A statistic here……one person in the UK has been killed by an escaped big cat, three hundred years ago. The whole point of DWA licensing is safety, and it seems to work.
Should legally owning DWAs be allowed?
- Thread starter Holly2873
- Start date
The_Leopard_Seal
Well-Known Member
True. But I still think there are some animals that should not be kept as pets.
AdmiralAlbatross
Member
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the DWA law verbiage. I am speaking about people owning 'dangerous animals' in general.
Personally, I don't believe most people should own exotics to begin with [again, I am speaking from a personal standpoint, not a legal one]. Most people are not even equipped to give parrots or reptiles the care they need.
Whatever animal someone owns, welfare and quality of life has to be first priority. Dog, Cat, Goldfish - all animals. I've seen too many cases of people owning 'dangerous animals' and the animal's welfare, as well as the safety of their family and neighbors, is jeopardized by the ignorance of the owner (e.g. Charla Nash, Terry Thompson, Cynthia Lee Gamble, Jason Coats, etc). Sure, maybe it can be done right, but I don't believe this is the case for most private persons, especially with Chimpanzees and big cats.
The difference between private persons and rehabs/sanctuaries possesing wild animals is clear. Their stay in these facilities is of single purpose: medical treatment or refuge due to seizure/surrender from someone who provided inadequate care. Their stay with private persons? Because someone wanted one.
Personally, I don't believe most people should own exotics to begin with [again, I am speaking from a personal standpoint, not a legal one]. Most people are not even equipped to give parrots or reptiles the care they need.
Whatever animal someone owns, welfare and quality of life has to be first priority. Dog, Cat, Goldfish - all animals. I've seen too many cases of people owning 'dangerous animals' and the animal's welfare, as well as the safety of their family and neighbors, is jeopardized by the ignorance of the owner (e.g. Charla Nash, Terry Thompson, Cynthia Lee Gamble, Jason Coats, etc). Sure, maybe it can be done right, but I don't believe this is the case for most private persons, especially with Chimpanzees and big cats.
The difference between private persons and rehabs/sanctuaries possesing wild animals is clear. Their stay in these facilities is of single purpose: medical treatment or refuge due to seizure/surrender from someone who provided inadequate care. Their stay with private persons? Because someone wanted one.
So parrots and reptiles are not "exotics"?
Well, that depends on the location and the species in question.To be fair - that is one if not the main reason for any animal purchase...including all domesticated animals.
Be careful there. People’s minds will implode the moment a similarity between keeping exotics and domestics are brought into the argument. Nobody wants to hear the idea that the argument against exotics could be used against domestics, bc we had domestics for thousands of years or something.So parrots and reptiles are not "exotics"?
To be fair - that is one if not the main reason for any animal purchase...including all domesticated animals.
Ah, you know by now that I would never ever dare to confront logical inconsistencies...
EliasNys
Well-Known Member
In Belgium we have a positive list of animals you can legally keep for mammals and Reptiles. I think this is a good solution. Zoos are not in trouble in anyway since they need a separate zoo license already, which covers everything. Furthermore, people that can and are dedicated to keeping a certain animal can ask for a special license so you can hold a certain species (often done with for example maras). This makes sure that people who are not able to take care of an animal properly cannot obtain the animal, and people or institutions that are able to properly care for an animal can.
Given that several non-Belgian reptile shelters in Europe are now reporting a massive increase in requests from Belgian reptile owners trying to donate their pet reptiles to them, it might not be as good a "solution" as you think. How difficult and pricey is it to obtain a special permit?
Official bans have never stopped unscrupulous (both incompetent and competent) animal enthusiasts from obtaining the animals they desire. Even more so in a supranational economic union such as the EU, with closeby neighbouring states offering pretty much any species for sale if you have the money and connections, while hardly controlling private exotic animal transports or implementing TRACES when it comes to reptiles.
EliasNys
Well-Known Member
I went to Natuurhulpcentrum Oudsbergen this summer. It's the largest rescue center in Belgium. They told me they were very happy with this legislation and French legislation banning e.g. large cats from circusses too and they said they were receiving more money from the government to built new enclosures for primarily the former circus animals. Pairi Daiza in Belgium has a large rescue facility for Reptiles. It might be overstocked but saying that it's because of this legislation is nonsense because as the park with the most revenue in Europe, PD has the money to build new reptile enclosures. There is also the Zonnegloed, a Sanctuary for long term holding of mammals and Reptiles. So overall there are facilities in Belgium to take care of former pets, and while on short-term Belgium will have to increase its funding for animal shelters, long-term there will be less animals kept inappropriately.
It's true that animals are traded illegally but that's more of a customs issue that can be solved with better controls. It's not because bombs are traded illegally that we should make them legal right? I do get your point regarding the EU single market though, and harmonized EU legislation would be even better and might exist in the nearby future.
Of course they are. Let's see how long that happiness will last once the federal funding runs dry.
And yet despite all that money, their reptile husbandry so far hasn't been all that stellar now, has it? Apparently, money can't buy you everything.
Whataboutism 101.
It's a tad bit more complicated than that.
@Batto I would be most curious to know your opinion on the new Italian law regarding the keeping of "non-conventional" company and exotic animals.
EliasNys
Well-Known Member
They actually don't receive any federal funding at all. They receive funding from the Flemish government, and the Flemish government has planned to sharply increase their funding of animal shelters, sanctuaries etc. Also as I said, long-term less animals will need to be taken care for, since this legislation will reduce the amount of animals that is being kept in poor conditions.
Yes, I agree, but I believe Pairi Daiza is to blame for that, and not the positive list or any other animal husbandry legislation in Belgium.
Yes, it is true that it's not just a customs issue. But still a problem that can be solved, preferably on an EU level. And of course illegal animal trade exists and we should reduce it, but this is in no way an excuse to let animals live in bad conditions because their owners can't take care of them well. Also most people who own a pet won't resort to illegal trade, only a very small fraction will.
Are you seriously using weapons of destruction to justify a short-sighted positive list banning animals the government and law enforcement that has no idea what they are working with? This will negatively affect the zoo industry one way or another.
Do you think all dog and cat ownership be banned over the actions of owners who don’t provide these animals appropriate care? That would be unfair, right?
And don’t even try to use the “but they have been domesticated for thousands of years” non-argument. Domestication doesn’t justify subjecting working breeds such as border collies and kangal sheepdogs to live in city environments. Domestication doesn’t mean that cats and dogs will adapt to any human environment even if it’s free of danger. Domesticated animals also get obtained just because someone simply wanted one. Domestic animals aren’t “special”.
EliasNys
Well-Known Member
Zoos are still treated exactly the same way in Belgium as before. Only in Flanders there is new legislation that imposes stricter rules for animal welfare. And I was using bombs as an exampleof another thing that is traded illegally and yet there is (rightfully of course) strict legislation. The same goes for animal welfare: using the incompetence of the government as an argument to not impose legislation that improves the living conditions of animals is simply acting like the government isn't responsible for those animals. Lastly, this list you call "short-sighted" is made using criteria that have been compiled by the EU court of justice.
Edit: To respond to your question about cats and dogs: there is already regulation in Flanders when you want to have a dog or cat. This makes sure less animals are being kept in conditions that they should not be kept in. But banning these animals of course goes too far. Unlike the animals not mentioned on the positive list, there would be no accommodation for them. And I think public opinion in Belgium is very much against this too, which is the largest reason you should not do it. Furthermore, the positive list focuses on species that are easy to keep, not whether a species has been domesticated or not.
So they do receive federal funding. Let's see how future Flemish governments will follow up to that plan.
It's not an excuse, but a caveat regarding promoting an all too naive solution attempt for a complex problem. For various reasons, positive lists tend to rather worsen than improve animal welfare issues. Let's see whether Belgium will be the exception to the rule, or confirm it.
Last edited:
Decided by whom, on which objective criteria?
Starting 2026, Austria is going a similar direction, with obligatory certificates of expertise for the private husbandry of parrots, reptiles and amphibians.
EliasNys
Well-Known Member
The fact that the positive list should include all species that are easy to keep is simply logical, at least to me. The current and former minister of animal welfare in Flanders mentioned it in vrt nieuws, the flemish public broadcasting company too, so I guess he decided that.
If you are referring to the criteria of the EU court of justice when making a positive list, these are the criteria:
- The list must have a legitimate purpose (a positive list aimed at safeguarding the welfare of animals in captivity is considered a legitimate objective of general interest);
- The positive list must be drawn up based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria;
- A procedure must be in place that allows individuals to propose new species for inclusion on the list. This procedure must be easily accessible and completed within a reasonable timeframe;
- If a new species is refused inclusion on the list, there must be the possibility to legally challenge this motivated refusal decision. A request to include a new species on the list may only be rejected if keeping specimens of the species in question poses a genuine risk to their welfare;
- The conditions for keeping a species not included on the positive list must be objectively justified and may not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the animal welfare objective.
The_Leopard_Seal
Well-Known Member
To be fair, while many dogs (and other domesticated animals) are indeed dangerous and hard to care for, they aren't on the same level of dangerous (nor are they as difficult to care for) as DWAs. A wolf, chimpanzee or lion is far more dangerous and difficult to care for than any domestic dog.