cause it to be aggressive or attack. It is also stupid for a person to leave a large animal of any kind around a child. It is not the breed at all. I have owned three Rottweilers, a german shepard/ greyhound cross and a boxer. All large dogs, the Rottweilers one of these 'devil breeds'. Out of all the animals I have kept the Rotties were the kindest and most docile breed, they never hurt anyone so why should they be put on the DWA and kept only in fields with huge fences. It's crazy. *Plus there is already a provision for 'dangerous' breeds, called the Dangerous Dogs Act.*
> 
> Everyone in the hobby of keeping exotics, be it reps, inverts, amphibs or mammals needs to be suggesting taking certain species off the DWA not encouraging putting more animals on it.


because thats working so well....attacks have INCREASED since it was brought in.


----------



## 955i (Aug 17, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> They have very, very sharp teeth - the author of Ring of Bright Water had a number of impromptu piercings as the result of Mijbil getting enthusiastic about the "chomp" game; I'm sure I remember hearing about someone else who lost part of a finger.
> 
> Cute they are, but they're also carnivores.


I believe that Terry Nutkins missing digit is also down to one of Gavin Maxwells otters.


----------



## Jack W (Feb 9, 2009)

ami_j said:


> because thats working so well....attacks have INCREASED since it was brought in.


Well I also suggested that the problem is with owners not the dogs, I'm not suggesting that the Dangerous Dogs Act is a great thing in any way. But only that it is stupid to consider dogs being on the DWA list. I understand as much as anyone that the Dangerous Dogs Act has not been the most successful piece of animal legislation, I think illegal pitbulls must be one of the most popular dogs where I live.

Surely it is the owners responsibility what their pets do, not the animal itself.


----------



## bigpig (Dec 8, 2009)

It could also be to help keep track of these creatures to stop them getting loose in the wild and affecting out native otters?
I think all animals should need liecences, even dogs. Maybe especially dogs.
Just look at some of the dicks that are going around breeding monster dogs, with no regard for the animals wellfare.
I reckon you should have to pass a course, and be liecenced before you can breed animals.
Also the "wild" part in DWA is important as hopefully it stops people collecting creatures from the wild.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

If dwa is for the protection of the public i wonder how many pre-dwa attacks/deaths occured.Why was dwa bought about.


----------



## aquajird (Oct 27, 2010)

If you want to see Terry Nutkin's finger, you can see it clearly here on this video from a 1979 recordnng of Animal Magic. Also features Gemini, his pet sea-lion.
WildFilmHistory - Terry introduces Gemini to Keeper Morris


----------



## aquajird (Oct 27, 2010)

If you want to see Terry Nutkin's finger, you can see it clearly here on this video from a 1979 recordinng of Animal Magic. Also features Gemini, his pet sea-lion.
WildFilmHistory - Terry introduces Gemini to Keeper Morris


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

aquajird said:


> If you want to see Terry Nutkin's finger, you can see it clearly here on this video from a 1979 recordinng of Animal Magic. Also features Gemini, his pet sea-lion.
> WildFilmHistory - Terry introduces Gemini to Keeper Morris



Interesting that they show a photo of Clifford Warwick with what looks like a pet Burmese Python in that clip.... Mr. Warwick who now says that reptiles don't make suitable pets.

And yes indeed he did lose quite a lot of finger there, didn't he?


----------

