DWA Changes

[spider_mad]

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

thanks, not really that much(reptile wise)difference really. i seriously think that some of the larger centipedes should be put on it though

I see mangroves finally made it off(though not that excited by it), but not curviers dwarf caimens, though thats not a bad thing i suppose when you think of the average numpty buying one as their first exotic

Nothing wrong with pedes as long as the keepers respect them and care for them properly. They are quick and aggressive and the venom is pretty nasty but the speculatory so are the asian and african baboon spiders so wouldnt worry too much about that. Wish the remove Centruroids, Bark scorpions are not fatally dangerous as once thought.

[LeeH]

if we put everything on that could serious harm we wouldn't be keeping much these days haha..any into snails or slugs lol but oh woops theres the slipping hazard
IMO if people use their head before getting them..good adequate enclosure and can give it what it deserves like adequate diets i welcome the things coming off ..only dangers in wrong hands and people that like to cut corners

[darkdan99]

The DWA is an act to PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM DANGEROUS ANIMALS.

Not to protect the animals from dangerous keepers.

Primates, racoons and alike are about as dangerous as an angry cat. Capybara and porcupines etc are like a small dog, in terms of the damage they can do to a human.

If the act is to protect us from all dangerous animals, Hognose’s, bees, and all spiders/scorpions/ centipedes should be added, since people can be allergic, all dogs over 10kg should be added all Boidae over 8foot.

The FACT is that all animals can damage a human in some way. Whilst the majority of people may not be allergic, there is still a risk, similar to that or the risk associated with a mangrove snake etc.

Nerys, you have a (lovely) pair of skunks. Slightly smaller, but very similar to a racoon. Should Snuff be DWA?

There should be a separate piece of legislation to protect "not-deadly" animals from keepers...THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

The recent update to the bill means that any "substandard" keeping can and will be penalised. Pet shops now HAVE to keep a list of buyers (with name and address/contact number) MINIMUM. When Monkeys and other specialist animals are sold, the local authority knows where it is. They can inspect.

Reptiles are very specialised. The amount of fine tuning, and expense that goes into a (proper) vivarium for even the simplest of reptiles is immense. But should they be added to DWA, because they get abused.

Domestic animals such as our cats, dogs, small rodents, and farm animals can do a lot of damage, yet you see no need for them to be DWA. Zebra are covered, yet the domestic horse isn’t. Alsatians and Akitas are legal, while a wolf is covered.

There needs to be a DWA, which covers only animals with the capacity to kill, such as cats from the family Pantherinae (and some Felinae), Snakes from the families Elpidae, Viperidae, and the genus Dispholidus (and a few others). All animals with an average adult weight of over 1000kg. (And many more species)

And there needs to be a "pet license" that works like a TV license (minus the cost). When you buy an animal, a slip of paper is given. This must be sent off, registered online, or over the phone.

Then, whenever animals are sold, given veterinary treatment, (with the exception of emergency treatment), showed, or competes, or upon request of an official, the license must be produced or the number given (which can be checked on a database, like the DVLA)

Should a person not have a license, then they would be fined on the spot with a fixed penalty notice, (i.e. when dog walking, or when a police/RSPCA/official visits a residence). Along with the "receipt" (for the fine) an application will be given, and this will need to be registered, of further action taken.

If I was setting it up, each person would get a registration number (like a car) that cover's their animals. If requested, they could give this number, or produce their license. Simple.

Then when Monkey's and sloth’s turn up, they can be checked. And under the AWA they will need to have "adequate and safe" housing.

[Magpye]

Valid points raised.

Another concern with exotic animals is their invasive potential if they are released or escape into the wild. And whilst it may not be the context of the DWAA to prevent such instances, it does deter people from keeping some animals that could be potentially very invasive and pose great threat to native wildlife. However, it does not prevent such incidents as the Alpine newt that is clearly never going to be covered by the DWAA.

DWAA is designed to protect the public, but it can and should also be used to protect native flora and fauna. By allowing unrestricted access to invasive non-native species that are not considered life threatening escapes will happen and the ecological impacts could be very serious if breeding populations become established. The American Mink and Grey Squirrels are good examples of what happens when "introduced species go bad".

CITES only regulates endangered species, and whilst legislation does account for the introduction of non-native species - there is no regulatory legislation or body that restricts pet ownership other than the DWAA.

[darkdan99]

Originally Posted by ratboy

I would like to know why DEFRA believe that an animal like a racoon poses no danger to the public.

This is taken from an American web site...

Raccoons as pets
Some young raccoons, especially orphans, are responsive to human contact and it is tempting to try to make one into a pet. This is rarely a good idea. Young raccoons are adorable and their antics amusing but they have very specialized needs and their curiosity and stubbornness generally preclude making pets of them.

Raccoons do not recognize the word 'no' and if they decide they want something you'd better not try to take it away. Your priceless collection of Hummel figurines will be destroyed on the first day, your upholstery shredded and your refrigerator emptied of it's contents on a regular basis.

The biggest problem with attempting to make a raccoon into a pet comes when the raccoon gets a little older. Female raccoons reach sexual maturity at one year of age, males at two. At this point in their development or shortly thereafter, they sometimes become ill-tempered and aggressive. If they become unmanageable they must be released to the wild. Since they've lived in captivity all their lives, they cannot simply be taken out to the country and set free. They don't know how to survive in the wild and will probably suffer a slow death by starvation or, more likely, because they have no fear of humans.

Wildlife rehabbers devote countless hours to trying to 'wild up' raccoons who have been kept as pets so that they may survive on their own. Some never become releasable.
There are exceptions to every rule, and in some instances raccoons have been successfully made into pets. If you have a good reason to attempt to make a raccoon into a pet, i.e. the animal has a physical defect that would prevent it from surviving in the wild, do your homework and know what you are getting into. (The desire to have an exotic pet is NOT a good reason.) As my friend Don says, "It takes a special person to live with raccoons." To this I would add, "It takes a special raccoon to live with people."

Another compelling reason not to make a raccoon into a pet is the presence in many wild raccoons of a parasite called baylisascaris procyonis, otherwise known as 'roundworms' or 'brainworms'. The Journal of the American Veterinary Association has estimated rates of infestation to be as high as 80% in some areas. This parasite is harmless to the raccoon but when transmitted to a different host, such as humans (especially children) or domestic canines, it can cause blindness, central nervous system damage and death.


Raccoon facts and information

I would like to know why DEFRA believe that an animal like a Large Snake poses no danger to the public.

Large Pythons as pets
Some young pythons, especially babies, are responsive to human contact and it is tempting to try to make one into a pet. This is rarely a good idea. Young snakes are adorable and are relativly easy to manage, but their huge size, specilist needs make them,difficult.

Snakes do not recognize Any words' and if they decide they want something you'd better not try (you'd fail anyway) to take it away. Your arm may look appetising, then you have a potentially deadly situation. A small mistake, such as letting a rat sit on ones shoulder, hours before handling, Even after washing hands can lead to a deadly situation.

The biggest problem with attempting to make a Snake into a pet comes when the snake gets a little older. Female snakes reach maturity at one/two years of age. At this point in their development or shortly thereafter, they are of gargantuan proportions. They have the potential to break any wooden, or plastic enclosure with their strength, and weight. Some can be bad tempered and aggressive. If they become unmanageable they must be released to the wild. Since they've lived in captivity all their lives, they cannot simply be taken out to the country and set free. Although they may fend for themselves, the devistating effect on the local fauna, and the incorrect tempratures can lead to an untimly death of the snake. (look at the impact on florida for example)

Wildlife rescurers devote countless hours to trying to care for the vast number of pets that have became too big, too agressive, or where the owwners are simply bored. Some never become tame, some never recover.

There are exceptions to every rule, and in some instances snakes have been successfully made into pets. There are some very skilled and enthusiastic keepers that prepare, and learn properly the responsibilities that they are about to take on.As a result of this there are some very happy snakes. There are also a lot of unhappy snakes, relesed snakes, and dead snakes.

Another compelling reason not to make a Snake into a pet is the presence in many wild snakes of a parasite called Ophionyssus natricis , otherwise known as snake mites. An infested family had to have weeks of antibiotics, and as a result of the lesions and infection some permanant scars remain. Reptiles are also carriers of Salmonella bacteri. Many people have lost thier lives to this, and tens of thousends of people are hospitalised, or even die yearly.

I could right one on dogs, cats, rat snakes....You name it.

[darkdan99]

The fact is, that any animal can be looked upon in either a good or bad light. I think it is clear that the animal with the biggest negative impact on the world is the human...Lets DWA children :P