# Should big monitors be on a standard license



## PythonLegs (Feb 13, 2014)

Should big monitors be available on a standard licence? Discuss.


----------



## saximus (Feb 13, 2014)

Definitely not and they aren't in NSW. I don't think it would be an overstatement to say Lacies are one of the most dangerous lizards in Aus but maybe that's just me being a pansy


----------



## andynic07 (Feb 13, 2014)

That is the silly thing, in Queensland you can buy a lacie on a normal recreational license but if you want to keep more than two woma's or GTP's you need to upgrade your license.


----------



## The_Geeza (Feb 13, 2014)

In the UK u need no licence... Bit like the majority over here lol... So who's the fools ?? Got me stuffed


----------



## imported_Varanus (Feb 13, 2014)

Yeah Sax, stop being a panzy...no Lacies for you!

In total agreement, as should the big pythons (and elapids). However, my main concern is for the animals well-being, "why does my baby Lacie hide all the time" and "why wont it eat it's greens"???..WT (you know the rest).

KingSirloin's quote comes to mind: "I'd hate to be a snake, living in the time of humans".


----------



## PythonLegs (Feb 13, 2014)

Mm. I'm not specifically thinking of the danger element, althoughh..that too. More so the husbandry requirements required with a lace,panoptes, perentie, etc etc..I'd guess there wouldnt be too many captive monitors living in totally suitable conditions. Even the zoo specimens are often pretty poorly cared for..


----------



## imported_Varanus (Feb 13, 2014)

My experience has been that Lacies (and other big monitors) are easily catered for if you have a basic understanding of monitor husbandry to begin with and therein lies the problem, the unpredictable human element. But the dangerous aspects should not be discounted, that's why many keepers feel experience should be gained with smaller species first before "upgrading" (or upsizing).


----------



## critterguy (Feb 13, 2014)

I agree, shouldn't be allowed the big ones until you have a bit of experience with the smaller ones.


----------



## junglepython2 (Feb 13, 2014)

You don't need a license for a human child and they are a lot harder to keep. We have too many restrictions as it is.


----------



## saximus (Feb 13, 2014)

Or maybe we should restrict human breeding


----------



## RedFox (Feb 13, 2014)

No I don't think large lizards should be kept on a basic, unrestricted license. I don't think large pythons should be either. There isn't all that much that can go wrong while handling a small reptile by yourself whereas while handling large reptile there is definitely a potential, especially if that person doesn't know what they are doing. 


[MENTION=1912]junglepython2[/MENTION] I don't think there are all that many restrictions on our licenses, well excluding WA and Tas. Did you want to expand on your point?


----------



## PythonLegs (Feb 13, 2014)

Yeah, well..I can think of plenty of people who should never be allowed to breed ie. Mr + Mrs. Bieber, and BillyRay Cyrus..


----------



## nonamesleft (Feb 13, 2014)

So having an advanced license increases husbandry knowledge and capability over the poor recreational license holders? Any Muppet can jump through the appropriate hoops and pay the extra cash.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Feb 13, 2014)

junglepython2 said:


> You don't need a license for a human child and they are a lot harder to keep. We have too many restrictions as it is.



And how many human children are ill kept & uncared for?
I would just like to see licensing throughout the country with the same restrictions for each state. The current system is just BS in my opinion.
Maybe a system similar to a driving licence where your ability needs to be tested/proved before stepping up to keep big lizards & elapids


----------



## RedFox (Feb 13, 2014)

nonamesleft said:


> So having an advanced license increases husbandry knowledge and capability over the poor recreational license holders? Any Muppet can jump through the appropriate hoops and pay the extra cash.



No but the extra money and depending on state, time required to get an advanced licence would LIMIT the amount of idiots owning a large reptile as their first.


----------



## Djbowker (Feb 13, 2014)

RedFox said:


> No but the extra money and depending on state, time required to get an advanced licence would LIMIT the amount of idiots owning a large reptile as their first.



Other licensing problems need to be fixed up first, like the two Woma's/ GTP's in Qld, especially considering the upgrade for the license expires when your standard license expires, which for me is in a year.

In the end it ends up being more money out of our pockets, and more into the governments.

I'd suggest a minimum license duration before you can get certain species, say one or two years. That way, we aren't having to spend vast amounts of money, and newbies aren't jumping onto lacies or scrubbies.


----------



## junglepython2 (Feb 13, 2014)

saximus said:


> Or maybe we should restrict human breeding



I can't argue with that!



RedFox said:


> No I don't think large lizards should be kept on a basic, unrestricted license. I don't think large pythons should be either. There isn't all that much that can go wrong while handling a small reptile by yourself whereas while handling large reptile there is definitely a potential, especially if that person doesn't know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> @junglepython2 I don't think there are all that many restrictions on our licenses, well excluding WA and Tas. Did you want to expand on your point?



As others have said, obtaining an advanced or restricted or higher license doesn't necessarily mean you are a better keeper or more knowledgeable. It just means you have paid more and followed whatever procedure your state required. More restrictions just encourage people to keep animals off the books with no monitoring what so ever. There is too much cotton wool in society at the moment without adding more.


----------



## pinefamily (Feb 13, 2014)

Don't think you will ever stop the cowboys, or the blackmarket. However, surely there can be more standardisation in licensing requirements in different states. There might have to be some differences in what can be kept on what licence, due to the geographic spread of each species. Maybe like a driving licence, limit what or how many in the first year.
Due to the nature of state governments, and their "empire-building", you will probably never see anything like this unfortunately.


----------



## GeckoJosh (Feb 13, 2014)

Will change asap


----------



## jacevy (Feb 13, 2014)

GeckoJosh said:


> Graphic warning for post below
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153846802095595&set=gm.616263725113358&type=1&theater






The link can't be followed


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 14, 2014)

I would just like to note that there is a significant difference between big lizards and big monitors i.e. thread title vs opening post.

The opening comment opens a veritable Pandora’s box of inconsistencies between different state’s licensing, questions on the need, commentary on the efficacy, inconsistencies in policing compliance and so on. What little it is worth I shall throw some of my thoughts into the mix.

On what basis should animals be categorised as “Basic” versus “Advanced” – assuming you have a two tier system of licensing. (My own preference is a three tier.) Size, as far as I am concerned, is not a valid criterion. What I believe needs to be considered are the following criteria: *1.* The level of difficulty of meeting the animal’s needs in captivity; *2.* The capacity of the animal to cause significant harm to humans; *3.* The rarity of the animal in nature. Obviously these criteria can vary for a species from juvenile to adult. If they apply at any stage of development then that determines the category.

No animal is difficult to maintain if you know what you are doing and have the resources and so meet its needs. 

Providing licences is based on a belief that going to the effort of acknowledging oneself as a keeper and paying money for the privilege is an incentive to get it right. Holding a basic license for the time required is seen as developing keeping skills which can then be applied to more difficult species on an advanced licence. The major shortfall I see with this is that keeping skills are species related and that experience with say geckos does not assist with keeping elapids etc. Just one more thorny problem.

Bringing illegal keeping into the discussion is not appropriate. The argument that setting laws and restrictions on people encourages keeping off the record is not relevant. It is in the same basket as people who don’t pay parking fines, who overstay their visas, who skip out on unpaid rent etc. Setting rules does not encourage this, it merely provides those who lack a social conscience and who are prepared to abrogate their civic responsibilities rather than accept them, another opportunity to do so.

I would just like to note that there is a significant difference between big lizards and big monitors i.e. thread title vs opening post.

Blue


----------



## Demansiaphile (Feb 14, 2014)

Shouldn't be any laws or licenses to keep any captive bred reptiles. They mean nothing and do nothing. 

You'll find out very quickly if you can or can't keep large varanids, or large pythons and elapids for that matter. 
These are animals that can hurt you very easily and a mentor system, seeing their wild counterparts or just not being an idiot is a good way to start.


----------



## champagne (Feb 14, 2014)

imported_Varanus said:


> Yeah Sax, stop being a panzy...no Lacies for you!
> 
> In total agreement, as should the big pythons (and elapids). However, my main concern is for the animals well-being, "why does my baby Lacie hide all the time" and "why wont it eat it's greens"???..WT (you know the rest).
> 
> KingSirloin's quote comes to mind: "I'd hate to be a snake, living in the time of humans".



I disagree I think less licensing regulations but the breeders need to take more responsibility... Both the problems you gave examples of could be avoided if the breeder educated the new owner and made sure they had some experience with large monitors, snakes rather then just worrying about making the sale. All the good breeders already do this because they understand too many accidents and they will put them on a restricted license or take them away.

I also don't want to see the licensing system nationalised because qld licensing system is great and I don't want other state governments that I have no say over controlling what I can keep in my state.


----------



## MesseNoire (Feb 14, 2014)

Demansiaphile said:


> Shouldn't be any laws or licenses to keep any captive bred reptiles. They mean nothing and do nothing.
> 
> You'll find out very quickly if you can or can't keep large varanids, or large pythons and elapids for that matter.
> These are animals that can hurt you very easily and a mentor system, seeing their wild counterparts or just not being an idiot is a good way to start.



I don't agree. That will further promote poaching.

I had a moron come in to work the other day asking questions relate to elapid husbandry. To my knowledge it's impossible to get them on license in the ACT so I questioned him about it. Turns out he takes elapids from the wild "keeps them for a few months to look after them" in less than adequate conditions and then releases them again. He has no knowledge of their needs or even what they eat and despite being bitten previously and almost losing a limb he is still more than happy to poach them. He didn't "believe" in licenses.

I think if anything there needs to be tougher restrictions and penalties regarding out wildlife. They are protected for a reason.


----------



## GeckoJosh (Feb 14, 2014)

Graphic warning for post below


----------



## champagne (Feb 14, 2014)

GeckoJosh said:


> Graphic warning for post below
> 
> 
> View attachment 305583



Whats the stories behind this?


----------



## Trimeresurus (Feb 14, 2014)

Damn that looks like a machete attack lol. Did he try and catch it or something?


----------



## -Peter (Feb 14, 2014)

It was a Central Coast tree lopper who met a lacie up a tree while working.

- - - Updated - - -



Bluetongue1 said:


> Bringing illegal keeping into the discussion is not appropriate. The argument that setting laws and restrictions on people encourages keeping off the record is not relevant. It is in the same basket as people who don’t pay parking fines, who overstay their visas, who skip out on unpaid rent etc. Setting rules does not encourage this, it merely provides those who lack a social conscience and who are prepared to abrogate their civic responsibilities rather than accept them, another opportunity to do so.
> 
> Blue



responsible people relying on the irresponsible to do the right thing


----------



## saximus (Feb 14, 2014)

I’ve always disliked the mentality that people break the rules so we might as well not those have rules. Taken to an extreme, people commit murder even though it’s illegal so why not just make that legal too?

At the end of the day, stupid bogans will continue to do stupid bogan things. That can’t be helped. However, if they exist, the normal person will follow the rules.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 14, 2014)

The reality of life is that where two or more humans interact, there is a need to govern those interactions so that the rights of each individual are delineated and can be respected. This is why we have governments. Anarchy is the alternative. History paints a very grim picture of all societies that have attempted to run without rules.

There will always be a percentage of people that are prepared to break the rules. The numbers willing to do so are determined by the likelihood of getting caught plus the cost if they do. I think it is safe to say that the likelihood of being caught out is slim and the disincentives for doing the wrong thing in our hobby are generally pretty soft. This is an on-going cause for frustration amongst the multitudes of responsible keepers.

Blue


----------



## andynic07 (Feb 14, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> The reality of life is that where two or more humans interact, there is a need to govern those interactions so that the rights of each individual are delineated and can be respected. This is why we have governments. Anarchy is the alternative. History paints a very grim picture of all societies that have attempted to run without rules.
> 
> There will always be a percentage of people that are prepared to break the rules. The numbers willing to do so are determined by the likelihood of getting caught plus the cost if they do. I think it is safe to say that the likelihood of being caught out is slim and the disincentives for doing the wrong thing in our hobby are generally pretty soft. This is an on-going cause for frustration amongst the multitudes of responsible keepers.
> 
> Blue


Very true but I think morals is also left out of this statement.


----------



## Boiga (Feb 14, 2014)

Yes, big monitors should be allowed on basic licensing as should all native Australian reptiles.
If you need a piece of paper to tell you that you aren't equipped to own a lace monitor or dangerous elapids then chances are you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed and should probably be your first indication that you aren't ready.

Realistically an advanced license means absolutely nothing other than you have forked over some money and appeased the authorities by attending a 2 day course. There are some who hold advanced licenses for venomous snakes who don't have the husbandry skills to keep a spotted python yet they got their license because they jumped through the hoops.

I think it's important to remember that not every one comes in to the hobby the same way, there are tonnes of people who have had years of hands on experience with elapids and large monitors but never held a recreational license so they are stuck with jumping through the bureaucrats hoops for the allotted time because the license application form doesn't ask if you have any provable prior knowledge.

At the end of the day it's simple. Don't purchase an animal you can't keep, keeping reptiles shouldn't be any different to your normal life where you assess the risk and make a decision based on experience. It's time people started accepting the consequences for their own actions.


----------



## junglepython2 (Feb 14, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> The reality of life is that where two or more humans interact, there is a need to govern those interactions so that the rights of each individual are delineated and can be respected. This is why we have governments. Anarchy is the alternative. History paints a very grim picture of all societies that have attempted to run without rules.
> 
> There will always be a percentage of people that are prepared to break the rules. The numbers willing to do so are determined by the likelihood of getting caught plus the cost if they do. I think it is safe to say that the likelihood of being caught out is slim and the disincentives for doing the wrong thing in our hobby are generally pretty soft. This is an on-going cause for frustration amongst the multitudes of responsible keepers.
> 
> Blue



The numbers willing to break the rules are also governed by how cumbersome and restrictive the rules are in the first place. At the end of the day people need to be responsible for there own actions. Providing the general public are not put at risk it shouldn't be up to governments or other keepers to dictate who is capable of keeping what.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Feb 14, 2014)

champagne said:


> I disagree I think less licensing regulations but the breeders need to take more responsibility... Both the problems you gave examples of could be avoided if the breeder educated the new owner and made sure they had some experience with large monitors, snakes rather then just worrying about making the sale. All the good breeders already do this because they understand too many accidents and they will put them on a restricted license or take them away.
> 
> I also don't want to see the licensing system nationalised because qld licensing system is great and I don't want other state governments that I have no say over controlling what I can keep in my state.



This is in no way the breeders responsibility.
This is like saying the shop assistant should be responsible for someone taking an overdose.


----------



## champagne (Feb 14, 2014)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> This is in no way the breeders responsibility.
> This is like saying the shop assistant should be responsible for someone taking an overdose.



Well any good pharmacy that you are buying drugs from will explain to you how to use them and make sure you understand... 

If you breed large pythons/ monitors or any animal for that matter, you have a moral obligation as a breeder to make sure that the person you selling to has the ability to look after the animal correctly... If you can't understand that you should not be breeding.


----------



## Pilbarensis (Feb 14, 2014)

Hobby has enough restrictions as it is, you guys whining on about putting more in place... The system should just be tier 1 - non-venomous, tier 2 - venomous. Then bring in plenty of collection permits for a fee and allow people to also keep native mammals, don't bother putting frogs and birds on a licence just let people keep them. And there you go, winning system. Very few restrictions and lots of freedom as to what you can keep. Don't know about you guys but I would much prefer a system like this to any of the current ones.


----------



## longqi (Feb 14, 2014)

Collection permits do not work except under very strict guidelines
To put those guidelines in place would make each permit cost about $100.000

I do agree there should be more permits for native mammals

How long do you think rare birds would last in the wild if no permits were required???
Cassowary. various cockatoos etc etc


----------



## PythonLegs (Feb 14, 2014)

Boiga said:


> At the end of the day it's simple. Don't purchase an animal you can't keep, keeping reptiles shouldn't be any different to your normal life where you assess the risk and make a decision based on experience. It's time people started accepting the consequences for their own actions.



mate..you're giving people Way, WAY too much credit.

besides, I couldnt care less if some bogan halfwit loses a few fingers.. I'd be more concerned about the animals that bought by the people that just want a goanna to show off to their mates.


----------



## Pilbarensis (Feb 15, 2014)

Longqi,

Honestly I'd be surprised if collection permits were that cheap. If it meant people could legally get species such as superb dragons or nephrurus vertebralis I imagine some people out there would be willing to pay a slightly excessive amount.

Well honestly I just keeping thinking how sweet it would be to see private keepers legally keeping spotted cuscus or striped possums.

You got me with the birds though longqi, a lot of the nice stuff would get plundered in the wild. So yes, make the rarer stuff require a licence and see how it goes from there I suppose.


----------



## pinefamily (Feb 15, 2014)

Maybe it's another case of different rules in different states, but can't you keep native mammals in Vic?


----------



## Snowman (Feb 15, 2014)

longqi said:


> Collection permits do not work except under very strict guidelines
> To put those guidelines in place would make each permit cost about $100.000
> 
> I do agree there should be more permits for native mammals
> ...


The collection permits for wild taking of certain reptiles in WA is $1000 per year. Each animal collected also incurs a royalty fee with a set price depending on the level the animal has been catagorised as.
I heard a collector paying something like $15k for one quarter in royalties to DPAW.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately it would seem greed has pushed aside conservation though. The herp society asked to have animals being bred in large numbers taken off the wild collection list. And DPAW replied with a firm NO.


----------



## getarealdog (Feb 15, 2014)

PythonLegs said:


> Yeah, well..I can think of plenty of people who should never be allowed to breed ie. Mr + Mrs. Bieber, and BillyRay Cyrus..



PythonLegs.......LEGEND! luv it.


----------



## champagne (Feb 15, 2014)

Snowman said:


> Unfortunately it would seem greed has pushed aside conservation though. The herp society asked to have animals being bred in large numbers taken off the wild collection list. And DPAW replied with a firm NO.



Why would the herp society ask for these animals to be taken of the collection list? What sort of impact do the collected animals cause? Compared to feral cats or even illegal collecting if they were to stop pure 100% locality specific animal being available? Wouldn't it be better to allow these animals to be legally collected in controlled numbers and have the dept receive the royalties to help with other problems?

- - - Updated - - -

I would even question the impact of illegal collection compared to the direct impact of feral cats, foxes and cane toads and even indirectly from all the other feral pests.


----------



## Pilbarensis (Feb 15, 2014)

pinefamily said:


> Maybe it's another case of different rules in different states, but can't you keep native mammals in Vic?



Yes we can, but the plan is to eventually move up to qld. And when I'm there I figure it'd be nice to have some things like quolls, gliders and smaller macropods outdoors in aviaries. In VIC we can keep them but even then there isn't much variety of choices, of 357 native species we can only keep some 35 species. And even then a few of those are not in private collections anyway as far as I know. But suppose you never know what's floating around out there...


----------



## pinefamily (Feb 15, 2014)

Mammals are a bit different in their requirements I guess. You can't really keep kangaroos in your suburban backyard!


----------



## longqi (Feb 15, 2014)

champagne said:


> Why would the herp society ask for these animals to be taken of the collection list? What sort of impact do the collected animals cause? Compared to feral cats or even illegal collecting if they were to stop pure 100% locality specific animal being available? Wouldn't it be better to allow these animals to be legally collected in controlled numbers and have the dept receive the royalties to help with other problems?
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> I would even question the impact of illegal collection compared to the direct impact of feral cats, foxes and cane toads and even indirectly from all the other feral pests.



There is no comparison between wild collection and environmental degradation through feral animals and mining etc
BUT
Wild collection takes the best stock because hobbyists want the best
Continually removing the best genetics from any gene pool can destroy the future breeding capabilities of any species

Australia is a big chunk of dirt
But in many ways it just like a group of small islands
All over Aus are isolated communities of various species
Those locales are ones where the prime 'pet' stock comes from
They are also the areas most liable to suffer from over harvesting

IMO there is only one way to stop illegal collecting and exotic smuggling
Make it an automatic 5 yr prison sentence with full right of appeal
That way anybody caught has to talk their way out of jail rather than just say 
"Sorry... ok give me a fine and say Im a naughty boy" while they plan their next trip

Laws regarding wildlife in Aus are antiquated especially in WA
But they have been working up to a point
When you come to places like Asia and Africa and watch entire regions get stripped of wildlife to supply the pet trade it really makes you start questioning things

Systems like what is being done with oenpellis can work
They may help save other species from wild extinction too
They are probably the future of wild harvesting in Aus

Pilbarensis
Check out phascogales/wambengers
Awesome little critters
Never heard of them in the pet trade


----------



## PythonLegs (Feb 15, 2014)

5 year prison sentence with no appeal? You'd get less for rape..


----------



## champagne (Feb 15, 2014)

longqi said:


> There is no comparison between wild collection and environmental degradation through feral animals and mining etc
> BUT
> Wild collection takes the best stock because hobbyists want the best
> Continually removing the best genetics from any gene pool can destroy the future breeding capabilities of any species
> ...



In theory I would agree but still the impacts would be very low. We don't legally export reptiles so I don't see the collection of animals for the pet trade becoming a problem like we have seen in other countries, also the countries that it is a problem in are generally 3rd world populations so that would also play apart in their conservation problems.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 16, 2014)

What would happen if all government restrictions on collecting, keeping and sale were removed for all native fauna? If you are unsure of the answer then do a little digging into recent past history and have a look at the trapping and overseas sale of Australian finches, particularly the Gouldian Finch. Apply that to the current popularity of our many of reptiles overseas and what do you expect would happen?

Restrictions on what you can and cannot keep are based on conserving wildlife numbers in nature. For example, wild taking in WA is allowed for species that are common within their distribution and where the distribution is fairly substantial or extremely difficult to access. Wild taking in WA is not approved, even for species known to be amenable to captive husbandry, until assessment of their numbers versus distribution has been made.

The placement of captive animals on various schedules by governments is an attempt to reflect the characteristics I have previously listed in Post 21. OK, so they definitely have got a percentage of it wrong. That is not justification to do away with the lot and throw the baby out with the bathwater! What individuals within different states or territories should be doing is firstly agreeing up the system of graded keeping and then generating discussion with the bureaucracy responsible. Herpetological societies are in the best position to do this. They can decide through experience what animals are appropriate at what level and what husbandry and risks are involved for given species.

I am dumfounded by comments such as “You should known what you are capable of keeping”. Each species or species group has their specific husbandry “rules” and you need to be shown these to make you fully aware of what is required. You also need to be made aware of the potential hazards of any given species e.g. scrub pythons and their tendency to bite; substantial sized Lace Monitors and their speed and the damage they can inflict if they bite.

The tiered system of keeping is designed to look after both animals and keepers. Because of our knowledge we can pick faults in the system. I have already stated how that should be addressed. That aside, the basic idea is that you learn about the general and specific requirements of reptiles with an easy to keep, robust species. Having gained practical experience in meeting the needs of a less demanding species, the practical knowledge acquired can be incorporated into research and application of the needs of a more challenging species. I see reason for demeaning this process as “jumping through hoops” just so you get to keep a higher grade animal.

Helping keepers that are out of their depth is where herp societies and forum can be of assistance. So long as they do not lay blame.

There are a number of native mammals that thrive as pets. The Quoll is one as well as Sugar Gliders and Squirrel Gliders plus a number of other Dasyurids and several species of native rodents. These would be much better alternatives to cats, rats and rabbits. Imagine where we might be if all pet cats were replaced by native mammals.


Blue


----------



## Trimeresurus (Feb 16, 2014)

PythonLegs said:


> 5 year prison sentence with no appeal? You'd get less for rape..



Read what he wrote again.


----------



## PythonLegs (Feb 16, 2014)

Trimeresurus said:


> Read what he wrote again.



ohh..5 years WITH chance of appeal.

you'd get less for rape.

But thats a whole other subject to complain about..


----------



## butters (Feb 21, 2014)

Love to keep native mammals. A friend is a demonstrator and has a huge range of species and I would love to get some , in particular , the Dasyurids but not allowed to.
have to get my fix when I visit his place.


----------

