DWA without a licence

[mythicdawn07]

Originally Posted by paulrimmer69

fair point but if your dog escapes and seriously injures someone you can be taken to court and sued plus lose your dog, if you own an animal which you know if it did escape could easily kill or seriously injure someone in my opinion its worth a couple of hundred quid a year to cover your back

Then it should be a choice, not a requirement. Forcing someone to pay a yearly fee to keep there pets is a joke.

DWA should be a one time fee, insurance should be recurring fee. But at the end of the day it's just a con.

[AZUK]

Originally Posted by Tamz

Tis a bit naughty though, especially when you know they are not taking the correct precautions. I mean it wouldnt be so bad if said person was being sensible about it, but posting pictures up of themselves holding a DWA scorp is plain stupid, and its things like this that ultimately ruin it for the rest of the exotic community due to bad press because the moron got stung and died.

*Le Sigh*

Which post is this ?

[Ssthisto]

Originally Posted by MJ75

I think the people who see the license cost as unnecesary should ask themselves, if they get hit by a car when travelling themselves would they think :-

A) I hope he's got insurance.

B) Ah well, it was his fault but it doesn't matter if he's no insurance as it's an uneccesary cost So I'll just deal with the costs I have to incur even though it's not my fault.

So if YOU suffered injury and costs because you were injured by a neighbours DWA pet what would you think then? Would you want the keeper prosecuted? Would you take civil action against the keeper? Or would you want both? It's a no brainer for me......

Well, from my side of things... I suffered an injury in a car accident that resulted in my losing a week's worth of wages while I was in hospital. Unfortunately... I was a passenger in the *at fault* driver's car.

Did I get any compensation for the week's lost wages - or the fact that I was on a liquid diet for a month afterward? Does a bear poo in the middle of Trafalgar Square?

If I was injured by a neighbour's pet I'd be asking what I did wrong before I asked what the neighbour did wrong. To be honest, I don't think I would want the keeper prosecuted unless it was a calculated and deliberate act that resulted in my exposure to the animal in question - throwing a Gaboon at me is a different story to my trying to catch their dog before it runs out into the road and getting bitten for my trouble. Thing is, the latter's a lot more likely to happen.

But dog owners aren't required to have public liability insurance for their large carnivorous pets.

[Caz]

Originally Posted by ian14

I am not sure that this is the case, because it does not provide a complete ban on individuals keeping these species. If that was the case, then it would breach the Human Rights Act, however, because it allows you to keep them under licence then I cannot see that it is in breach of any Article. The fact that councils charge, in some cases, extortionate prices is neither here nor there, the argument would be that if you want to keep them there is nothing to stop you, but you have to pay the costs involved.

Although it's not in breach of any Article it provides an unfair disadvantage to the citizens of some member states.

[SiUK]

Originally Posted by Caz

Although it's not in breach of any Article it provides an unfair disadvantage to the citizens of some member states.

surely then that makes any license "illegal" from guns to cars??

[ian14]

Originally Posted by Caz

Although it's not in breach of any Article it provides an unfair disadvantage to the citizens of some member states.

No, it doesn't. The whole point of the DWA is to protect the public, it was originally brought in following a rise in the number of big cats being kept privately. It was never brought in to ban the keeping of them, but to ensure they are housed safely and securely.
It does not provide an unfair disadvantage because the DWA does not ban the keeping of such animals. In fact the DWA makes it clear that a local authority cannot refuse to issue a licence just because they don't want such animals kept within their areas.
The Human Rights Act has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring that "citizens" of all member states have the same laws applied, but to ensure that the laws of each country are complient with the articles. This means that all laws had to be audited to ensure complience.

[MJ75]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Well, from my side of things... I suffered an injury in a car accident that resulted in my losing a week's worth of wages while I was in hospital. Unfortunately... I was a passenger in the *at fault* driver's car.

Did I get any compensation for the week's lost wages - or the fact that I was on a liquid diet for a month afterward? Does a bear poo in the middle of Trafalgar Square?

If I was injured by a neighbour's pet I'd be asking what I did wrong before I asked what the neighbour did wrong. To be honest, I don't think I would want the keeper prosecuted unless it was a calculated and deliberate act that resulted in my exposure to the animal in question - throwing a Gaboon at me is a different story to my trying to catch their dog before it runs out into the road and getting bitten for my trouble. Thing is, the latter's a lot more likely to happen.

But dog owners aren't required to have public liability insurance for their large carnivorous pets.

Did you claim against the driver? You could have done from a legal point of view. Whether you chose to or not with the driver being a friend is irrelevant to the post of mine you've quoted though.

It's all a question of responsibility really. You have to have public liability insurance to keep a DWA. You don't for a dog. But again it's not relevant. If you're not keeping them legally and something does happen you deserve whatever punishment the law chooses to throw at you. And you deserve any compensation claim a civil suit may decide against you. You only have yourself to blame. Saying I can't afford the DWAL cost but I keep one anyway is both pathetic and irresponsible.

[Ssthisto]

And there's the rub.

"Legal" isn't always exactly equivalent to "right".

It may have been legal and logical to claim against my friend's insurance - but it would not have been the RIGHT thing to do.

As I said, I don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to keep DWA without a licence.
I also don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to report someone who is otherwise keeping responsibly but does not have a licence, because I would be concerned that their animals would be euthanised. To me, getting someone's animals euthanised out of a desire to see the *legal* thing done is most definitely not the *right* thing to do.

[MJ75]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

And there's the rub.

"Legal" isn't always exactly equivalent to "right".

It may have been legal and logical to claim against my friend's insurance - but it would not have been the RIGHT thing to do.

As I said, I don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to keep DWA without a licence.
I also don't think it's the RIGHT thing to do to report someone who is otherwise keeping responsibly but does not have a licence, because I would be concerned that their animals would be euthanised. To me, getting someone's animals euthanised out of a desire to see the *legal* thing done is most definitely not the *right* thing to do.

The right thing would have been for your friend to compensate you (Assuming it was their fault) IMHO. If you dislike a law you can always write to your MP and see if you can have it changed! Good luck there though...

Remember the RIGHT thing to do is only ever your opinion. What you believe is RIGHT may not be shared by others. Hence the need for laws in the first place. As I said, you can always try and change it... You don't know if the animal will be euthanised so it's purely hypothetical...

If an animal is kept "correctly" but illegaly I fail to see how this can be RIGHT as if something does happen, and lets be honest here there is always a possibility no matter how remote (Otherwise the DWAL wouldn't exist would it?) that others may suffer as a result. If it's kept illegaly then the keeper won't be insured and so probably can't meet his or her responsibilities.

[Ssthisto]

You've got quite a valid point; "right" is in the eye of the beholder.

That said, the number of DWA-species accidents is vastly smaller than the number of equestrian or canine accidents - even when you consider the unlicenced keepers of the former. I've been injured in accidents involving horses and dogs, too... but I won't be screaming for their owners' blood (and/or money).