# Animals coming off and going on DWA



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

Hello everyone, now after being on here for a while ive come across a bunch of threads all basically sayin the same thing, and that thing is usually:

*Why is this DWA, it shouldn't be?
Shouldn't this be DWA?*

Now i was wondering, what would make them change their mind and re list it? if there was a petition or people wrote in would it help? Because like lots of other people i believe lots of things should and shouldn't be on it, for example croc monitors are not and look at the size and threat from one of those compared to a caiman? What makes the croc monitor less deadly? It get bigger and also just as vicious so why should the caiman be DWA, and then im not going to go into it but you have lots of very dangerous inverts as well....

No arguing please, just after a nice pleasant conversation and your views are welcome (positive or negative)

All the best

Ismail


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

This topic is getting worn pretty thin. The people who make the most noise about a species coming off the list are almost invariably doing so because they want to keep it without going down the licensed route.
If a species is on the schedule then there is a reason. Admittedly that reason can simply be that it's easier to group similar species together and include them all than it is to seperate them, e.g crocodilians and buthid scorpions.
Many spider keepers claim that black widows shouldn't be included because they don't leave their webs so pose very little escape risk. True, but the capacity to cause harm is very real, albeit unlikely. The same is true with many inclusions that are hotly debated.
Conversely, I agree that there are species that aren't on the DWA list that pose a greater risk than some of those that are. But again, there will be a reason they aren't on there. It may not be a good reason, but it will be valid. Take large constrictors as an example. Far more dangerous than venomous snakes but they aren't on the license schedule simply because there are a lot of them in private collections, meaning if legislated there would be too many to police in the inevitable event of mass non-compliance. Also, to the best of my knowledge they haven't killed a keeper, at least in this country, since the DWAA came into effect. It's pretty safe to assume that if they were to kill a keeper their status regarding licensing laws would come under a great deal of scrutiny.
It's evident that many people are unhappy with the DWAL regulations but sometimes it really is better the devil you know. If people keep wishing for change too hard, and being especially vocal about it, they might just get it. It might not be the change they wanted though.


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

Thanks for the in put  I agree very much on the part where lots of people who are vocal about a certain species may only be doing it because they want one, but i do think there should be a serious re think of it.


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

reptismail said:


> but i do think there should be a serious re think of it.


Only if you can guarantee any changes will be for the better. Like I said mate, better the devil you know.


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

terciopelo_dave said:


> Only if you can guarantee any changes will be for the better. Like I said mate, better the devil you know.


Yeah, they haven't gone far wrong but i do find a few things silly, maybe just a few things put on and a few taken off would be fine just to make it more realistic.

Ismail


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Ok so what would you want putting on and taking off?


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2011)

leecb0 said:


> Ok so what would you want putting on and taking off?


 
Off:

o.hannah
naja naja
Crocodylus niloticus
Panthera tigris
Androctonus sp
etc

On:

homosapien sp
Pogona 
Gekkonidae sp
etc

Of course what ever we want we will think it shouldnt be on the list.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

Better the devil you know indeed I say  here's an example I can think of a few good reasons the following could be added.

All Constrictors above say 3-4 feet max, even small boas/pythons can kill under the right set of circumstances.

All Opishoglyphous snakes, I would imagine there are quite a few species with little or no toxicology work available to check up on even if they are named taxa, and those that could do little damage in an adult still harm a child.

All Theraphosid spiders due to venom in old world theraphosids and urticating setae in the Theraphosinae and Aviculariinae.

All other Mygalomorph spiders, just to be on the safe side :Na_Na_Na_Na:.

All Scolopendrid centipedes, I can't really think of good reason for these as im sure the deaths reported are anecdotal, but they are quite creepy and im sure most MP's would not give a sh1- about lossing the vote from the 50-100 or whatever UK pede keepers  

And if you think that list is harsh then you don't care about the children :gasp:

Of course I would never agree with those above idea's, but im sure there are a lot that would.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

I for one, would like to see some of the larger constrictors go on the DWA
I am probibly going to get bashed for this but I really don't care, in reality people can have all the knowledge in the world, and it only takes one stupid mistake and ta da, the snake has you. 

While I am aware that it is the owners risk, there has been instances where these snakes have escaped, and dumped. 
and in warm weather I have no doubt a snake 8ft+ could cause seriouse damage to the public, looking toward the interest we so cherish, if something did happen it would not work in our favor. 
I have seen myself what one of these snakes can do, and it happens fast and they are strong.

They are quite literally a dangerouse wild animal and I am saying that as a snake enthusiast, the amount of large snakes that end up in rescues is disgusting. 

Please do not misunderstand me, because I am aware that there are also the extremely good people who take great care of there snakes i.e burmese and otherwise but it seems that the bad far outweighs the good in these instances.

for me a 7- 8ft boa (common) is probibly my set limit, a nice manageible handlible size.

Now for the likes of responsible keepers, I don't want you too take that the wrong way, but surely if you are passionate enough for these animals you can sympathise with my point. 
And as responsible keepers if something was done I would like too think you would not be affected at this time, I am of course thinking of the future. 

Some snakes have been in rescues for years because they cannot find homes and if something is not done, what then will happen? 
Just expressing my views on the matter.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Jaggers said:


> Off:
> 
> o.hannah
> naja naja
> ...


 
it was aimed at the OP not for some stupid comments


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> I for one, would like to see some of the larger constrictors go on the DWA
> I am probibly going to get bashed for this but I really don't care, in reality people can have all the knowledge in the world, and it only takes one stupid mistake and ta da, the snake has you.
> 
> While I am aware that it is the owners risk, there has been instances where these snakes have escaped, and dumped.
> ...


Although i dont agree they should be on the DWAA i do think they should perhaps be more regulations for the sale and ownership of them. If kept and handled correctly by experience keepers and the use of a back up handler when attaining larger sizes they are fairly harmless. They will only be dangerous/deadly when kept by inept keepers who really dont know what they are doing and think its great to get a big snake etc.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

leecb0 said:


> Although i dont agree they should be on the DWAA i do think they should perhaps be more regulations for the sale and ownership of them. If kept and handled correctly by experience keepers and the use of a back up handler when attaining larger sizes they are fairly harmless. They will only be dangerous/deadly when kept by inept keepers who really dont know what they are doing and think its great to get a big snake etc.


maybey, I am merely just expressing my views, I will agree something put into place to tighter measures would help indefinately.
something is better than nothing: victory:


----------



## scottandsonny (May 29, 2010)

leecb0 said:


> Although i dont agree they should be on the DWAA i do think they should perhaps be more regulations for the sale and ownership of them. If kept and handled correctly by experience keepers and the use of a back up handler when attaining larger sizes they are fairly harmless. They will only be dangerous/deadly when kept by inept keepers who really dont know what they are doing and think its great to get a big snake etc.


 agree, i know shops that will sell 10ft + boa's and pythons to anyone just for the sale! this isnt right,i think all shops and private sellers should demand they handle the snake at least 3 times before purhase and have a strict test on the knowledge of them,if u fail u dont get,end of. and maybe,just maybe an inspection of where the snake is going...... if people really want a large snake and want 2 learn they wouldnt have a problem doing the above.


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> it was aimed at the OP not for some stupid comments


Personally i think :

On:

Larger monitors
Retics, annies, burms and afrocks even though i keep burms i still believe they are very dangerous ( possibly more restrictions on keeping them?)
Some of the more venomous inverts
Definitely monkeys
cant think of more off the top of my head

Off:

Dwarf/ small species of crocs
armadillo
anteaters
servals
occelots
bob cats

Again cant think of more of my head

Ismail


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

Oderus said:


> All Scolopendrid centipedes, I can't really think of good reason for these as im sure the deaths reported are anecdotal, but they are quite creepy and im sure most MP's would not give a sh1- about lossing the vote from the 50-100 or whatever UK pede keepers


After all the t's scorpions burms and retics ive kept....none have scared me or kept me on my toes as much as scolopendrid's ! I would rather be struck at by a burm than have a Scolopendra gigantea run up the tweezers again! So fast and unpredictable.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

reptismail said:


> Personally i think :
> 
> On:
> 
> ...


I really dont see your reasoning for taking small croc's off and putting large monitors on 
Also servals occelots have the ability to cause as much if not more halm and damage as a pit bull.

Remember the DWAA is there not to protect the keeper but to protect the public.

Also what monkeys are you saying that should be on, as most species are?


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> I really dont see your reasoning for taking small croc's off and putting large monitors on
> Also servals occelots have the ability to cause as much if not more halm and damage as a pit bull.
> 
> Remember the DWAA is there not to protect the keeper but to protect the public.
> ...


I think monitors are a lot more dangerous in my opinion
Lots of dogs can be as dangerous, if not more than pit bulls and they are legal, i know of plenty of nice pit bulls. Its nurture not nature in my opinion.

No expert on monkeys but im sure marmosets are legal but i dont think they should be, again just my opinion.


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> I really dont see your reasoning for taking small croc's off and putting large monitors on


I mean if it went one way or another i would like to either see monitors go on croc come off. I just think they need to rethink the list.


----------



## ChopChop (Mar 18, 2011)

I agree aswell but maybe not puttin things like large monitors and berms/retics on the DWA list, I think they should come up with somthing else thats not as hard to get and cost as a DWAL but were you perhaps have an inspection of your encloser and precautions youll be taking to secure you animal,

Mabe large snakes arnt a big risk to experienced owner but they do pose a big risk to there children ect.

Plus small crocodiles and caiman should not be taken off the DWAA at all even 3-4ft Caiman are extreamly powerful and capable of injuring you, and are defiantly Dangerous Wild Animals.

Seb


----------



## aaron lynch (Feb 13, 2009)

i think the way the list is atm isnt far off. as has been said the smallest crocodilians may not be tremendously dangerous in comparison to their larger cousins or venomous snakes etc but can still do some damage.
they may not pose a great risk to the public as they probably arent as escape prone as say a snake or even large monitor lizard. but i still think they need regulating as if they were to be taken off the list every wannabe steve irwin or status seeker will go out and buy one and soon realise they arent such great pets, dont really do much and will probably always hate you. resulting in many unwanted sub adult caimans etc.

i also dont think large constrictors or monitors should be put on the list but i do think potential keepers should be vetted somehow to prove they are capable and mature enough to take them on.

also i think there should be a national standard for the dwal with all the requirements clearly outlined for each species. for example my local council are notoriously difficult and after doing some research have found of no confirmed cases of private dwal being issued. yet a few miles down the road other councils seem fair and well organised.


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

Actually i see where you guys are coming from about the caiman thing, look how burms and retics are now, you always find unwanted "big" ones for sale because too vicious or people are just too scared. Pet shops really do need to stop selling to absolutely any one, maybe they should do a inspection first?


----------



## 50%man50%biscuit (Mar 17, 2009)

Malpolon off - no good reason to keep it on when compared with Hydrodynastes and Boiga spp


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2011)

Instead of looking at what animals should be on the list what about the criteria of what should be on the list instead?

A large contrictor can kill you quicker than most venomous.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

reptismail said:


> I think monitors are a lot more dangerous in my opinion
> Lots of dogs can be as dangerous, if not more than pit bulls and they are legal, i know of plenty of nice pit bulls. Its nurture not nature in my opinion.
> The point was that a pit bull is a band dog but a cat can do some damage, i have worked with a couple and i have seen a lynx tear a mans knee cap of, and it was only playing. Hence why servals etc although a little smaller can cause some serious damage and proberbly as much if not more than a caimen and there is more chance of escape so therefore should proberbly stay on the DWAA. But a large monitor can also cause some nast damage, but are not as dangerouse IMO as the damage that a caimen could cause, from experience i would rather take a bite from a nile monitor than a croc. so i think its silly to say put large monitors on and take caimen and the like off.
> 
> No expert on monkeys but im sure marmosets are legal but i dont think they should be, again just my opinion.


LOL i have hand reared Marmosets and have a friend who breeds a few different species, they are not DWAA as they just are not that dangerous, and going by your logic, do you think a marmoset is more dangerous than a caimen that you want to take off?.....perhaps if you are a cricket or some fruit yes:whistling2:



50%man50%biscuit said:


> Malpolon off - no good reason to keep it on when compared with Hydrodynastes and Boiga spp


I really cant find any reason for them being on from what i know they have never beein any death from them and they are proberbly no worse than Boiga.



Jaggers said:


> Instead of looking at what animals should be on the list what about the criteria of what should be on the list instead?
> 
> A large contrictor can kill you quicker than most venomous.


Bit if you look at the criteria and use it as DANGEROUS animals then dogs should be on there as potentially they are, and they have killed far more people than a burm has. But i agree in your sentiment. They can be dangerous and it will only be a matter of time before some fool gets killed or worse a family member or friend. 
They have been petitioned by members of the public to be placed on the DWAA but they wont and proberbly never will.

I also know of front fang venomous that you can take a bite from and it proberbly wont affect most people any more than your average Boiga bite, but i would think it would be wrong to start looking at venom LD50 and yield to determin weather they should be on or off. All front fang venomous IMO should be on simple as that.


----------



## mat_worrell (Sep 20, 2009)

Personally I think there should be a shake up of the DWA and it should be on some sort of 'traffic light' system. Red for most dangerous and most risk posed to general public all the way down to green of little to no risk. And I think this should include all animals, obviously those deemed domesticated would be green/Amber up to the likes of venomous snakes being red. 

In order for this to work for the keeper too it should have stipulations for each colour (red, amber green) so red meaning all of the current rules and regulations of DWA that exist today down to green, little to no stipulation. Amber being an intermediate not quite as strict as red but definitely not as relaxed as green. 

Hope this makes sence, not quite with it, lack of sleep has frazzled my brain!!


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

corn snakes should go on it too? 
mine tried to measure me up and the vet said I could not take him home because it could have ate me:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## joeyboy (Jul 19, 2008)

I don't think all Buthid scorps should be on it.

I think Sicarius sp should be. They're not aggressive and small but if we're talking about potential damage if you were bitten(just as is done with black widows) then Sicarius terrosus and hahni, the two folks seem to be able to get their hands on, qualify for DWA. I mean recluse spiders are on it (Loxosceles) and lab tests indicate venom from Sicarius sp seems to be more potent on tests on rabbits..which don't turn out well for the rabbits.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

I think the issue with _Sicarius_ not being listed is due to there being only anecdotal reports of human envenomation which have been both good new world species giving no symptoms (maybe dry bites?), and bad being the two suspected _S. hahni_ bites.

I think it's better to hold fire on added them to the DWAA until more work is done or a well documented medical case comes to light as we all know animal testing often gives many surprises when the time comes for a human to be envemonated, basing a listing on unproven or mistaken data is how quite a few species got listed in the first place something that can take a very long time to get rectified (if ever), but won't mince words here I can't help but get the feeling a few keeping them would like to see them listed so they can play the tough guy . 

The whole of the Buthidae being listed is something that needs fixing, imo the fact that it has not been storted to date is more due the quite low numbers of people that keep scorps vs those with other exotics rather then a lack of data, if say all rear fanged snakes had been blanket covered I think it lightly that would have been changed by now with the numbers of reptile keepers these days, scorp keepers are low in numbers even vs the spider hobby so there is little pressure to even delisted a few token genera that are known to have no dangerous species.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

mat_worrell said:


> Personally I think there should be a shake up of the DWA and it should be on some sort of 'traffic light' system. Red for most dangerous and most risk posed to general public all the way down to green of little to no risk. And I think this should include all animals, obviously those deemed domesticated would be green/Amber up to the likes of venomous snakes being red.
> 
> In order for this to work for the keeper too it should have stipulations for each colour (red, amber green) so red meaning all of the current rules and regulations of DWA that exist today down to green, little to no stipulation. Amber being an intermediate not quite as strict as red but definitely not as relaxed as green.
> 
> Hope this makes sence, not quite with it, lack of sleep has frazzled my brain!!


I actually really like this idea, any animal that is taken on is a responsibility and to have a degree of restrictions on animals will certainly minimise the inconsiderate people taking them on with little regard to the life they have chosen to care for. If people had to go to some length to get that animal and some authority or other had knowledge of ownership it would be much more difficult to just dump them, causing stress to the animal and possible threat to people. And im not just talking exotics, any animal has the potential to cause harm (well just about...i challenge you to get hurt by an African Land Snail) but you get my point.


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

Oderus said:


> The whole of the Buthidae being listed is something that needs fixing, imo the fact that it has not been storted to date is more due the quite low numbers of people that keep scorps vs those with other exotics rather then a lack of data, if say all rear fanged snakes had been blanket covered I think it lightly that would have been changed by now with the numbers of reptile keepers these days, scorp keepers are low in numbers even vs the spider hobby so there is little pressure to even delisted a few token genera that are known to have no dangerous species.


The whole of Buthidae is listed simply because of the difficulty in differentiating between species and the fact that individuals from the same species but different localities within their range can produce variable severity of stings. E.g. Buthus occitanus from spain is a painful but comparitively mild sting. Buthus occitanus from North Africa produces far more severe symptoms following envenomation and has been implicated in the death of children. Centruroides gracillis from Florida produces a painful sting, C. gracillis from Cuba and Central America produces far more worrying symptoms. For this reason I find it highly unlikely that there will be any revision of the status of Buthidae on the DWAA, certainly within my life time, if at all.
The initial criteria for determining whether or not a species was included was "can it do more damage than a feral tom cat"? Now this should without doubt include large constrictors, but there is a reason it doesn't. The government wants keepers to comply with the legislation. Most experts agree that current levels of non-compliance are quite high, but figures can be courted to look good simply by ignoring the estimates. Illegal venomous snake keepers for example don't tend to shout about the fact so genuine numbers are purely guess work. If large boids were to be included on the list, just due to the volume in current circulation the figures for non-compliance would increase exponentially to a point at which it couldn't be ignored. Therefore the government would be seen to be losing control. Far better from their point of view to simply avoid creating the problem in the first place. Unless a keeper is killed and the media get hold of the story I honestly can't see big snakes getting on the list. It would create far more issues than it could currently solve.
As for dogs, it's pretty pointless using them as an example. Yes they've killed people, but they're domesticated, so can't go on the DWAA by definition. The W in DWA is unequivocal.
The other thing to consider when looking at what to take off is that the act is in place to protect the public. Since "the public" is an enormous demographic comprising people of all ages, sizes, and states of health, there is always somebody that can be injured by something innocuous to most people, for instance the mangrove snake. I've seen the damage done to a healthy adult's hand following a bite. I hate to think what that could've done to a child. 
With that in mind, I think everyone should just stop droning on about what they think should come off the list. It aint perfect, but it's what we've got. Deal with it. And I say again, the people making the most noise about removal of a species from the schedule are the people who want to keep that species but don't want to get a license. There is no other reason for it. Nobody would comment if it didn't affect them.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

terciopelo_dave said:


> The whole of Buthidae is listed simply because of the difficulty in differentiating between species and the fact that individuals from the same species but different localities within their range can produce variable severity of stings. E.g. Buthus occitanus from spain is a painful but comparitively mild sting. Buthus occitanus from North Africa produces far more severe symptoms following envenomation and has been implicated in the death of children. Centruroides gracillis from Florida produces a painful sting, C. gracillis from Cuba and Central America produces far more worrying symptoms. For this reason I find it highly unlikely that there will be any revision of the status of Buthidae on the DWAA, certainly within my life time, if at all.


Dave yes I would agree the population variations are problematic for some species but as a rule they seem to be an issue within genera that already contain potentially deadly species which in my opinion would be best left listed in there entirely anyway for the other reason you give of possible misidentification.

But these days they seem to be taking a very different tack with new inclusions ie. _H. lepturus_ but not the other species of _Hemiscorpius_ and _P. olfersii_ but not the whole of _Philodryas_, seems they are sticking to making new entries only were there is strong evidence of risk even were a chance of misidentification is present.

For myself i'v always been more a spider chap then scorps so it has less effect on me then others, spider keepers get it very easy with what little is DWAA listed but I can fully understand the frustration the few real hardcore scorp hobbyists tell me they feel.


----------



## terciopelo_dave (Jun 1, 2007)

The only thing that needs changing about the DWAA is the way in which the scheme is administrated. There needs to be a nationwide standard. Currently the local authorities have too much freedom to impose ludicrous guidelines and outrageous fees that in some areas make the license virtually unobtainable. This isn't the point of the act at all. It is in place to protect the public by legislation of private keepers, not through prohibition. The LA's know they can't just say "No" so instead make it very difficult for such an undesirable aspect of their quaint little community to ever get a foothold. In some areas the cost of the license is so high that a DWAL applicant would single-handedly subsidize the licensing department's christmas party.
What needs to happen is a set of guidleines be drawn up that are applicable throughout the country. This could be produced by established keepers who wish to protect their own hobby so wouldn't set the bar too low, but also want to see their hobby flourish so wouldn't make the requirements unachievable. These guidelines could be in checklist form and so could be inspected by anyone from the council. If you fail to meet a requirement you have a month to put it right before being inspected again. 3 fails and you go back to the start of the application process. Also, there is no need for a vet to carry out the inspection as a DWAL application is not an animal health issue. Unless the vet is experienced in the husbandry of the animals you are wishing to keep, they serve no purpose.
Add to that a single flat rate fee of £100 to cover administartion and inspections and you're good to go.
If only it was that easy.


----------



## Jade01 (Feb 21, 2007)

The only thing I would change is to put Sicarius species on there.

In regards to small monkeys (marmosets and spider monkeys), I don't know if any of you have been up close with one, but a dog could do a lot more damage to you if it wanted to. I do however think that the sale of primates (and birds for that matter) should be regulated and you should have to pass certain things to keep them.

*I'm not saying one of these species of monkeys couldn't hurt you, just saying I bet your dog could hurt you more.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

Yes getting real guidelines for fee's and requirements in order is what everyone wants but..

I would also have a fear that once streamlined there maybe a temptation for future govenments to try to make unwarranted additions to give there local representatives some extra scratch (some what like dog tax mark 2), with heavy fines for those caught out so also making another route for income.

Very cynical way of viewing it I know be seeing as some LA's view it a money maker some of those in central govement could always have the same ideas.


----------



## Yorkshire Gator (Oct 16, 2009)

after just looking at the DWA list I was quite suprised to see on glaring ommission from it, that of the komodo dragon:gasp:


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

Yorkshire Gator said:


> after just looking at the DWA list I was quite suprised to see on glaring ommission from it, that of the komodo dragon:gasp:


When the DWAA was first introduced it was proberbly impossible to get one, also there are no other veranus on there so this would question if you put them on why not other large monitors?


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

leecb0 said:


> LOL i have hand reared Marmosets and have a friend who breeds a few different species, they are not DWAA as they just are not that dangerous, and going by your logic, do you think a marmoset is more dangerous than a caimen that you want to take off?.....perhaps if you are a cricket or some fruit yes:whistling2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im not saying marmosets are dangerous! Too many are ending up in wrong hands! Just my opinion. You seem to be trying to argue about everything? Just stating my opinion not trying to start an argument, sorry if i came across like that.


----------



## kain (Mar 23, 2009)

I disagree with the all opistoglyphous should be on because that would include hognoses and radiated rat snakes, also there are alot of coloubrids that might be opistohlyphous/venomous and we just havn't realised yet


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

reptismail said:


> Im not saying marmosets are dangerous! Too many are ending up in wrong hands! Just my opinion. You seem to be trying to argue about everything? Just stating my opinion not trying to start an argument, sorry if i came across like that.


No i didnt take it that way mate. But you cant use the DWAA just to stop people owning an animal. And with them costing so much the people who own them must have a few quid so would easily be able to get a dwal anyway.


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

kain said:


> I disagree with the all opistoglyphous should be on because that would include hognoses and radiated rat snakes, also there are alot of coloubrids that might be opistohlyphous/venomous and we just havn't realised yet


Not sure if i missed something but i dont think anyone has sugested that have they?


----------



## kain (Mar 23, 2009)

Oderus said:


> All Opishoglyphous snakes, I would imagine there are quite a few species with little or no toxicology work available to check up on even if they are named taxa, and those that could do little damage in an adult still harm a child.


This post

Edit: re-read the post, and see he said he dosn't agree with them, but my comment still stands for those who do (if anyone does)


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

kain said:


> This post
> 
> Edit: re-read the post, and see he said he dosn't agree with them, but my comment still stands for those who do (if anyone does)


OK i agree that hognose proberbly shouldnt be just like FWC and other rear fangs and i havent kept radiated rat snakes for a few years but i dont thing they have evolved that quick since i last had them:whistling2:


----------



## reptismail (Nov 15, 2008)

Are there any reports of fatalities from rear fanged venomous like boiga and FWC's?


----------



## kain (Mar 23, 2009)

leecb0 said:


> OK i agree that hognose proberbly shouldnt be just like FWC and other rear fangs and i havent kept radiated rat snakes for a few years but i dont thing they have evolved that quick since i last had them:whistling2:


Lol what i ment was opistoglyphous and venomous coloubrids, the radiated has threefinger toxin but not a great delivery system or ammount. In general what i was getting at was not just blanket terming opistoglyphous or venomous coloubrids should be DWA


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

reptismail said:


> Are there any reports of fatalities from rear fanged venomous like boiga and FWC's?


People get hung up on fatalities when talking about toxicity of snakes. just because it cant possibly kill you it could possiblt maim you. 
Think of it another way for instance i was blown up while in the army and obviously survived. A friend of mine was killed in another blast. being blown up and having shrapnel rip through your body isnt fun either way. 
Also a caimen is unlikelly to kill you but can tear you up. just because something is dangerous it doesnt have to be deadly. if you get my drift.



kain said:


> Lol what i ment was opistoglyphous and venomous coloubrids, the radiated has threefinger toxin but not a great delivery system or ammount. In general what i was getting at was not just blanket terming opistoglyphous should be DWA or venomous coloubrids


A lot of colubrids have a similar toxin its been shown. There are certain rear fanged snakes that are deadly and then there are those that are not. hence why they are not on the dwal, i agree that certain species should be, i even believe boiga should be on, just take a look at some of the damage they can do.


----------



## htf666 (Jun 23, 2007)

So do we have to put dogs and horses on the list as they actually do kill a small number of people every year? Harry


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

I agree with Lee as regards anything with venom that can lead to permanent damage to limbs or organ function even if there has been no fatalities recorded from the same species.

But the devils in the detail as ever if any wording in the act makes reference to mechanical damage examples such as lost eye's ligament/tendon and nerve damage to limbs, then all larger reptiles could run the risk of inclusion at some point even if it takes some stretching, and them tree huggers do a lot of yoga im told


----------



## leecb0 (Apr 14, 2009)

htf666 said:


> So do we have to put dogs and horses on the list as they actually do kill a small number of people every year? Harry


The clue is in the name of the act....Dangerous WILD animals....
dogs and horses are domesticated. But horses usually kill or injure people trying to ride them, If your daft enough to get one one and try to jump fences, its like any other dangerous past time, like motor racing or parachute jumping, its your choice. As for dogs usually but not allways these are down as somebody said earlier, nurture not nature.


----------



## ex0tics (Jun 9, 2009)

Honestly think retics should be DWA, I know people who have got along fine with a corn and decide a burm or retic is a good idea. When realistically they don't stay small for long.

I don't agree with Oderus though, old world species and pedes shouldn't require a license imo. These have little to no records of deaths because of them, unlike large dogs which kill young children and babies often. If things like boas get licensed, so should any large dogs.


----------



## ex0tics (Jun 9, 2009)

terciopelo_dave said:


> The only thing that needs changing about the DWAA is the way in which the scheme is administrated. There needs to be a nationwide standard. Currently the local authorities have too much freedom to impose ludicrous guidelines and outrageous fees that in some areas make the license virtually unobtainable. This isn't the point of the act at all. It is in place to protect the public by legislation of private keepers, not through prohibition. The LA's know they can't just say "No" so instead make it very difficult for such an undesirable aspect of their quaint little community to ever get a foothold. In some areas the cost of the license is so high that a DWAL applicant would single-handedly subsidize the licensing department's christmas party.
> What needs to happen is a set of guidleines be drawn up that are applicable throughout the country. This could be produced by established keepers who wish to protect their own hobby so wouldn't set the bar too low, but also want to see their hobby flourish so wouldn't make the requirements unachievable. These guidelines could be in checklist form and so could be inspected by anyone from the council. If you fail to meet a requirement you have a month to put it right before being inspected again. 3 fails and you go back to the start of the application process. Also, there is no need for a vet to carry out the inspection as a DWAL application is not an animal health issue. Unless the vet is experienced in the husbandry of the animals you are wishing to keep, they serve no purpose.
> Add to that a single flat rate fee of £100 to cover administartion and inspections and you're good to go.
> If only it was that easy.


I think there should be a tier system put into place.

tier 1 - rear-fanged snakes, gilla's etc
tier 2 - Caiman and the like
tier 3 - gaboon's etc

they should all be monitored differently and have different guidelines for each tier/specific animal. Then again I don't keep any DWA so doesn't really matter what they do to me.


----------



## JumperBoy (Jul 3, 2010)

*Right.*

Right well im just gonna throw a few ofmy opinions out their:

As wth every pet out their you need to know what your doing before you get it, surely this still true with big snakes aswell? if so then what is the need of puting largely kept snakes on the dwa if it is just a small minority of people that have not done this and payed the price?

However i do belive that any animal that has a ratio of people that keep them to people killed by that animal over 100:15 (obviously this my change been as i just guessed that) a year should be put staright on the list without question due to a obvious problem, a possible idea?


----------



## JaySteel (Jan 28, 2010)

I think the overall reaction from most of the general public would be one in favour of tighter restrictions and legislations on keeping many reptiles. A large proportion of the public have a phobia about reptiles (snakes in particular) and I think any encouragement from us to make changes to the DWA laws could result in our laws moving ever closer to completely outlawing many if not all dangerous animals being kept as pets.

As people have already mention I too think that if any tighter laws need to be introduced to protect us from dangerous animals then these laws should be aimed at large dogs. As a postman of 21 years I can assure you that being attacked by a Rottweiler is no laughing matter at all! I was lucky enough to fend the animal off with my mail bag and avoid being bitten until the owner came out to restrain the dog. But this incident has left me very shaken up for weeks after.

Jason


----------



## JumperBoy (Jul 3, 2010)

JaySteel said:


> I think the overall reaction from most of the general public would be one in favour of tighter restrictions and legislations on keeping many reptiles. A large proportion of the public have a phobia about reptiles (snakes in particular) and I think any encouragement from us to make changes to the DWA laws could result in our laws moving ever closer to completely outlawing many if not all dangerous animals being kept as pets.
> 
> As people have already mention I too think that if any tighter laws need to be introduced to protect us from dangerous animals then these laws should be aimed at large dogs. As a postman of 21 years I can assure you that being attacked by a Rottweiler is no laughing matter at all! I was lucky enough to fend the animal off with my mail bag and avoid being bitten until the owner came out to restrain the dog. But this incident has left me very shaken up for weeks after.
> 
> Jason


1st part i 100% agree but the secound i dont.

The owner should be punished cause its not the dogs fault, like a fine for the owner having a dog again after that one is taken away?


----------



## JaySteel (Jan 28, 2010)

I totally agree that it's not the dogs fault and the owners should be punished.
But my original comment was aimed at the keepers of these animals. IMO there should be tighter controls of who owns them and tighter control over allowing a dog like this to roam the streets without being under supervision and possibly kept on a lead. 
Don't get me wrong, I love dogs. My family and friends have owned staffs and they've been wonderful dogs. But I've also been attacked by two staffs in the last few months. One of which turned and bit hold of its owner's arm when he tried to get it back indoors. This happened just seconds after the owner tried to assure me that his dog would never ever bite anyone! These dogs are unpredictable and just because they've never bitten anyone yet doesn't mean that they aren't capable of doing such. This is a fact that many dog owners refuse to believe or accept. There was an incident near where I work where a man was killed by his own staff a couple of years ago.


----------



## snakeboyadam2k8 (Dec 13, 2008)

reptismail said:


> No expert on monkeys but im sure marmosets are legal but i dont think they should be, again just my opinion.


I have worked with marmosets for over 30 years and they do not pose any risk to the public. Their bite would be far less severe than a domestic cat so I suppose in that case they (cats) should be on the DWA list too. The one group that I don't understand being on the DWA is the Tamarin group, what I said about the marmoset group applies totally to them too.
As someone has already said anyone keeping their animals properly (secure housing etc) has nothing to fear from having to be licenced under the DWA and in fact I welcome it!


----------



## Mikes snakes (Jan 17, 2011)

leecb0 said:


> I really dont see your reasoning for taking small croc's off and putting large monitors on
> Also servals occelots have the ability to cause as much if not more halm and damage as a pit bull.
> 
> Remember the DWAA is there not to protect the keeper but to protect the public.
> ...


I know let's slag off pitbulls that's never been done before


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Having read through this, one thing stands out in mile high letters - those advocating more species to be added or removed, and changing the licence system appear to have no knowledge of the DWAA, its purpose, or the numerous reviews since it became law in 1976. And those that do know what they are talking about are being argued against.
The list as it currently stands is the result of a long and lengthy consultation with various people and organisations who know what they are talking about. I can assure those who keep calling for constrictors to be added that this was considered, as with previous reviews, and as with previous reviews was rejected, as they do not pose a threat to the public. The entire purpose of the Act is to protect the PUBLIC not the keeper - the view is that if a private individual wishes to put themselves at risk by keeping such an animal, that is their choice, but it must be done in a way that does not put the public at risk.
As for having different "grades", again, this is unworkable. EIther a species is dangerous, or it isn't.


----------



## stuartdouglas (Mar 5, 2008)

If we went along with species which pose a risk to the public, dogs and horses would be right at the top! The DWAA is fine as it is, the implementation of the act by Local authorities however, is a different matter altogether. In addition to protecting the public, the act protects animals which were popular pets, but were often kept without specialist knowledge and without appropriate husbandry. Small monkeys are a prime example of this. Those in their 40's will no doubt remember seeing spider monkeys housed in small bird cages for sale in petshops. Implementing a licensing system for animals such as these reduces their availability to the "impulse pet buyer" and reduses the chances of animals being kept in unsatisfactory conditions or being dumped when the novelty wears off.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

stuartdouglas said:


> If we went along with species which pose a risk to the public, dogs and horses would be right at the top! The DWAA is fine as it is, the implementation of the act by Local authorities however, is a different matter altogether. In addition to protecting the public, the act protects animals which were popular pets, but were often kept without specialist knowledge and without appropriate husbandry. Small monkeys are a prime example of this. Those in their 40's will no doubt remember seeing spider monkeys housed in small bird cages for sale in petshops. Implementing a licensing system for animals such as these reduces their availability to the "impulse pet buyer" and reduses the chances of animals being kept in unsatisfactory conditions or being dumped when the novelty wears off.


Dogs and horses are in fact covered by the DWAA in their wild form; it is the domesticated animals are that exempt. In other word if you wanted to keep an African Wild Dog then you would require to be licensed, want to keep a Rottweiler then you don’t – “simples” as the little chap would say…. 

The primary objective of the Act is public safety, welfare was very much secondary and in fact was to be removed at the last review, and rightly so in my view. We now have the Animal Welfare Act which ensures the welfare of all animals, so having two pieces of legislation dealing covering welfare is ludicrous. Unfortunately the RSPCA threw a little ‘tantrum’ as they do, and it was retained which was not helpful.

The Act is fine; I would have preferred and have always advocated for a tired system, A, B, C etc. Such a system is unlikely to be forthcoming as it would require primary legislation. The problem as you have rightly pointed out is implementation of the Act by Local Authorities; this is where the whole Act falls down. It is quite clear that many, if not most Local Authorities are not competent to administer the Act responsibly. There are some good LA’s, regrettably they are significantly outweighed by the poor. 

Large constrictors are highly unlikely ever to be listed on the DWAA schedule, and rightly so. They do not pose a significant risk to the public; the threat they may or may not pose to the keeper of immediate family is not relevant to the Act. If large constrictors were added to the DWAA schedule it would almost undoubtedly bring down the whole Act as its stands.


----------



## spinnin_tom (Apr 20, 2011)

the dangerous wild animal act works so well in theory. it is a license with conservation and protection at heart. it is meant for large mammals (big cats and the like), not reptiles and scorpions.
it is just a money making scam,i was talking about this, to Biggys a very short time ago.
tom


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

spinnin_tom said:


> the dangerous wild animal act works so well in theory. it is a license with conservation and protection at heart. it is meant for large mammals (big cats and the like), not reptiles and scorpions.
> it is just a money making scam,i was talking about this, to Biggys a very short time ago.
> tom


The intent of the Act is entirely laudable, i.e. to protect the public from ‘dangerous wild animals’ – the implementation of the Act is the issue! The Act is an enabling piece of legislation it was not intended to be used to restrict keeping [other than unsafe keeping].


----------



## spinnin_tom (Apr 20, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> The intent of the Act is entirely laudable, i.e. to protect the public from ‘dangerous wild animals’ – the implementation of the Act is the issue! The Act is an enabling piece of legislation it was not intended to be used to restrict keeping [other than unsafe keeping].


yes, but like i said, it is meant for mammals, not herps and inverts.
for example, Leirus quinquestriatus, the deathstalker scorpion is on the dwa list. it is a cold blooded animal, which requires high temperatures. it, along with most ''exotic'' inverts and i imagine herps would never be able to survive more than a week on ''the loose''. if one were a responsible keeper, you would not have to worry about protecting the public, because you would be sensible and responsible enough to not let your ''pet'' escape.
as i said, works in theory, but in reality, it is a money making scam.
well done defra


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

spinnin_tom said:


> yes, but like i said, it is meant for mammals, not herps and inverts.
> for example, Leirus quinquestriatus, the deathstalker scorpion is on the dwa list. it is a cold blooded animal, which requires high temperatures. it, along with most ''exotic'' inverts and i imagine herps would never be able to survive more than a week on ''the loose''. if one were a responsible keeper, you would not have to worry about protecting the public, because you would be sensible and responsible enough to not let your ''pet'' escape.
> as i said, works in theory, but in reality, it is a money making scam.
> well done defra


Your suggestion that it was intended for mammals is not entirely correct, yes, it was the fad for big cats back in the 1970’s that kicked off the desire to create an Act to regulate keeping, but it is very clear from the outset that it would include venomous snakes. Indeed back then the keeping of venomous was quite widespread at that time, and I am quite sure some of us ‘old gits’ well recall how some of them were kept in what was probably less then ideal conditions in terms of safety. The very first venomous I got back in about 1972/73 were acquired because one had escaped and killed the next door neighbours rabbit and the keeper wanted to move them on!!

The inclusion of arachnids such as _Leirus quinquestriatus_ is more questionable, but would you really argue that _L. quinquestriatus_ are not potentially dangerous! Personally I don’t have an issue with species such as _Leirus_ and _Latrodectus_ being included in the Act. We live today in modern houses with central heating and I think we have to conceder such species could pose a threat to the public. However, I certainly object to the inclusion of all Buthidaie on the Act.

As for being a ‘rip off’ – absolutely agree, it is, and this is something that I am trying to address. On balance I am still supportive of the principles of the DWAA, we just need to get it workable!


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

Might be worth noting that L. quin can recover from temps as low as -7C in tests Tom  so still a risk small risk of them finding a heat source the next day to move again even if they were caught out on a chilly night, no question of _Leirus _being a DWAA listed genus really people do die (even if very rarely) and do need medical care in severe cases.


----------



## spinnin_tom (Apr 20, 2011)

Oderus said:


> Might be worth noting that L. quin can recover from temps as low as -7C in tests Tom  so still a risk small risk of them finding a heat source the next day to move again even if they were caught out on a chilly night, no question of _Leirus _being a DWAA listed genus really people do die (even if very rarely) and do need medical care in severe cases.



BLAAAH you knew what i meant though mate 
animals which can not tolerate british temperatures to well.. take most American buthids. and yes, people can and do die, but as i mentioned a responsible keeper would never give these animals a chance to get out, due to mutual respect and double boxing (just in case) etc.


----------



## J and M hedgehogs (Feb 7, 2011)

reptismail said:


> I mean if it went one way or another i would like to either see monitors go on croc come off. I just think they need to rethink the list.


i have a fair ammount of montiors i woudlent like to see them go on its experience and when they bite they normally dont tend to keep on for to long its more of im here keep off me bite than a full on trying to attack and not let go bite:Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Herpetologist_apprentice (Jun 22, 2011)

mat_worrell said:


> Personally I think there should be a shake up of the DWA and it should be on some sort of 'traffic light' system. Red for most dangerous and most risk posed to general public all the way down to green of little to no risk. And I think this should include all animals, obviously those deemed domesticated would be green/Amber up to the likes of venomous snakes being red.
> 
> In order for this to work for the keeper too it should have stipulations for each colour (red, amber green) so red meaning all of the current rules and regulations of DWA that exist today down to green, little to no stipulation. Amber being an intermediate not quite as strict as red but definitely not as relaxed as green.
> 
> Hope this makes sence, not quite with it, lack of sleep has frazzled my brain!!




no no it's my friends cousins step sister. . . etc lolllllllll hate that rumour so much:banghead:


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

Herpetologist_apprentice said:


> no no it's my friends cousins step sister. . . etc lolllllllll hate that rumour so much:banghead:


Eh? 

How the hell does that relate to the comment you quoted?


----------



## Herpetologist_apprentice (Jun 22, 2011)

crap wronggggg quote, i was meant to qoute that rumour about snakes


----------



## robbh1987 (Apr 4, 2010)

If an animal being on the DWAL is dependant on its risk to the public, then why shouldnt small crocodilians be removed from the list, if they were to be kept in a recessed enclosure where they couldnt climb over the perimeter, there would be no risk? i understand with snakes as they can lift a large proportion of their bodies off the ground unsupported, but a croc cant. Im not saying crocodilians should be removed I'm just trying to prove a point that its not based entirely on protection of the public, if it was large constrictors would be DWA without a doubt, as would all of the larger monitor species.


----------



## mrhoyo (Mar 29, 2007)

I quite like the traffic lights idea. Sydney already do something similar for reptiles: 
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifelicences/GettingAReptileKeepersLicence.htm

It would deter impulse buyers and the doofuses that can't cope with the decisions they've made.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

robbh1987 said:


> If an animal being on the DWAL is dependant on its risk to the public, then why shouldnt small crocodilians be removed from the list, if they were to be kept in a recessed enclosure where they couldnt climb over the perimeter, there would be no risk? i understand with snakes as they can lift a large proportion of their bodies off the ground unsupported, but a croc cant. Im not saying crocodilians should be removed I'm just trying to prove a point that its not based entirely on protection of the public, if it was large constrictors would be DWA without a doubt, as would all of the larger monitor species.


You raise a good point, however, the reason why a ‘small crocodilian’ is on the DWAA schedule is simple because it is a crocodilian - size is irrespective to the Act. It would be impractical for arguments sake 195 cm crocodilian is not on the DWAA but a 200 cm is.


----------

