I guess it's a matter of agreeing to disagree here. I still don't see the difference between other "wild" pets kept and monkeys. Each animal has it's own welfare needs and each animal can be abused by owners who don't want to meet those, wether it's a monkey or something more common like a rabbit or a ferret and wether it's a private owner or a zoo. In fact in absolute numbers of mistreated animals, those common species are subject to way more harm then a more difficult to keep species like certain monkeys. In either case laws should protect animals from ending up in those bad situations, and I don't think we should threat those two groups of species any different from each other.
Without doubt that of a callitrichid is more difficult, you're dealing with a tropical species that is also relatively prone to diseases that humans can transmit and a diet that is far more complicated then a rabbit. That means in my opinion that the welfare minimum should just be set higher and control needs to be tighter, and to then let people decide if they find the effort worth it or not. This is a principle I apply to all species, wether it's as complex to keep as a callitrichid or a Sulawesi shrimp (those are darn difficult to keep alive except for a few species that are just difficult) or as easy as a rabbit or a Neocaridina davidi shrimp.
And why include these groups but exclude fish, inverts and so-called domestic species (wether it's true domestics like dogs or species with domestic color forms)? I'be inclined to say that fish, rabbit and rodent welfare is far more troublesome then your average reptile welfare, the chances of finding the first in bad welfare in your average household is far greater then the latter. Bird species is kinda in the middle, but even for them welfare might be better then the species you exempt here. Part of the reason why such a proposal creates a backlash is because you are using differing standards to talk about similar things, seamingly only based on popularity and social acceptance of bad welfare standards rather then actual welfare.
Tbf cranes are relatively easy to accommodate if the space is available. Alligators I wouldn’t know about
Santa always gets one of his elves to check the Dangerous Wild Animals Act and its schedules before setting out for England and Wales: so no apes or lions or cassowaries or any of the others, unless they are earmarked for someone who has the appropriate licenceThis law only covers monkeys so as gorillas are great apes you may be in luck afterall
I don't know the details of the tortoise keeping case - but I think it may have been rather different as no tortoises are covered by the DWA. Many animal shelters used to rely on visitors for a significant part of their income, but they were then told that they had to have zoo licences because the public could visit them (for more than a few days each year). They are more expensive than DWA licences because the inspections are more detailed; I am sure that @Andrew Swales could give lots of examplesThe real problem for Santa is that apes will grab and eat sweets from his bag, which were meant as gifts for other people.
More seriously, anybody estimated the cost of such law for the owners? These inspections and bureaucracy will come at a price in pounds and time, which will go from the budget meant for monkey's upkeeping. There was an earlier case when bureaucracy bankrupted a person running shelter for tortoises.
And if animal abuse is a problem, there is no point in singling out one group of animals. There are more abused dogs, cats or horses than monkeys, because they are much more numerous.
Consequently some of these shelters had to close.Reptile and fish trade are both massive sectors for wild-caught animals, in most cases legal but sometimes legal when they should've been restricted already. Saltwater fish in fact are almost all taken from the wild, as captive breeding of the vast majority of species is yet to be achieved. Banning a species actually makes it more likely to have animals taken illegal from the wild, as getting animals from breeders or from legal harvesting is no longer possible.
There is nothing that I can think of that springs to mind which is common to the two pieces of legislation, so the list is total. In our case the cost difference is close to 10,000%...I don't know the details of the tortoise keeping case - but I think it may have been rather different as no tortoises are covered by the DWA. Many animal shelters used to rely on visitors for a significant part of their income, but they were then told that they had to have zoo licences because the public could visit them (for more than a few days each year). They are more expensive than DWA licences because the inspections are more detailed; I am sure that @Andrew Swales could give lots of examples
The significance of the DWA is that it is about dangerous animals to ensure that they are kept properly and that the keeper, his or her family (if any) and the general public are safe from the dangers they pose.
There is none.