Dangerous Wild Animals Act

[sami]

I am doing an assignment on Animal Welfare legislation, and for part of it I have to evaluate the effectiveness of one act.

I have chosen the DWA.. and I know what *I* think about it...

I would just like your opinions.

Is the Dangerous Wild Animals Act effective?
Does it do what it is *meant* to do?
Does it protect the Animals?
Does it protect the General Public?

~ Discuss ~

Sami

[welshgaz]

People have to remember exactly what the DWA is there for. That is to protect the general public, not owners, from dangerous species of animals and in my opinion it does exactly that.

Debates open up on what should be added or what its actually not designed to do. Most people will then lose trackof conversations and threads and its gets associated with whats its not.

Imagine we didn't have the DWA. Any Tom, Dick & Harry could buy potentially lethal animals, which when they found out they were not able to control they let loose which is then dangerous to the public. I'm not saying that people don't keep these animals without licences now but surely its alot lower that if we didn't have one ?

There are probably people who get bitten and endanger there own lives because they don't have a license, but that is there own fault, not the fault of the DWA

[TSKA Rory Matier]

Originally Posted by quixotic_axolotl

I am doing an assignment on Animal Welfare legislation, and for part of it I have to evaluate the effectiveness of one act.

I have chosen the DWA.. and I know what *I* think about it...

I would just like your opinions.

Is the Dangerous Wild Animals Act effective?
Does it do what it is *meant* to do?
Does it protect the Animals?
Does it protect the General Public?

~ Discuss ~

Sami

MM, l had to tick yes.

I do not like the DWAL l think overall its the wrong type of licence for its purpose.

Based on the questions you have posed then the answer is yes, for they [questions] are fairly clinical.

Is the Act effective?

In some ways yes, and in others no.

In so far as it can not be truly policed nor unless information to non licence holders is secured to the right parties enforced.

There were and l should imagine many holders of DWAL species out there even now, that do not hold the licence on species they have.

So is it effective there? Of course not. Unless we lived in a 'clinically enforced state' where upon the 'doings of every household' were known, that would be the only way this act would be overall effective. We do not live in that type of environment so NO it is not effective to that degree.

Does it do what it is meant to do?

Well as long as the parties adhere to it correctly and legally under the guidelines of the licence then it does exactly what it is meant to do.

Does it protect the animals?

Again l refer to question two's answer - so yes.

Does it protect the public?

Again refer to question two's answer - so yes.

BUT, is it perhaps the correct licence for the animals?

No, it does not specifically focus on the animals nor the keepers husbandry. Before you flame [readership who are contributing to this poll if not thread] There are only a few questions, that relate to the animals husbandry.

The vets who carry the inspection are usually not geared up in exotic animals, and the councils have little or no knowledge on what is being passed and rely very heavily upon the keepers judgement.

The fees are appalling and are a prime excuse for many anti councils to deem high expenditures as an excuse to prevent people from keeping. There is no regulation to the fees and this is wrong!

Overall, the licence does what the legislations lay out for it to do. Simple.

I don't like the licence, but does it do the job - yes.

Rory Matier
Pro Keepers Lobby