# NSW DECCW Code of Practice...



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 16, 2011)

Some members of the Advisory Group appointed by DECCW to assist in the drafting of the NSW Reptile Keepers Code of Practice met with representatives of DECCW on Friday, Feb 11th, to discuss concerns about the document. We pointed out that the draft of the Code currently displayed on their website is an old one, and that the current Code which varies significantly in content and its impact on keepers (there is a much stronger emphasis on mandated enclosure sizes, and enforcement), should replace it immediately, to enable keepers in NSW to anticipate the impact of the Code.

We believe the Department misrepresents the Code while the old version is displayed on their website, and keepers (who are the major stakeholders, along with their animals) need to be aware of how these changes will affect their lives.

Some members will be aware that the Advisory Group obtained a copy of the current proposal only after lodging an FOI request, despite repeated requests from us to see it without having to go through that process. The Department believes that this constitutes 'release' of the document into the public domain, and seems unwilling to engage in further disclosure.

For the information of members...


----------



## buck (Feb 16, 2011)

They must be afraid of some pretty severe backlash otherwise I doubt they would be so gaurded.

Was there any talk of when this "draft" is going to officially replace the existing one?


----------



## jack (Feb 16, 2011)

thankyou to all those dealing with the authorities on our behalf in this advisory group.
i can imagine how frustrating it is at this time with these bureacrats.



buck said:


> They must be afraid of some pretty severe backlash otherwise I doubt they would be so gaurded.
> 
> Was there any talk of when this "draft" is going to officially replace the existing one?


 
the backlash may well be that people just disapear off the system, and then they will have created their own headache in trying to control a huge underground network of keepers off the books - and all the smuggling/poaching that this will also bring.


----------



## buck (Feb 16, 2011)

jack said:


> the backlash may well be that people just disapear off the system, and then they will have created their own headache in trying to control a huge underground network of keepers off the books - and all the smuggling/poaching that this will also bring.


 
I suggested the same thing to someone the other day. Many new people getting in to the hobby will not worry about getting a licence etc once they realise how big of an enclosure will be required. There are already plenty of "off licence" reptiles to obtain and I can only see this situation getting worse.


----------



## dadaman (Feb 16, 2011)

Has the draft been posted anywhere on the net for us to download and read? I build enclosures so I am really interested in what they have to say.

Adam.


----------



## sesa-sayin (Feb 16, 2011)

lets hope Barry O,Farrel has the guts to downsize the NSW public sector, by about 25% after the election, right accross all depts. that might be the end of some of these , "regulators". the good news amongst beurocrats, is that they fear greatly, that this might happen. the Libs will inherit no money from the present rabble, for the mighty improvements in infrastructure, which NSW requires..one way of getting thi"s ....is to reduce greatly the number of what might be called politely/publicly............".the NSW public sector"..............when the new regs. as to size o0f containers come in..................just where is the Dept. going to put all the thousands of Beardies, that are going to be brought into them......luckily their building at Hurstville has many storeys....they will need it.


----------



## buck (Feb 16, 2011)

They were posted on the forum previously but I just had a quick look and couldn't find them. Luckily I copied it on my computer before


----------



## Laghairt (Feb 16, 2011)

jack said:


> the backlash may well be that people just disapear off the system, and then they will have created their own headache in trying to control a huge underground network of keepers off the books - and all the smuggling/poaching that this will also bring.



Agreed, in fact I have spoken to quite a few people who have said they are considering doing just that. The DECCW doesn't have the resources or statutory powers needed to control underground reptile keepers as it is and that is not a situation that is likely to change. People who only want to keep a few herps may not bother with licensing as since there is virtually no capability to investigate this the risks of getting caught are virtually nil. 

My biggest problem with the DECCW is the cost of an import/export license. As far as I'm concerned this fee is illegal and if it were ever legally challenged it would fall over. Under the constitution trade between the states must be free and unimpeded by taxes which is exactly what the cost of an export/import permit is.


----------



## buck (Feb 16, 2011)

anouc said:


> Agreed, in fact I have spoken to quite a few people who have said they are considering doing just that. The DECCW doesn't have the resources or statutory powers needed to control underground reptile keepers as it is and that is not a situation that is likely to change. People who only want to keep a few herps may not bother with licensing as since there is virtually no capability to investigate this the risks of getting caught are virtually nil.
> 
> My biggest problem with the DECCW is the cost of an import/export license. As far as I'm concerned this fee is illegal and if it were ever legally challenged it would fall over. Under the constitution trade between the states must be free and unimpeded by taxes which is exactly what the cost of an export/import permit is.




I agree the import/export licence fee sucks. Maybe we should all start to contact our local members about this. No time like the present with an election coming.


----------



## GeckoJosh (Feb 16, 2011)

buck said:


> They were posted on the forum previously but I just had a quick look and couldn't find them. Luckily I copied it on my computer before


 Is this the original proposal that was released a while ago?


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 16, 2011)

I believe the pdfs posted by Buck are the current ones (don't have time to look). They were made available by other members of the Advisory Group after we go the stuff under FOI.

J


----------



## sesa-sayin (Feb 16, 2011)

anouc said:


> Agreed, in fact I have spoken to quite a few people who have said they are considering doing just that. The DECCW doesn't have the resources or statutory powers needed to control underground reptile keepers as it is and that is not a situation that is likely to change. People who only want to keep a few herps may not bother with licensing as since there is virtually no capability to investigate this the risks of getting caught are virtually nil.
> 
> My biggest problem with the DECCW is the cost of an import/export license. As far as I'm concerned this fee is illegal and if it were ever legally challenged it would fall over. Under the constitution trade between the states must be free and unimpeded by taxes which is exactly what the cost of an export/import permit is.



good point about illegality about the import/export licence...the rel. section of the Constitution is sec. 92, which says that "trade and commerce amongst the States will be absolutely free " this sec. was fought over and over again in the High Courtin the 40,s and 50,s often by KC Evatt on one side, KC Menzies on the otherside....Evatt was always the superior lawyer.


----------



## -Peter (Feb 16, 2011)

Thanks for the update Jamie and thanks for putting the PDFs up again Buck.


----------



## Sock Puppet (Feb 16, 2011)

The DECCW actually met with the advisory group again? Must have caught them in a good mood 
I assume it's still too much to hope that negotiations could reopen & DECCW listening to some common sense?


----------



## hugsta (Feb 16, 2011)

There will be many keepers that will wipe their collection off the books and go underground. I mean you pay a fee for what...?? I have no problem paying for a licence if you can see the funds are going into something of use, like conservation or research into a species that is going extinct, but it seems it is being used to make reptile keepers lives rediculously hard. You then have to pay a fee to send your animals interstate. Once the DPI standards come into play in 5 years the size of the enclosures you need will so be so rediculous that ppl won't bother with a licence so they don't fall into the rediculous legislation they will have. So now reptile keepers who look after their animals may as well be drug dealers as we will all be criminals. So now would be the time to sell off your collection, get rid of your licence, get your hands on some nice corns, milks, boas and ball pythons as the supply and demand for these will go through the roof as people without a licence won't care what animals that have. So, a big grats to DECC for screwing up an already poor system.


----------



## TWENTY B (Feb 16, 2011)

This is obsurd, the nsw deccw has gone to far and must me stopped.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 16, 2011)

Sock Puppet said:


> The DECCW actually met with the advisory group again? Must have caught them in a good mood
> I assume it's still too much to hope that negotiations could reopen & DECCW listening to some common sense?



No... they have so far refused to meet with us as a group to discuss the Code. We arranged for a small group to attend a probity meeting at DECCW in Hurstville, with the Acting Director and two staff members. This meeting was to discuss the process, and to try to find out why we have been blocked from futher discussion about the Code itself.

My point in posting this thread is to alert members, who may see it on the DECCW website, to the fact that the version on that website is very much out of date. It reflects the advice we gave them re: recommendations vs enforceable standards. Subsequently, there have been major changes which lean much more towards enforcement in law. The enclosure size thing is interesting because there is the statement that standards will change again, within 5 years, to larger (but yet unknown) sizes yet again, to comply with those required by another Government Department - Industry and Investment. The future is vague indeed... but could be very expensive if you're a dedicated herp keeper.

I have also advised them that publishing an out-of-date or superseded document is misleading, especially when there are significant implications for keepers in the new one, which they have been very unwilling to publicise. They should either replace it with the new document, or, if they don't want keepers to see the new one, remove it altogether. It's up them to explain which way they want to go.

J


----------



## Hetty (Feb 16, 2011)

They're allowed to charge for import/export permits to regulate, but not to raise money. I think $30 for a piece of paper is raising money, it would be interesting to see how they would justify it.


----------



## Laghairt (Feb 16, 2011)

IMO, the DECCW have lost their way when it comes to licensing for herps. I think that reptile licensing and other related fees has become a profitable part of their operations. Each year we cough up our fees and although they have increased and the hobby is growing, the "customer" service is appalling. It recently took 6 weeks for a mate of mine to get his license approved and I think we have all been on the receiving end of poor service at some point.

I suspect that these latest "reforms" have little to do with animal welfare and are an attempt for them to justify their existence and their "right" to continue to increase licensing & import / export fees etc.

I mean in all seriousness, there is no way the minimum enclosure sizes will be enforced. The DECCW's powers when it comes to forcing entry to premises and investigating breaches are almost non existent. Additionally they don't have enough staff to visit all keepers premises anyway. It's just another political stunt that achieves nothing and makes life harder for keepers.


----------



## aussie.snakes (Feb 16, 2011)

anouc said:


> IMO, the DECCW have lost their way when it comes to licensing for herps. I think that reptile licensing and other related fees has become a profitable part of their operations. Each year we cough up our fees and although they have increased and the hobby is growing, the "customer" service is appalling. It recently took 6 weeks for a mate of mine to get his license approved and I think we have all been on the receiving end of poor service at some point.
> 
> I suspect that these latest "reforms" have little to do with animal welfare and are an attempt for them to justify their existence and their "right" to continue to increase licensing & import / export fees etc.
> 
> I mean in all seriousness, there is no way the minimum enclosure sizes will be enforced. The DECCW's powers when it comes to forcing entry to premises and investigating breaches are almost non existent. Additionally they don't have enough staff to visit all keepers premises anyway. It's just another political stunt that achieves nothing and makes life harder for keepers.


 
It does achieve something - I see this as no more than a tool the DECC want to use to negate the criticism and disapproval from welfare groups regarding the possibility of reptiles being sold in NSW pet stores.


----------



## Laghairt (Feb 16, 2011)

On the topic of underground keepers, it occurred to me the other day that it would be extremely easy to purchase reptiles under an assumed identity. Please note that I am not condoning this behavior in any way, I'm just pointing out how easy it would be for someone to purchase reptiles without a license.

Consider this scenario:

Little Johnny wants a GTP but has never held a reptile license. In NSW Johnny would need a R2 license that takes at least two years to get. Johnny decides he doesn't want to wait this long so obtains the license details of an unknowing third party (through any number of means) and provides these to the seller upon purchasing the GTP (in cash) and then disappears never to be seen again. The seller is none the wiser and is just happy to have made a seemingly legitimate sale. 

I'm sure I'm not the first person who has realised how easy this would be to do. I think there is a limit to how much regulation the DECCW can burden keepers with before this kind of thing becomes extremely common.



aussie.snakes said:


> It does achieve something - I see this as no more than a tool the DECC want to use to negate the criticism and disapproval from welfare groups regarding the possibility of reptiles being sold in NSW pet stores.


 
fair point.


----------



## Australis (Feb 16, 2011)

anouc, i have to disagree with you on your point about difficulty enforcing and investigating. I think it would be childs play to target keepers most likely to be breaching any new minimal cage size regulations. With no need to visit keepers with only a handful of species written into their books, simply go straight to keepers with 50+ animals, particularly those keeping species that require the largest cages.


----------



## Laghairt (Feb 16, 2011)

Agreed, but the majority of keepers out there will never be subjected to an inspection. 



Australis said:


> anouc, i have to disagree with you on your point about difficulty enforcing and investigating. I think it would be childs play to target keepers most likely to be breaching any new minimal cage size regulations. With no need to visit keepers with only a handful of species written into their books, simply go straight to keepers with 50+ animals, particularly those keeping species that require the largest cages.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 16, 2011)

Anouc, I don't think it would be so easy for little Johnny. I recently sold two snakes to a person who provided me with his licence number, address and all that's required. I receved a phone call from QPWS informing me that this person's licence expired two years ago and that is my responsibility to ensure the buyers licence is valid, etc.. From now on, I ask every buyer to email / fax me a copy of their licence. Little Johnny would have to do the same and it may not be so easy to falsify the licence itself.


----------



## saximus (Feb 16, 2011)

But you are responsible Waterrat. There are plenty of people who are just happy for a scrap piece of paper with the relevant details on it. I've even offered to show my licence before and been told "No don't bother just jot the info down for me"


----------



## murrayanddig (Feb 16, 2011)

so there are 100's of known environmental weeds legally sold in nurseries then dumped in reserves to destroy remaining native vegetation (weeds being, i think the second biggest threat to our biodiversity). and my neighbours cat can without a permit come over and eat the native birds and lizards from my backyard. and still governments are expending resources on restricting people who would like to keep, appreciate and learn about our native fauna. 

that sucks.


----------



## Laghairt (Feb 16, 2011)

Well I think the fact the person you were talking about successfully purchased snakes without a valid license and that you only found out after the fact lends weight to my argument. Obviously you are quite careful about who you sell to but there are plenty of people out there that aren't. I don't know what QLD licenses look like but in NSW it would be child's play to falsify a license. In addition, NSW keepers only send their books in once a year so any anomalies may not be noticed for over 12 months.

In any case, little Johnny could make up a license number, name and address and most sellers would be none the wiser. By the time anyone realised there had been an illegal transaction it would be too late. There are plenty of members on this site that display their license numbers for all to see so using that format it would be a piece of cake.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 16, 2011)

I suppose you're right. I hate to ask people for copies of their licences but that's one way I cover my back. If someone gives me a false document, I can produce that as an evidence that I have done all I could and rest is up to the authorities to run with it.


----------



## CodeRed (Feb 16, 2011)

last year I purchased a snake and the seller gave me a fake last name. He obviously didnt expect me to ask around about him lol. the license number was probably fake too


----------



## FAY (Feb 16, 2011)

You need to sight the licence. The expiry date on the licence is the most important thing. If you deal with a lot of people selling animals like we do, you do have an idea if the licence number is made up. Especially if they say they have just got it.....by the sequence of the numbers.


----------



## ShaunMorelia (Feb 16, 2011)

longqi said:


> But what exactly is the problem with enclosure sizes????
> The sizes seem reasonable to me
> People who use tubs etc might want to complain but most PET owners would not
> Maybe this will slow down the people who just want lots of slitherers but have neither the time or inclination to treat them as pets??
> ...


 
The current "guideline" sizes are fine IMO.
Its the fact that in 5 years the floor area will be more than double the current and will be enforcable as a minimum.

So if I wanted to keep 1 adult morelia that doesn't grow longer than 2.5m, to comply with the 5 year increase, I would need the floor space area of 1.52sqm. (sqm = square meters)
Altho it does say for "climbing species" that, that area can either be floor area or back wall area.
That said I can have any _Morelia spilota ssp _that only grows to maximum of 2.5m_._ in a box that is 1.2H x 1.3W x 0.6D and comply with the future increase.

Another thing of worry is that they will class any reptile that is 12mths or over as an adult and will have to be housed like an adult. (keeping in mind the above measurements)
I have a couple of yearlings that are lucky to push 60-70cm, so housing them in adult sized enclosres wouldn't be beneficial for their future IMO.


----------



## AUSHERP (Feb 16, 2011)

legislation like this will just crush the hobby, not many people have space like that. across 100 snakes you're gonna need a mansion of a reptile room.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 16, 2011)

> Another thing of worry is that they will class any reptile that is 12mths or over as an adult and will have to be housed like an adult. (keeping in mind the above measurements)
> I have a couple of yearlings that are lucky to push 60-70cm, so housing them in adult sized enclosres wouldn't be beneficial for their future IMO.



That's 12 months for snakes - it's six months to adult size for lizards, which is patently absurd for most pet species. This has been designed by clerks... for clerks... not for reptiles or their keepers.

J


----------



## Radar (Feb 16, 2011)

I wonder how much longer it is before this pushes into other states? This is not a well thought out change over at all.


----------



## hornet (Feb 16, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> That's 12 months for snakes - it's six months to adult size for lizards, which is patently absurd for most pet species. This has been designed by clerks... for clerks... not for reptiles or their keepers.
> 
> J


 
6months for lizards? Yes some species will be pretty close to adult by then but the more commonly kept species still have alot of growing to do at a year of age


----------



## Australis (Feb 16, 2011)

longqi,

Judging from your own photos i highly doubt all enclosures would comply,your retics for example. practice what you preach/spam.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 16, 2011)

Longqui, I am not having a go at you but 60x50x30 for an adult chondro is pretty small, in fact, it's very small in my opinion. How can they assume their natural ambush position in a 30cm high enclosure without licking the floor of the cage?


----------



## ShaunMorelia (Feb 16, 2011)

longqi said:


> Chondros are 60x50x30 minimum with most being larger



Im taking 60x50 being the floor dimensions.
That would give you a floor area of 0.3sqm, which is better than the 0.225sqm current "guideline".

Once these sizes are to change, you will need to meet a floor area or back wall area of 0.563sqm.
And sir, your enclosures would not meet the enforecable requirements that they intend to impose.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 16, 2011)

I didn't know Qld has Regs pertaining to cage sizes. Can you post a link?


----------



## ShaunMorelia (Feb 16, 2011)

longqi said:


> Hi Waterrat
> I said that was the minimum size of the display enclosures
> We use them for smaller chondros up to about 2 years old
> The adults are housed minimum 1.6x80x40 and even larger for Biaks because they can reach 2metres+


Exactly our point, they are calling 12mth old snakes adults and have to be housed in adult sized enclosures. Not all animals that are that age would be suited to be housed in an enclosure that big.


----------



## -Peter (Feb 16, 2011)

and in five years we in NSW will all have to comply with exhibitors requirements.


----------



## Braidotti (Feb 16, 2011)

What would the requirements be for a BHP under the new proposed code of practice, since they get to 3m and our ground dwellers ?


----------



## ShaunMorelia (Feb 16, 2011)

longqi said:


> How can it be pointless crap if these regulations will improve things for the snakes????
> 
> Any regulations that will improve housing conditions for reptiles should be welcomed???
> 
> ...


Did you not read my posts?



Braidotti said:


> What would the requirements be for a BHP under the new proposed code of practice, since they get to 3m and our ground dwellers ?



According to the code they come under the same class as morelia.
1.52sqm floor area.


----------



## hugsta (Feb 16, 2011)

longqi said:


> How can it be pointless crap if these regulations will improve things for the snakes????
> 
> Any regulations that will improve housing conditions for reptiles should be welcomed???
> 
> ...


 
I agree, if it is for the benefits of our animals, then fair enough. But there is a minimum to what our animals need and these cage are certainly rediculously large and not needed. In fact, it would cause more problems for most people as most underfeed their snakes and would have an animal no where near adult size in 12 months and putting that small animal into a rediculously large enclosure is most likely going to cause it to stress, stop feeding, hide in the coldest part etc etc and be more detrimental to that animal than it being in an appropriately sized enclosure. Nothing wrong with tubs, they give the animal a great sense of security and wellbeing IMO.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 16, 2011)

This thread is not a debate about the welfare of reptiles, it is about the Code of Practice proposed for introduction in NSW. Your opinions on animal welfare probably don't differ much from those of most other members on this site longqi. If you are unable to distinguish between these two very separate concepts, please butt out.

This is a matter that is extremely important to keepers in NSW, and it will have very wide ranging effects, not just for pet keepers and exhibitors, but those who hold large collections for venom production etc.

Jamie


----------



## Kurto (Feb 17, 2011)

longqi said:


> I can agree about the interstate fees and the time it takes to get a permit
> 
> But what exactly is the problem with enclosure sizes????
> The sizes seem reasonable to me
> ...





I treat all my snakes as pets, because thats exactly what they are - CAPTIVE PETS! The sooner the DECC realise this the better.. How many generations does it take to deem as such - 10, 20, 30, 40?

And last time I checked 4 x 2 x 2 was overly adequate for most carpet species.. 



The_S_Word said:


> Another thing of worry is that they will class any reptile that is 12mths or over as an adult and will have to be housed like an adult. (keeping in mind the above measurements)
> I have a couple of yearlings that are lucky to push 60-70cm, so housing them in adult sized enclosres wouldn't be beneficial for their future IMO.


 

I know mate, who wrote this crap? I've got an 11yr old nephew with a better understanding of cage requirements.


Having said all that... Is this building towards something? Other than a remodel of my herp room? Is the DECC going to bring in the retail sale of herps in NSW??


----------



## hugsta (Feb 17, 2011)

I think they will Kurto, as to how long it will take is another matter.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 17, 2011)

I'd like to thank the mods for managing this thread and keeping it on-topic.

The thread was started to throw some light on the conduct of DECCW in the development of the Code of Practice for reptile keepers in NSW. DECCW appointed an 'expert advisory group' drawn from herp clubs around NSW, and including academics and some of the most experienced and well-known keepers in the state. This group was comprised of individuals who collectively have in excess of 250 years keeping experience.

We were unanimous in our rejection of MANDATORY standards (enforceable by law), but fully supportive of RECOMMENDED guidelines for those who keep reptiles in NSW. Documents gained following our FOI search indicate very clearly that the Department of Industry and Investment is placing big pressure on DECCW to make the Code enforceable in law. 

We have two government departments working in concert to bring about change which is not based on need, but on the ideologies of a few government officials who don't even keep reptiles. We are all interested in the welfare of our animals (those that aren't won't be caught up in this of course, it'll only be licensed keepers who are open to scrutiny), but where is the evidence that cruelty to reptiles exists on a scale that needs an approach that will affect every one of the 17,000-odd keepers in NSW? A document built by non reptile keepers who simply have a personal viewpoint, and the power to inflict change even where there is no demonstrated need for it.

We sought to meet with DECCW several times last year to discuss these concerns, but it is evident they are avoiding scrutiny of both the document itself, and the means by which they intend implementing it.

We were told, at the meeting on Friday Feb 11, that DECCW had given no undertaking to meet with us to discuss the Code once it was 'finalised'. This is untrue - we were insistent throughout the process that our group remain involved thoroughout development of the document. Even as late as last Friday, we were told that DECCW has to discuss with 'other stakeholders' (read DII), our request to meet and consider glaring problems with the current Code. We anticipate no change - DII wants to go in hard on reptile keepers, and DECCW will comply.


----------



## saximus (Feb 17, 2011)

I've finally taken the time to start reading the PDFs on an earlier page. Even for someone relatively inexperienced like me it's obvious this was written by someone with no clue about keeping and caring for reptiles. 
Jamie thank you for posting this thread, for keeping it on track when individuals with no stake try to interfere and thank you and the rest of the advisory group for fighting for the rest of us.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 17, 2011)

The elections are looming and now is the time to write / email / fax / phone your local MP and the Minister. Tell them there is 17000 (or whatever the figure is) people who will swing their votes (which will happen anyway) unless the proposed Code of Practice is scraped and the proponents sacked. If this minister doesn't do it, the next one will hear the message loud and clear. 
No mercy!


----------



## AUSHERP (Feb 17, 2011)

ATTAAAACK!!!!
I like your work Water.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 17, 2011)

AUSHERP said:


> ATTAAAACK!!!!
> I like your work Water.



Ha! Just remember it's my head in clear focus on the chopping block lol!


----------



## Laghairt (Feb 17, 2011)

Michael is right, to make things happen you have to get political. 

Does anyone have a draft letter they can upload to this thread? Then APS users could add to it, print it off and send it top their local member. I know not all members of APS would be confident in doing this but if they have a draft letter then it would make it that much easier.



Waterrat said:


> The elections are looming and now is the time to write / email / fax / phone your local MP and the Minister. Tell them there is 17000 (or whatever the figure is) people who will swing their votes (which will happen anyway) unless the proposed Code of Practice is scraped and the proponents sacked. If this minister doesn't do it, the next one will hear the message loud and clear.
> No mercy!


----------



## ShaunMorelia (Feb 17, 2011)

anouc said:


> Does anyone have a draft letter they can upload to this thread? Then APS users could add to it, print it off and send it top their local member. I know not all members of APS would be confident in doing this but if they have a draft letter then it would make it that much easier.


I agree with you. I would write something up, but I am told often enough that most of my letters don't make any sense...
But it is a great idea.

If someone has the time and grammar skills.....


----------



## hornet (Feb 17, 2011)

Great idea anouc, lets hope someone can come up with something. This change in the code may not affect us interstate keepers straight away but there is a huge chance it will, we need to all get together and do something about it before its too late


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 17, 2011)

Here you go - part of an email from a Government official to someone with a vested interest in the Code of Practice, being told...

As for a copy of the DECCW Reptile Code the version of which was spoken
of at the meeting, I cannot provide you with a copy at this time. The
copies that are in the public domain at this time were made available
through FOI application. Those people or groups that obtained these
copies are free to distribute them however they wish so perhaps Glen can
provide you with one.

This is what we have been trying to deal with. DECCW has basically told us that their 'releasing' the Code to us under FOI constitutes 'release' in the broadly accepted sense. It does not. Thery have told us that we can distribute it however we wish - but it's not our job to do that.

At the very least they are misleading the keeping community by leaving an outdated and very different Code on their website.


----------



## martinjones (Feb 17, 2011)

we must keep our species safe and free, and suppor many organizations that provide ethical care to each individual. that's my opinion [ *NO LINKS THANKS *]


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 17, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> At the very least they are misleading the keeping community by leaving an outdated and very different Code on their website.



This should also be communicated to the Minister and copied to the DECCW Director. His Department is engaging in unethical if not fraudulent practices. Intentional deception is fraud.


----------



## Octane (Feb 17, 2011)

I understand that the Department of Industry and Investment does have juristiction over housing of reptiles that are used for commercial purpose and thus there is an overlap with DECCW.

However it is a condition of the NSW reptile keepers licence that reptiles are not the be publicly exhibited (other than at organised events, functions or meetings) and the animals are not able to be commercially sold. This would mean private keepers do not and will not fall under the juristiction of the Department of Industry and Investment.

Why is it that this department would be condsidered as such an important stakeholder in private keeping.

It could be the whole advisory commitee thing was a fishing expedition and when the recommendations didn't fall in line with the agenda of these departments the recommendations were disregarded. 

It would be interesting to see all reptile related correspondence between DECCW and DII in the last couple of years. 

What is next minimum backyard sizes for dogs or minimum tank sizes for aquariums this stinks of government beaurocrats creating projects to justify their existance. 

How about implementing online record keeping instead of the antiquated record book we are forced to return for manual processing every year. The online systems could also include licence renewals changes of particulars and import/export permit applications.

I know DECCW staff read these threads so be the public servants for which are paid and concentrate on providing better services before legislating.

Thank you for reading.
Octane

PS There are already multiple Acts of Parliament and regulations in place for the prevention of cruelty/mistreatment of animals. If DECCW staff are aware of animals living in conditions deemed to be cruel or constituting mistreatment why don't they use legislation already in place.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 17, 2011)

> It could be the whole advisory commitee thing was a fishing expedition and when the recommendations didn't fall in line with the agenda of these departments the recommendations were disregarded.





> There are already multiple Acts of Parliament and regulations in place for the prevention of cruelty/mistreatment of animals. If DECCW staff are aware of animals living in conditions deemed to be cruel or constituting mistreatment why don't they use legislation already in place.



Spot on with both of these comments Octane. It has become very evident that individuals in both departments had an outcome in mind when they set out to build the Code, and that any recommendations made, that didn't fit with that outcome, would be discarded in the smoke of all the other submissions. We were described as 'stakeholders' at the meeting on Friday 11th. In fact we were 'consultants', with no vested interest other than good outcomes for the major 'stakeholders' - the animals and their keepers.

In the matter of DII involvement, it has been very much 'behind the scenes' - but our FOI application to DII indicates that they did not think DECCW was going hard enough on the enforcement thing, and DII was very clear that one of the most important outcomes for them MUST be enforceability. I'm not very computer savvy, but some of us who are better equipped to do these things have hard copies of the submission from DII to DECCW. I'll see if I can arrange to get it published online. One of the reasons DECCW won't release the current Code electronically is that it makes distribution much easier, and they want to keep it pretty much under wraps until it's signed, sealed and delivered.

Of course there are already avenues to address issues of animal cruelty, but why use a tackhammer when you've got a sledgehammer at your disposal?


----------



## hugsta (Feb 18, 2011)

hornet said:


> Great idea anouc, lets hope someone can come up with something. This change in the code may not affect us interstate keepers straight away but there is a huge chance it will, we need to all get together and do something about it before its too late


 
This is dead on, we need to band together, in the past there were, and possibly still are, too many people fighting for their own personal gains or benefits. It has now come to the point where we all need to be on the same team as this will affect us all.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 18, 2011)

We all know that herpers are a diverse group, and it is hard to tie them together into a cohesive bunch. However, this is too important to allow it to go through without proper scrutiny, which is what both departments are determined to do. THEY will tell you what is right for your animals, regardless of circumstance or your level of experience.

I have emailed the acting Director, Reserve and Wildlife Branch, twice this week, asking that they replace the out-of-date Code on their website, with the current document, but have had no response. At the very least, it should be removed so that keepers are not mislead about the intent of the Code, which is about prosecution for non-compliance with DECCW standards. If it is removed, rather than replaced with the current Code, it will confirm that they don't want keepers to know what's in store for them before it becomes law.

So much for transparency. The interests of keepers and their animals come WAY behind the interests of the government officers trying to get this through the system.


----------



## hugsta (Feb 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> This should also be communicated to the Minister and copied to the DECCW Director. His Department is engaging in unethical if not fraudulent practices. Intentional deception is fraud.


 
So if they do not remove it from their site or replace it with the revised document, then does the above statement apply? And if so, how do we go about actioning it? Are you able to email them stating the above and that it is fraudulent/deceibtful and that it must be removed...??


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 18, 2011)

Jamie, if it's acceptable here on APS - could post the name and email address of the acting Director? I wonder how much traffic would their server hold if hundreds of email would come through on one day. Monday is a good day, then "re-send" every day afterwards. Really, little effort on our part.



hugsta said:


> So if they do not remove it from their site or replace it with the revised document, then does the above statement apply? And if so, how do we go about actioning it? Are you able to email them stating the above and that it is fraudulent/deceibtful and that it must be removed...??


 
Best to go through the ministerial. They listen if directives come from above.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm considering the alternatives right now Michael & Hugsta. I am seeking legal advice about what our next step may be at this very moment.

I've been reluctant to publish email addresses and phone numbers, in the hope that we get a reasoned response from the Department, and within a reasonable time, but it feels like we're just poking at a dead whale at the moment. I'm sure the contact details are in the public domain already, because they circulated them when they were seeking submissions from interested parties when developing the Code. It may be that they just have to deal with the consequences of their silence.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 18, 2011)

I thing the upcoming elections give us an unprecedented momentum and opportunity to make monumental changes. We need to act swiftly, decisively and with full force. I think you're right Jamie, the good will and friendly negotiations passed their use by date. 
If SA and Qld can have user friendly laws and regulations pertaining to reptile keeping, why is NSW stubbornly heading in the opposite direction? The DECCW bureaucrats need to be reminded that they re *public servants*, i.e. they're here (and being paid) to serve us not to dictate and pursue their own agenda.


----------



## kupper (Feb 18, 2011)

Not to derail the thread as it is one of great importance for NSW keepers 

But the same sort of action needs to be taken for Victorian keepers ATM with the DSE taking keepers through the legal ringer over paperwork issues ! 

We are so behind in eligible species keeping lists and treated like criminals because we chose a hobby that is regulated by a government branch

Good luck to you all and hope that someone can get some sense out of them


----------



## fugawi (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't know much about politics but it seems to me that they are trying to push this through quickly and make it law before the election. It is pretty obvious that Labor don't stand much of a chance in the elections so the current minister probably knows he won't be in the job soon. Is he/she trying to pass a law that doesn't effect many people so they can say they did something while in office? If it is something they want to push through quickly, why are they so scared of a new minister and can we DELAY this until the new minister comes in?
The last time I tried to talk to the minister about selling in shops, I got blown off and told that NSW will not change and that all the other states will fall in line behind NSW. Just pure arrogance. This is what we face.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 18, 2011)

Have to go into town just now... will be back later. 

J


----------



## -Peter (Feb 18, 2011)

I know that the probable next NSW Environment Minister is aware of our concerns. Beyond that I dont know.


----------



## zulu (Feb 18, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> Have to go into town just now... will be back later.
> 
> J


 
ive been battling with the NSW NPWS for the last 40 years,by the time they brought the keepers license system i was totally fed up with them.
Wish you luck jamie,they are like dealing with inanimate objects.When you arrived from WA and started posting here you thought i was too hard on them,theyll make you wish you found a nice pub in town and had a drink.
Wish you and others here luck anyway,even michael ! :lol:


----------



## sesa-sayin (Feb 18, 2011)

just 1 small window of light for those who have 5 year licences......during the period of that licence, but only during that period i, it is most unlikely that the Law would uphold the principle that animals would have to be surrendered " without payment of just compensation ". that is one reason why there is a term certain as to the licence. you could negotiate for anothrt year or so, about quantum.ie the amount to be paid.....and no Govt. is ever going to hand over thousands of dollars for snakes or lizards


----------



## saximus (Feb 18, 2011)

Why would we be forced to surrender our animals unless they were illegally obtained in the first place?


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 18, 2011)

zulu said:


> ive been battling with the NSW NPWS for the last 40 years,by the time they brought the keepers license system i was totally fed up with them.
> Wish you luck jamie,they are like dealing with inanimate objects.When you arrived from WA and started posting here you thought i was too hard on them,theyll make you wish you found a nice pub in town and had a drink.
> Wish you and others here luck anyway,even michael ! :lol:



And lots of luck we will need. It's not just about this proposed code of practice, there are other, equally pressing issues such as the awkward licensing system, import / export permits, which contradict constitutional law pertaining to free interstate trade, and whatever else you guys in NSW, Vic, Tas, WA (mainly) suffer from. We need to turn the tide and convince the respective ministers that SA and Qld should be the model, not the other way around.


----------



## Ramsayi (Feb 18, 2011)

The quicker we get a state and national body together,with duly appointed representatives,the better.

Threads such as this come up every now and again but unfortunately rhetoric will hold no weight with the department.



saximus said:


> Why would we be forced to surrender our animals unless they were illegally obtained in the first place?


 
Because they are listed as wildlife and therefore are property of the crown.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 18, 2011)

Ramsayi said:


> Because they are listed as wildlife and therefore are property of the crown.


 
That's what they want us to believe. I won't say no more.


----------



## zulu (Feb 18, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> And lots of luck we will need. It's not just about this proposed code of practice, there are other, equally pressing issues such as the awkward licensing system, import / export permits, which contradict constitutional law pertaining to free interstate trade, and whatever else you guys in NSW, Vic, Tas, WA (mainly) suffer from. We need to turn the tide and convince the respective ministers that SA and Qld should be the model, not the other way around.


 
yes michael,NSW needs to go online for import/exports and returns like QLD and SA.



Ramsayi said:


> The quicker we get a state and national body together,with duly appointed representatives,the better.
> 
> Threads such as this come up every now and again but unfortunately rhetoric will hold no weight with the department.
> 
> ...


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 18, 2011)

It seems to me that because NSW has by far the largest number of reptile registered keepers, the DECCW sees it as an opportunity for financial revenue (followed by Vic). On the other hand, Qld and SA were clever enough to realise that the administrative costs would outweigh the income, so they have shaven off any access fat (law enforcement, inspections, permit admin, etc.) WA is still in the Jurassic.

Who is the really clever one - the "premier state", "the place to be" or the "sunshine state"? If I was to choose a personalised number plate for my car, it would read "JOKE"


----------



## sesa-sayin (Feb 18, 2011)

saximus said:


> Why would we be forced to surrender our animals unless they were illegally obtained in the first place?



because the enclosures we can provide for the larger of our animals, although quite adaequate for the animals over many generations, might not be adaequate in size in the eyes of the regulators . which is what this particular link is all about


----------



## Octane (Feb 19, 2011)

If regulated cage sizes are implemented who inspects.

I have become aware of a problem in regards to animal caging being inspected at a pet shop. The inspections were carried out by multiple agencies. It was explained to me in regards to this DII departmental officers, RSPCA inspectors and Animal Welfare League inspectors are authorised officers and can enter to check compliance.

DII inspector multiple inspections no problems.
RSPCA multiple inspections over several years nil issues
Two weeks after last RSPCA inspection with a no issues raised Animal Welfare League officers come in with their applicartion of the regulations and issue a compliance notice.

Petshop owner and consults other inpecting agencies for clarification and seeks legal advice. In the end the petshop owner was advised the application of the regulations was up to the inspection agency. 
Instead of engaing in a possibly lengthy (and costly) legal battle they decided to replace all caging to be in excess of minimum required by Animal Welfare League interpretation. End cost a little over $3000 to the small business owner.

I really have an objection to the inference that an animal is not being well cared for based on a regulated specification and a tape measure.
Who is going to be doing the inspecting and what is the appeal process if they deem non compliance. Does DECCW plan to employ inspectors or are they going to use other agencies. 

Concerned
Octane


----------



## REPTILIAN-KMAN (Feb 19, 2011)

i see this code of practice issue has sparked quite a stir !

but at the end of the day it is a code of practice - pretty much unenforceable !

code of practice !
* a set of guidelines and regulations to be followed by members of some profession, trade, occupation, organization etc.; does not normally have the force or law
* is usually 'lower level' documents that provide guidance on management or other practices to be adopted in implementing the principles of the Codes of Conduct.
* It provides practical guidance on ways to achieve compliance
* A code of practice establishes good practice in an area of ? . Codes of practice are generally not legally binding although they are usually admissible in proceedings before industrial relations tribunals or courts of law.
* A generic set of guidelines which defines minimum requirements 
*


----------



## bensen (Feb 20, 2011)

REPTILIAN-KMAN said:


> i see this code of practice issue has sparked quite a stir !
> 
> but at the end of the day it is a code of practice - pretty much unenforceable !
> 
> *


 
did you bother reading the rest of the thread? maybe you don't comprehend, or maybe you work for NPWS.


----------



## -Peter (Feb 20, 2011)

Sorry Kman but its being drafted as an enforcable code.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 20, 2011)

-Peter said:


> Sorry Kman but its being drafted as an enforcable code.



Indeed it is, as a result of pressure from DII. If any matters go to court as a result of heavy-handed Departmental behaviour, unjustly charged keepers will have some very heavy hitters batting for them - a number of very senior reptile-interested people are prepared to testify in defence of keepers facing vexatious charges.

This Code is the product of ideology, there has been no demonstrated need for it, and there are already avenues available in the courts to prosecute cases of cruelty. It is not being introduced as a document to assist keepers in maintaining their animals, its primary purpose is to facilitate enforcement action against reptile keepers who don't rely on 'tape-measure' management of their animals, regardless of knowledge or experience. It may cost some keepers thousands of dollars to comply, and then, after another 5 years, a new set of standards (as yet not defined) will be implemented.

It is a totally unwarranted intrusion into the lives of reptile keepers in NSW.


----------



## Colin (Feb 24, 2011)

Just wondering if there's any more news on this issue or any ideas?

In my opinion the only way to defeat this mandatory code of practice is to form a representative group that has paying members and then to write letters directly to the Minister from learned academics and people representing the membership asking a heap of questions and making appropriate pointed accusations. This means that the CEO of DECC will have to pass on the letter for a Ministerial (a letter for the Minister to sign and send back to the membership addressing the issues which public servants hate doing) You keep doing this until you have the public servants pushing for this mandatory code of practice backing off..

The reptile keeper's representative group, keeps writing letters to the Minister, making appointments to see him and make life as miserable for the public servants under him as possible.

Even if a representative reptile keepers group hasn't yet been formed, concerned individual keepers, herp societies representing members etc could send letters of concern directly to the minister. 

Jamie.. any chance you may be able to organise a draft letter for individuals to send off? and where do people send these letters? 

If reptile keeper's indicate to the Minister they will be changing their voting preferences and urging all their friends, work colleagues and families to follow suit that it may influence them to be more sympathetic to our cause.


----------



## -Katana- (Feb 24, 2011)

I was just wondering if it would be worth the Queensland herp keepers joining in on the letter writing/sending campaign?
If someone with an excellent grasp of written English and fully up to date with the inherent flaws in the NSW system could write that draft letter it would help streamline the whole process.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 24, 2011)

I had an email from Danielle Lautrec late last week telling me that DECCW removed the 'old' Code from their website 'last year'. She hasn't yet responded to my query (emailed on the weekend) about when this happened, or when they propose to put the new (current) Code up for scrutiny.

I'll draft a letter today Col, and copy it to you by pm, so you may be able to set it up on APS for the use of members. The Minister, the Shadow Minister, the Acting Director of Reserve and Wildlife Conservation, and the clerk with responsibility for development and implementation of the Code, Reserve and Wildlife Policy Section of DECCW, should all be contacted to express your concerns about the unnecessary imposition of this 'Code of Practice', which simply reflects the personal ideologies of the clerks involved in developing it.

It is evident that ALL our concerns are referred back to a couple of individuals in the Department of Industry and Investment for their comments, and to develop strategies that ensure the departments eventually succeed in their goal of much more intrusive management of reptile keepers in NSW. Setting standards now, which will be superceded within 5 years by standards not yet even developed, is a bizarre way for a Government Department to go about its business. 

There has been no evidence placed before us, as the Advisory Group, which indicates any sort of ongoing problem with the welfare of captive reptiles, and even if there was, there are already legal avenues available to take the appropriate action.

Jamie.


----------



## Colin (Feb 24, 2011)

Akwendi said:


> I was just wondering if it would be worth the Queensland herp keepers joining in on the letter writing/sending campaign?
> If someone with an excellent grasp of written English and fully up to date with the inherent flaws in the NSW system could write that draft letter it would help streamline the whole process.


 
In my opinion it most definitely would help.. especially if the senders indicated to the minister they will be changing their voting preferences and urging all their friends and families to follow suit. It may influence them to be more sympathetic to our cause if they are hit where it hurts and thats the polling booths.. 

This Code of Practice has been a trojan horse from the beginning and if it succeeds in NSW you can count on it being introduced in other states as well.. I also think the code of practice has less to do with "animal welfare" and more to do with certain animal liberationist factions in government departments.


----------



## -Katana- (Feb 24, 2011)

Colin said:


> In my opinion it most definitely would help.. especially if the senders indicated to the minister they will be changing their voting preferences and urging all their friends and families to follow suit. It may influence them to be more sympathetic to our cause if they are hit where it hurts and thats the polling booths..
> 
> 
> This Code of Practice has been a trojan horse from the beginning and if it succeeds in NSW you can count on it being introduced in other states as well.. I also think the code of practice has less to do with "animal welfare" and more to do with certain animal liberationist factions in government departments.


 
That's why we tried to fight the canine tail docking issue(and failed).
We viewed it as only the thin end of the wedge and set a disturbing precedent that these animal rights movements can use as a stepping stone to start taking action against cattle and sheep producers and the way they conduct their animal husbandry. 
I'd hate to see that happen to the herp. fancy.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 24, 2011)

> This Code of Practice has been a trojan horse from the beginning and if it succeeds in NSW you can count on it being introduced in other states as well.. I also think the code of practice has less to do with "animal welfare" and more to do with certain animal liberationist factions in government departments.



This is very true. Many people don't distinguish between animal 'welfare' and 'animal rights' - but the groups associated with each, and the intent of each, are very different. It is easy to slip the interests of animal RIGHTS proponents in under the cover of animal WELFARE... We should all be concerned with the WELFARE of our animals, but the proponents of animal RIGHTS are often extremists, and many of them are working to see the end of the keeping in captuvity, of all animals. The views they espouse are entirely subjective, built on personal philosophy, and have no objective basis whatsoever. Your animals may be the best looked after in the world, but the fact that they are in cages is the problem. This would be impossible for any Govt department to achieve, so the next best thing is to sell the message as a 'welfare' one, and legislate to make the parameters for captive care far more difficult to meet.

I've mentioned it before - they contrive a problem that doesn't really exist, state that it is a problem without providing much evidence, the community accepts without much question that there must be a problem... and then a few people get the great job of solving it, and the Department gets kudos for being seen to solve a big problem...

J


----------



## chase77 (Feb 24, 2011)

If i may be cynical, there may be people inside the department using it to further their political/gov't careers.

Chase.


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 24, 2011)

chase77 said:


> If i may be cynical, there may be people inside the department using it to further their political/gov't careers.
> 
> Chase.



Or to justify their sheer existence and protecting their precious jobs. Don't forget, these people are pawns, a non-productive dead wood absolutely terrified of any changes, especially if the changes are not instigated by themselves.


----------



## zulu (Feb 28, 2011)

Apparently there will be outsourcing when the labour government goes and departmental heads get the bullet in a shake up.
Maybe the book returns and import and exports could be outsorced to QLD,SA or china where they have expertise and know how


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Feb 28, 2011)

Being able to keep Australian Native Reptiles is a *priviledge* and as such should be treated as such. I am actually amazed that it has taken 30 years or so before the authorities actually clamp down on the ethics of keeping natives. It has nothing to do with revenue. The fact that reptile keeping is now becoming much more popular justifies for further government changes to keeping reptiles to ensure that animals are kept and bred ethically.


----------



## hugsta (Feb 28, 2011)

BigWillieStyles said:


> Being able to keep Australian Native Reptiles is a *priviledge* and as such should be treated as such. I am actually amazed that it has taken 30 years or so before the authorities actually clamp down on the ethics of keeping natives. It has nothing to do with revenue. The fact that reptile keeping is now becoming much more popular justifies for further government changes to keeping reptiles to ensure that animals are kept and bred ethically.


 
I don't entirely disagree, but where is the common sense to crack down so hard on native Australian animals. Why don't they crack down hard on introduced animals such as cats? They are a far worse pet than some person with a python or a bluetongue in their house. What about dogs? I can buy a great dane, but no ones cares how big my back yard is. I could have a small yard and never walk my dog. Let's not start on fish or birds either eh. Although it was amazing whilst working in the pet industry the amount of people that killed fish and just bought more to replace them whilst trying o fix their water quality. So keeping animals ethically should be across the board, not just picking on reptile keepers. Seems ok to keep Macaw in a cage that it can't fly in and birds are way more available than reptiles, so why not sort them out first??


----------



## Waterrat (Feb 28, 2011)

Hugsta, with due respect, you are talking about domestic animals which do not come under the wildlife department's umbrella. They have no obligation or powers to control such. Native wildlife and cats & dogs are two very different categories.


----------



## killimike (Feb 28, 2011)

hugsta said:


> I don't entirely disagree, but where is the common sense to crack down so hard on native Australian animals. Why don't they crack down hard on introduced animals such as cats? They are a far worse pet than some person with a python or a bluetongue in their house. What about dogs? I can buy a great dane, but no ones cares how big my back yard is. I could have a small yard and never walk my dog. Let's not start on fish or birds either eh. Although it was amazing whilst working in the pet industry the amount of people that killed fish and just bought more to replace them whilst trying o fix their water quality. So keeping animals ethically should be across the board, not just picking on reptile keepers. Seems ok to keep Macaw in a cage that it can't fly in and birds are way more available than reptiles, so why not sort them out first??



I see Michael's point, from an administration point of view, but I agree very strongly with you here hugsta. 

Ok dogs are not wildlife. But ethically and logically, there is no difference when the rationale for regulation of reptile keeping is said to be making sure people look after them right. The only difference then is how feasible it is to force keepers to jump through hoops.

In that context, keeping reptiles is not a privilege any more than keeping a dog or cat or fish is.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Feb 28, 2011)

BigWillieStyles said:


> Being able to keep Australian Native Reptiles is a *priviledge* and as such should be treated as such. I am actually amazed that it has taken 30 years or so before the authorities actually clamp down on the ethics of keeping natives. It has nothing to do with revenue. The fact that reptile keeping is now becoming much more popular justifies for further government changes to keeping reptiles to ensure that animals are kept and bred ethically.



Unfortunately BigWillieStyles, you've entirely missed the point of this thread. The problem is not with bureaucratic support of ethics in dealing with animals, it's the nature of that support, its poor design, and its intent, which is simply to arm government officials with bigger sticks than they have now. It will have no impact on animal welfare, all it will do is bring about management by tape measure. Despite the recommendations of the most experienced keepers in NSW, they have decided that non-reptile-keeping clerks in DII and DECCW will dictate the terms under which you will keep your animals. One of the biggest drivers has been what the dept calls 'public perception'... I vehemently disagree that the 'public' knows more about what a reptile needs than I do - but this is a feel-good and look-good PR exercise for DECCW. They will get a lot of kudos from the 'public' for being seen to do a job which isn't needed in the first place, and as long as the bigger questions aren't asked (in fact, we've asked but haven't been answered!) they come out smelling like a rose in some circles.

Jamie


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2011)

where does this code come from?
I just read the first page of the code posted at the start of this thread and it is nothing like the current draft from the ag department and animal welfare that i have in my hand right now 

is the standards different for DECC now?


----------



## girdheinz (Mar 16, 2011)

Farma your well behind the times. 

DECCW took it upon themselves to change the code of practice based on alleged comments from other stakeholders. This feedback has lead them to go against the advice of the advisory group that they appointed. It's clear they never had any intention of accepting a draft that has anything other than MANDATORY minimum enclosure sizes.

IMO they have mislead the public by leaving the old draft on their website for numerous months whilst producing this one.

Gird


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2011)

I was sent the new draft around 2 weeks ago 

is the code of practice posted at the start of the thread the DECCW's new draft or a proposal because it seems to be a little "simple" even for the NPWS lol it looks like a photocopy of something written back in the 90's


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 19, 2011)

I have not much time at the moment, but I received a letter from DECCW via email yesterday re: the Code. I will add more later when I've had some feedback from your keeper advocates. The Code, if it is introduced with MANDATORY constraints, will remain a bureaucratic outrage forced upon keepers of reptiles in NSW.

Jamie


----------



## pythons73 (Mar 19, 2011)

If it is introduced Jamie,what time frame are we talking about..


----------



## Fusion-Reptiles (Mar 22, 2011)

what are the tub keeper going to do? 
how long do we have till insanity is FORCED on us like a group of drunken footyheads?

seriously how long till this bs is passed? if its passed im goin underground i cant afford even 2 snakes with this bs


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 22, 2011)

Pet shops in NSW are pushing to be able to sell reptiles over the counter, DECC are working closely with a few of these shops in relation to "the code" they need some sort of regulation in regards to housing so they can legalize the keeping of herps in stores, a good place to start these laws is privately and keep the real agenda in the shadow.
As Jamie said, an email was sent out yesterday, and apparently the laws are all going through....... It's only a matter of time before they start policing it.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 22, 2011)

I'll copy the body of the email from Daniel Van Dyk here shortly. Because we are insisting on a face-to face meeting with DECCW to discuss further concerns, they have come back, after 5 weeks, with a request for further written and electronic submissions. I will post the email addresses of the individuals in Hurstville who should be contacted to demand that a copy of the current Code be made available dfor scrutiny by keepers. The behaviour of the Department has been outrageous in denying us a full meeting to discuss our concerns. 

Still they deny us the opportunity to meet with them. We have no problem with a Code of Practice that promotes GUIDELINES for keeping, but the introduction of MANDATORY standards will change the landscape for keepers in NSW, and furnish the department with a big hammer to punish keepers who don't comply with the very unscientific and arbitary standards they propose to put into law. 

First, we need to know how large and persistent is the problem of 'poorly kept' reptiles in NSW. The answer must be 'not very...." Does anyone see a stream of prosecutions in the courts, by welfare agencies? No! This is dreamed up by bureaucrats who don't like racks. The philosophical reasons for it are far more complex than meet the eye, and the very basis for its intrduction as enforceable standards must be challenged. 

Back soon.

J


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 22, 2011)

I agree Jamie. where is the evidence that Reptiles are being mistreated based on enclosure sizes? If anything they are thriving, feeding, growing and obviously breeding!! This to me are not the signs of a stressed, mistreated animal.
The department has been very secretive and stand offish in regards to the code. They know if it gets out on a mass scale what they are doing, they will have a big problem on their hands and will (hopefully) have no choice but to scrap it.


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 22, 2011)

AUSHERP said:


> They know if it gets out on a mass scale what they are doing, they will have a big problem on their hands and will (hopefully) have no choice but to scrap it.



The problem is - time is running out. It seems they want to get it through while this government is still in. Surely there must be a way (ministerial, legal, etc.) to put an injunction on this rot.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 22, 2011)

Well, they've called for more submissions, and the election is Saturday, so I don't think much will happen before the new government is installed. We have access to very good legal advice, and will be following through with further action should we not get a reasonable response from the Department. They are trying all ways to stall, and won't answer any of our reasonable questions, and especially will not agree to meet with the larger group. We've been trying for over 12 months now and all we get is stalling. They won't tell us why they won't meet with us, so we have to reach our own conclusions about that. Clearly they don't want scrutiny.

But the prospect of them implementing laws 'just in case there's a problem' is clearly not tenable. Show us the evidence of a problem that requires a change in the law that will affect almost 20,000 keepers in NSW and we'll listen... otherwise back off and leave us alone.

J


----------



## Fusion-Reptiles (Mar 22, 2011)

are they looking to limit breeders with racks or cheap people with few snakes kept in tubs?
can we use the dec ballot of seized herps to strengthen the fact their view is VERY wrong
and if their seizing 10-20 herps for mistreatment then the rest of us are ok, their for they are wrong?


----------



## jack (Mar 22, 2011)

otori, you have made me see the positive in this at last: 
every month there will be a deccw ballot with hundreds of really nice animals obtained from lots of large breeders who use racks and have been busted for improper housing... it'll be reptile lotto


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 23, 2011)

I doubt it Jack, when it's seized we all know where the nice ones go..... So more specifically it will be a "what DECC and friends didn't want lotto".
They have refused to meet with any sort of group of keepers in relation to this code, unless done secretly with people they think will benefit the motion.


----------



## Sock Puppet (Mar 23, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> The problem is - time is running out. It seems they want to get it through while this government is still in. Surely there must be a way (ministerial, legal, etc.) to put an injunction on this rot.





Pythoninfinite said:


> Well, they've called for more submissions, and the election is Saturday, so I don't think much will happen before the new government is installed.



If there is no further action/initiation of this prior to this weekend, & assuming we have a change of state government, how will this bode for our cause? Better? Worse? Exactly the same? What changes, if any, would be made within the DECCW if there is a new state government?


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 23, 2011)

Attached is the letter from DECCW seeking further submissions on the NSW Reptile Keepers Code of Practice. Please email the department, expressing your concern that they will not meet with their own appointed advisory group, to discuss the very real concerns this group has with regard to the Code, its content, and its intent.

You will note the reference to 'the Code's objective remains to improve the welfare of captive reptiles.' The advisory group, appointed by DECCW, and made up of members of most of the Herp Groups in NSW, has some of the leading and most experienced professional and private keepers and academics in the state. The group unanimously supports a voluntary Code of Practice for reptile keepers in NSW, but is unanimously opposed to the introduction of enforceable standards for private keepers. The drive for enforceability is coming from the Department of Industry and Investment, and there appears to be no evidence-based need for such a drastic change in the way the DECCW does business with reptile keepers in NSW.

We all have the welfare of our animals uppermost in our list of priorities. Those of us with significant experience with reptiles will know that the enormous range of species, coupled with the varying behaviours of individuals within species, simply does not allow a 'one size fits all' approach to the care of our animals. Unless the Department can provide evidence of significant and ongoing problems with the welfare of captive reptiles in NSW, which are unable to be addressed by the legal mechanisms already available to them, we believe that this Code of Practice should remain as recommendations, rather than enforceable standards.

J


----------



## Kurto (Mar 23, 2011)

Thats a nice _*cough*_ vague _*cough*_ letter.


----------



## dangles (Mar 23, 2011)

are u able to post the draft code up? i saw a little on lizard enclosure size and felt they were reasonable


----------



## saximus (Mar 23, 2011)

dangles said:


> are u able to post the draft code up? i saw a little on lizard enclosure size and felt they were reasonable


 It's on the first page (post #7). The sizes are reasonable for those of us with only a few animals but for large scale keepers/breeders it would be prohibitively expensive to change them all. In most cases it may be straight out impossible


----------



## GeckoJosh (Mar 23, 2011)

saximus said:


> It's on the first page (post #7). The sizes are reasonable for those of us with only a few animals but for large scale keepers/breeders it would be prohibitively expensive to change them all. In most cases it may be straight out impossible


 Well we arent supposed to commercially breeding reptiles anyway....


----------



## dangles (Mar 23, 2011)

saximus that is different to the lizard specs i saw that had an L as part of enclosure formula. The latest email went out a cple of days ago not last month as per that draft


----------



## zulu (Mar 23, 2011)

Decc says that it goes before the animal welfare advisory council,exactly who sits on that council. Its the make up of that particular group which is of concern also,seems to be taken from the RSPCA and other bodies that seem to overplay things. You onley have tp look at the [email protected] site theyve got transportation,dogs, birds etc covered.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 23, 2011)

Enclosure sizes are only part of the problem with this Code. It's the *enforcement* aspect which causes us significant problems. Until evidence of widespread cruelty is produced, there is no need for the Code to be enforceable in law. Even then, there are already legal avenues available to the deprtament to enable it to pursue keepers through the courts, without adding yet another bureaucratic burdon to keepers in NSW.

If a problem doesn't already exist, they should not be introducing laws preemptively. The whole document is based on the personal sentiments of a few bureaucrats in DECCW and DII. It has not been built around experience or science.


----------



## Jason (Mar 23, 2011)

Seems DECC have WAY to much time on their hands! tell them to find something better to do with it, leave us keepers alone! They seem like a bunch of inexperienced paper pushing ****ers! If they are not willing to listen to the very experienced and appointed panel, from all walks of the hobby, they need to get their priorities straight and ask themselves what is the true agenda here? I think they're board with nothing better to do, over staffed, over paid and looking for something to amuse themselves with. Seems to me they're the ones doing something wrong in all this... their jobs!


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 23, 2011)

Just pulling this up again so people see it...

J


----------



## Bushman (Mar 24, 2011)

Thanks very much for all your hard work with this J. 
We should ALL appreciate what you and others are doing for our rights as keepers.
Please let us know how we can help.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 24, 2011)

We ask that all keepers in NSW email the Department at [email protected] and insist that those involved in developing and implementing the Code of Practice make themselves available to meet with us - their own appointed expert advisory group. The fact that they have yet again avoided any arrangement to discuss our concerns by allowing only written submissions is entirely unsatisfactory. Written submissions will disappear into the bureaucratic maw, be examined by the individuals at the Dept of Primary Industry (who are driving this, and who insist that enforceability in law is essential), and the outcome for keepers will be the same as they propose at this time.

Respondents should also insist that DECCW release, on the DECCW website, a copy of the Code in its current form. They have refused to release electronic copies because they are easy to circulate widely, and it suits them to allow a degree of confusion in the keeping community. This Code will impact thousands of keepers in NSW, and the EAG believes it will serve no practical purpose in improving the welfare of captive reptiles in NSW.

Ask the Department to produce evidence of widespread problems with reptile welfare in NSW, and if the Department cannot do this, ask why a code, enshrined in law, is needed for a 'problem' which doesn't exist.

The appointment of the Expert Advisory Group was simply an exercise in window dressing for DECCW. They, and their masters at DII, clearly had a very firm view of the outcome they wanted, even before we met for the first time. This has been made evident from documents we obtained under FOI. We were mislead into believeing that we were contributing to a transparent and collaborative process which would benefit the welfare of captive reptiles in NSW. It has not turned out like that at all. At every meeting, and in every conversation, the EAG was unanimous in its insistence that the Code be based around recommendations, rather than enforceable standards, and it seemed to us that DECCW understood and accepted the good sense in this. However, the DII submission to DECCW condemned DECCW for wording the Code ambiguously, and was insistent that enforceability in the courts was THE primary consideration.

All this debate could be avoided if DECCW operatives agree to meet with us across the table. It is very evident that they don't want scrutiny of the Code itself - they have not released any electronic copies which would be easy to circulate widely, and they especially do not want us to question the motivation behind the development of the Code itself, because it is based on the personal viewpoints of the individuals in DECCW and DII.

Bureaucratic interference in the lives of fauna keepers in Australia is taken for granted by keepers in all states. It is just a way of life in this country, and it is always portrayed as necessary for conservation. It seems to escape the notice of the various state bodies that, despite them doing business in the same ways they were in the 1960s and 1970s, the conservation status of a huge number of species lurches towards critical... There is a conveyor belt to extinction (to use the phrase of a good friend of mine) happening out there, and we have a 'conservation' Department here in NSW spending who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, on a problem they can't even prove exists. And it has nothing to do with conservation.

J


----------



## Wild~Touch (Mar 24, 2011)

*Fight*

Fight people Fight. Get off your A...ssses and put up an intelligent fight. Don't lay back and hope someone else will do it.

Cheers
Sandee


----------



## Peterwookie (Mar 24, 2011)

Message Sent lets hope they recive 1000's of emails todays ......


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 24, 2011)

Bump... please read and act.

Jamie


----------



## hazza (Mar 24, 2011)

Could someone please send me the link for the Legislation. i Cannot find it and haven't been bothered to read through all of the pages of the thread,

Thanks, Harrison


----------



## saximus (Mar 24, 2011)

Umm that's kinda been the point of the whole thread. We don't have access to the proposed legislation and if it is approved it will be enforced before we even get to see it


----------



## dangles (Mar 24, 2011)

certain people on this site have been recently emailed a draft of the proposed rules its hard to take a stand when most of us havent read anything besides the cover page of the email that has been sent


----------



## spongebob (Mar 24, 2011)

Here's a copy of my email

_To whom it may concern,

The current proposed code regarding the keeping of reptiles goes much further than in any other jurisdiction in the world in terms of detail and scope. This a brave and bold step on the part of DECCW. However it is widely circulated within the reptile keeping fraternity that the process of development and the current draft is considered flawed in many ways. This is something that concerns me greatly. In order to gain the trust and support of the ever increasing number of hobbyists it would in my opinion, be prudent for the department to re-initiate contact and discussions with the expert panel. It is clear from the acedemic qualifications that most of them hold, and their knowledge of the subject that they are the experts and without their input any code will lack credibility. Also it would serve DECCW well to uphold the principles of NSW government by being transparent and publish on the internet the current version of the draft.

yours sincerely
_


----------



## saximus (Mar 24, 2011)

Nice Bob thanks. I think having an example like that will help the slightly less articulate among us to put forward their opinions where before they may have been unsure how to.



dangles said:


> certain people on this site have been recently emailed a draft of the proposed rules its hard to take a stand when most of us havent read anything besides the cover page of the email that has been sent


 I thought there were no electronic copies of the code because electronic copies can be circulated too easily. Jamie posted the pdf he received via email requesting more submissions about the new code but that contained none of the body of the code. If you specifically know someone that does have a copy I'd love for them to post it so we can have a read


----------



## spongebob (Mar 24, 2011)

A group obtained it under FOI and now DECCW is saying they dont need to update the code on their website because it is in the 'public domain'. I guess to circulate it widely through our (ie keepers) channels would then be playing into this.....

Jamie has made the main issues clear -agreed points have been thrown out, and the code will result in most keepers being unable to maintain captive keeping as we currently know it.

The fact that we (collectively) dont have the facts basically sums it up!!


----------



## buck (Mar 24, 2011)

Just sent this off....

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to express my disappointment that DECCW has at this point in time been unwilling to make themselves available to meet with the Expert Advisory Group(EAG) that was appointed to assist with the drafting of the code of conduct. One can only assume that the EAG was only formulated to make it appear that input was being sought after when in actual fact the DECCW was always going to push it's own agenda or that of other Government Depts and/or welfare groups. I find it ludicrous that the DECCW is going to totally ignore many, many collective years of experience and expertise in herpetology and develop a mandatory code based on the agendas of welfare groups instead of a code based on science and the welfare of reptiles as advised by the EAG. 
I would also ask that the DECCW provide a copy of the code in it's current form on the DECCW website so the reptile keeping community can view it and convey in writing any concerns they may have with the new code. 
I would also like to ask on what grounds the DECCW has sought to change the code when there is very little evidence of any related cases where DECCW has had to intervene due to reptiles being kept in enclosures that are deemed to be too small and put the reptiles welfare at risk. It would give much more creditability to DECCW's agenda to regulate mandatory enclosure sizes if it were to provide some statistics of relevant cases where intervention was necessary. 

Yours faithfully

Might fire a letter off to the local member as well.... although I don't think she will be there long enough to read it lol


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2011)

saximus said:


> Nice Bob thanks. I think having an example like that will help the slightly less articulate among us to put forward their opinions where before they may have been unsure how to.
> 
> 
> I thought there were no electronic copies of the code because electronic copies can be circulated too easily. Jamie posted the pdf he received via email requesting more submissions about the new code but that contained none of the body of the code. If you specifically know someone that does have a copy I'd love for them to post it so we can have a read




I have the new draft from animal welfare id asume seems they just spent so long re doing their standards the decc would follow the same standards
i could be wrong though 
maybe NPWS have gone out on their own little tangent trying to better the world but i doubt any charge would hold up in court if you didnt follow their standards but you met the standard for animal welfare 
and the draft they sent me didnt seem unreasonable at all 

and what is the point of updating their code if they arent going to let anyone see what it is??


----------



## buck (Mar 24, 2011)

Farma said:


> I have the new draft from animal welfare id asume seems they just spent so long re doing their standards the decc would follow the same standards
> i could be wrong though
> maybe NPWS have gone out on their own little tangent trying to better the world but i doubt any charge would hold up in court if you didnt follow their standards but you met the standard for animal welfare
> and the draft they sent me didnt seem unreasonable at all
> ...


 
Pretty sure I posted the last draft up earlier in this thread but will put it up again.

I'm pretty sure they are only keeping it under tabs at the moment as it is not yet passed and they don't want it scrutinised until they get it passed. It will more than likely be freely available.

Some of it seems very reasonable but other parts are just outrageous. I am looking at getting back into Ridge Tailed Monitors and have a 6x2x2 tank. I would only be able to keep 2 in that sized enclosure according to these mandatory regulations.


----------



## saximus (Mar 24, 2011)

Buck I suggested that this was the new code (assuming this is the same as the one on page 1 of this thread?) and someone on here said that's no longer the current one...


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2011)

well here are the standards for lizards i was sent just a few weeks ago 








for a lizard which includes monitors i dont think thats at all unreasonable


----------



## buck (Mar 24, 2011)

well that would be even worse for something like accies. Say L=40cm, that would mean that no dimension could be less than 80cm which means a 6x2 would even be able to house 1 adult.

Just confirming.... that is for private keepers???? It mentions exhibitors a bit.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2011)

no buck this isnt NPWS code of standards that is top secret and cant be allowed into the public eye for some reason it is the animal welfare standard for housing reptiles


----------



## buck (Mar 24, 2011)

Ok. Well from my understanding the ones I post above are the ones that were issued by DECCW after the Freedom Of Information request was filed.


----------



## dangles (Mar 24, 2011)

i'll see if i can get anymore info out of them tomorrow when i go to pick up my diamond


----------



## Bushman (Mar 25, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> We ask that all keepers in NSW email the Department at [email protected] and insist that those involved in developing and implementing the Code of Practice make themselves available to meet with us - their own appointed expert advisory group. The fact that they have yet again avoided any arrangement to discuss our concerns by allowing only written submissions is entirely unsatisfactory. Written submissions will disappear into the bureaucratic maw, be examined by the individuals at the Dept of Primary Industry (who are driving this, and who insist that enforceability in law is essential), and the outcome for keepers will be the same as they propose at this time.
> 
> Respondents should also insist that DECCW release, on the DECCW website, a copy of the Code in its current form. They have refused to release electronic copies because they are easy to circulate widely, and it suits them to allow a degree of confusion in the keeping community. This Code will impact thousands of keepers in NSW, and the EAG believes it will serve no practical purpose in improving the welfare of captive reptiles in NSW.
> 
> ...



Thanks very much for this J. It's much appreciated.

Let's ALL execute these suggestions asap!


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2011)

Attached is a copy of the current Code. Please read the preamble. Points of interest are: the firm warnings about adherence to legally binding standards; the definitions of adult animals - 6 months old for lizards, 12 months old for snakes, 2 years old for turtles; the intention to supersede the enclosure sizes 'within 5 years' (whatever that means in practice) to standards as yet undeveloped, but to come in the future from DII. My question would be - if the enclosure sizes, to be enforceable in law for the next 5 years, aren't suitable in the long term, why are they proposing any mandated enclosure sizes in the interim? This could cost keepers in NSW huge money to replace enclosures because of some arbitary bureaucratic requirement, and then they may have to do it again 'within 5 years'.

Keepers should not forget that even if their enclosures may be only millimetres less than the required size, if the LAW states that you MUST have enclosures of a particular size, the inspecting officers have no right to 'allow' any leeway, regardless of how well looked after your animal/s may be. If your enclosures do not comply, you will have to take measures to ensure they do. Mandatory enclosure sizes are just that - there is NO SCOPE for a pragmatic approach.

J


----------



## GeckoJosh (Mar 25, 2011)

Firstly Id like to say that I think the way DECCW is going about this very unsettling.
I would like someone to point out to me a part in the draft they dont think is reasonable and their reasons why they think that.
So far I cant see any major problems with it, so if someone can enlighten me to potential issues with the sizes proposed I'd appreciate it (please be specific).

Thanks Josh


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2011)

Geckoman said:


> Firstly Id like to say that I think the way DECCW is going about this very unsettling.
> I would like someone to point out to me a part in the draft they dont think is reasonable and their reasons why they think that.
> So far I cant see any major problems with it, so if someone can enlighten me to potential issues with the sizes proposed I'd appreciate it (please be specific).
> 
> Thanks Josh



So you're happy for some government official to design a set of laws (which will affect every keeper in NSW) to deal with a problem that, as far as we know, doesn't exist?


----------



## dangles (Mar 25, 2011)

When the greens get into gov't herp keeping will be a thing of the past. If it's seen that we aren't keeping them in tubs, but rather in a larger enclosure it can only help IMO. Keeping herps in small tubs is no different to puppy farmers that house dogs in tiny kennels. Donning my flame suit as I speak


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2011)

dangles said:


> When the greens get into gov't herp keeping will be a thing of the past. If it's seen that we aren't keeping them in tubs, but rather in a larger enclosure it can only help IMO. Keeping herps in small tubs is no different to puppy farmers that house dogs in tiny kennels. Donning my flame suit as I speak



A few inaccuracies here. I wouldn't be as sure about the Greens thing as you seem to be Dangles. Comparing dog breeding and raising to breeding and raising reptiles is nonsensical. Our reptiles have never lived longer, healthier lives, or bred in anywhere near the numbers they do now, before the techniques we currently use were developed. Skilled breeders will be assured of almost 100% survival rates with offspring raised in captivity, unlike wild survival rates which would often be zero per clutch. I'm not advocating for or against 'tubs', if I see a clean, healthy snake I can generally be assured that it is being properly cared for. Snakes, in the wild, live secretive lives, and spend a lot of time confined in hollows, burrows, under rocks etc. Many of them don't like to be exposed, and so they thrive in the controlled confines some keepers offer them.

But this thread isn't a debate on those issues. If you think a little more deeply, you will realise there are very important philosophical reasons why government officials should not able to introduce laws of any sort without having to justify the need for them, and if they do want to introduce laws of any sort, their proposals should be held up for scrutiny by the community.

j


----------



## GeckoJosh (Mar 25, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> So you're happy for some government official to design a set of laws (which will affect every keeper in NSW) to deal with a problem that, as far as we know, doesn't exist?


 When did I say im happy with it?, I said I found it unsettling.
I just would like to know what parts people are most unhappy about regarding the sizes


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 25, 2011)

Geckoman said:


> I just would like to know what parts people are most unhappy about regarding the sizes



It's not about the actual cage sizes, it's about a new law (totally unnecessary) that gives the bureaucrats another weapon they can use against us whenever they please to do so. The uncertain changes proposed 5 years later are also a serious worry.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2011)

Yes Michael, it's quite bizarre that these guys think they just lay down their arbitary law, which may cost some expert and conscientious keepers dearly, and then change it again to some unknown formula five years later.

An interesting observation of the Expert Advisory Group has been that unless we had applied for info from DECCW and DII under freedom of information, we would know nothing of the outcome of the deliberations in which we were involved, or the plan to change the code again within 5 years, since DECCW would not voluntarily provide the information we sought.

J


----------



## saximus (Mar 25, 2011)

That is probably the part that most confused me as well. Have they given any indication as to the rationale behind that part?


----------



## olivehydra (Mar 25, 2011)

Perhaps someone might want start a similar thread on Australian Freshwater Turtles.
If you think the housing requirements for snakes and lizards are tough, have a look
at the turtle section. Might get some support in that community.

Due to time constraints I am unable post the required info (busy designing my olympic size pool for my turts ;0 ).
Sorry for breaking the rules relating to mentioning other forums.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2011)

saximus said:


> That is probably the part that most confused me as well. Have they given any indication as to the rationale behind that part?



It is just an indication that the process is being designed and driven by DII, and DII is advocating even larger minimum enclosure sizes. I suspect that DECCW thought it would be a bit hard to sell vast enclosure sizes in one hit, so they've chosen a stepped introduction - a sort of 'if we get them used to one increase, it'll be easier to sell a further increase in the near future' sort of attitude.


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 25, 2011)

Lets hope that the new Minister is going to be a pragmatic and approachable person (extremely rare amongst politicians) and will see fit to put stop to this rot. One one hand, the DECCW is struggling to keep up with the licensing and other administration and on the other hand, they are acquiring more of it. Be assured the new, non-labor government is not going to increase the Department's funding, so how are they going to cope? It's clearer by the day that this whole nonsense is driven by few a individuals within DECCW and DII and their personal agendas may not even be palatable to the majority of departmental staff. I wonder if these individuals can be identified and brought to the new Minister's attention sooner rather than later.
As a Queenslander, I am watching all this from a pretty cushy patch but I worry that the NSW idiocy may be contagious.


----------



## Bushfire (Mar 25, 2011)

I have two general issues with the code. Firstly the way the DECCW has gone about its development and secondly how it has enforced standards and how an authorised officer can interpret those standards.

I have concerns regarding table 1 and the actual cage sizes for the lizards. My interest is in monitors so Ill use these as an example. Monitors in group C (the ackie group) require 0.98 for single adults. Standard 5.2.1.5 state if the is 2 adults, the cage must be 50% larger than table 1 sizes (0.98) and if you unfortunately have a trio add another 20% on that figure. Thats one bloody big cage!

The standards in 6 relating to the enclosure environment (actually add most of the rest of the document in that too) all require the authorised officer doing an inspection to make judgement calls on experiences he/she doesn't have. They might say that enclosure is too warm/cold, moist/dry etc without having the required experience in a range of species to make that call.

Its fine to have guidelines but once they become enforced standards, thats scary stuff especially when the officers are not equiped to deal with the level of expertise required to deal with such requirements.

The section in 6.5 relates to UV. Some very experienced keepers that dont keep beardies with UV will now by enforced to provide it based on some officers call who has no experience. Also as there is no list it will be up to the officer to decide which ones require it and ones that dont.


----------



## Chris1 (Mar 25, 2011)

so im reading the code from start to finish atm and im wondering if a bedroom with a closed door with a 4x2x2 foot enclosure with sand/lights etc left open for bedroom access will be acceptable for beardies? (theyre gonna be super peeved if its not)

the bedroooms are all 'safe' from things that could crush or kill them, and they would have the desired heat gradients/access to real sun (they have mesh cages to get up to the windowsills)

im a bit confused, in theory i think it would be ok, like it ticks all the heat gradient, escape from cage mates, ability to exhibit natural behaviour boxes, but the bedrooms dont exactly look like cages (altho like i said they do have access to open cages that meet all the requirements,....

it would be a bit unfair having to downgrade their lifestyle to adhere to the code......


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 25, 2011)

Chris, this is a most unusual concept. Do you mean your beardies have bedrooms (how many?) to them selves with 4x2x2 enclosures inside but they roam the bedroom and go into the cages whenever they feel like? Maybe I have missed something.


----------



## Chris1 (Mar 25, 2011)

no, u didnt miss anything, thats how it works, the 2 boys have a bedroom each,(as in seperate bedrooms) with a 4 foot cage/basking lights and a mesh enclosure they climb to get to windowsills, 3 of the girls who get along share a bedroom, same set up, 1 girl who doesnt get along with anyone has the loungeroom and access to a cage.

its been working well for 5 or so years,....


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2011)

Chris, I would suggest that, according to the Code, you would be in breach of the literal requirements, and could be forced to change the way your lizards live, regardless of the successful way it works for you and your animals. It would be easy for an officer to insist that you weren't providing a safe and secure environment for your pets. But if you're nice to them, and give them a cup of tea and a piece of cake when they visit, you'll probably get away with it. If you send them away and insist that they make an appointment to invade your privacy (if they turn up unannounced), as every keeper should do, you'll probably get the book thrown at you. That's the way it works in WA, and it's only a small step to that stage in other parts of Australia.


----------



## dpeica (Mar 26, 2011)

.


----------



## Peterwookie (Mar 26, 2011)

dpeica said:


> We should all just ignore them...they're a little bit of a joke.


 
A little bit Pfffft ......... Now there is a new government what happens now ???


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 27, 2011)

Peterwookie said:


> A little bit Pfffft ......... Now there is a new government what happens now ???



This is what we've been waiting for. Hopefully a whole new world will open up before us. (Difficult for me to say this... I'm a leftie!!!)

WE have to wait until the new Ministry is sworn in, which may be as early as next week. If Catherine Cusack is confirmed in the position as Minister for the Environment, I believe that some wheels will begin turning fairly soon.

Just the money spent on this 'project' alone should be of interest to her, especially if the Department cannot provide evidence of need, and the flow-on costs to the reptile-gear industry, especially those who make & sell enclosures and rack & tub systems, would be enormous.

All because 3 or 4 individuals in positions of power decide to go on a little personal crusade.


----------



## zulu (Mar 27, 2011)

The NSW election was a massacre brought about by entrenched beaurocracy and complacency in the various government departments.
Ile be letting good old Bart Bassett know what i want,it defenitetly cost the government votes here.


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 27, 2011)

Public service is a contradiction in terms. They do everything to serve their egos (in this case of the Code certainly) and nothing to serve the public, i.e. us. They don't even listen to what we want, hence the fiasco with the advisory committee meetings or for the better word, the lack of it.

Jamie, can you PM me (and to anyone else interested) the names of those 3 or 4 individuals pursuing their personal crusade? They need to be identified and their names served to the new Minister. These worms must be removed otherwise nothing will change in the long run. I believe that pointing out the individuals (and getting rid of them) will be more effective that pointing at the whole Department.


----------



## Octane (Mar 27, 2011)

Sorry if this is slightly heavy reading.

If reptile keepers objection to the proposed regulations is going to be bought before the new minister any submission should make reference to the *Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 No 146*.

Basically this is a NSW Law that must be followed when implementing statutory regulations and what a minister has to consider prior to ministerial approval. 

Most noteworthy is:-
*Part 2*
*Section 4* [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]*Guidelines*[/FONT]
*(1) Before a statutory rule is made, the responsible Minister is required to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the guidelines set out in Schedule 1 are complied with.*​and

*Schedule 1 *

*3. In determining whether and how the objectives should be achieved, the responsible Minister is to have regard to the following principles: *
*(a) Administrative decisions should be based on adequate information and consultation concerning the need for and consequences of the proposed action.*​*(b) Implementation by means of a statutory rule should not normally be undertaken unless the anticipated benefits to the community from the proposed statutory rule outweigh the anticipated costs to the community, bearing in mind the impact of the proposal on the economy and on consumers, members of the public, relevant interest groups, and any sector of industry and commerce, that may be affected.*​*(c) The alternative option that involves the greatest net benefit or the least net cost to the community should normally be chosen from the range of alternative options available to achieve the objectives.*​This is just a section of the legislation but the DECCW push for the proposed regulation is clearly not in the spirit of part B. The only real outcome to come from this regulation is cost to the community. 

If you want to read further about this ACT

NSW Legislation

Sorry again if this is heavy reading but I believe it is relevant.

Thanks for reading.
Octane


----------



## jack (Mar 27, 2011)

thankyou octane, i'll add that to my letter.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 27, 2011)

Thank you so much for that Octane. Limited time atm, but will check it out tomorrow. I'll be responding to Mick O'Flynn at DECCW tomorrow, letting him know that further avoidance of direct discussion with their own appointed advisory group is not a tenable option for the Department any longer. It never was, but they've spun this out absolutely as long as they can. We have no patience for this stalling any longer. If they have nothing to hide, they must meet with us at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you again!

Jamie


----------



## Jake_the_snake (Apr 10, 2011)

I have a Spotted Python in an enclosure thats 80x40x40 with 80 being its length

And my Jungle in enclosure 60x60x120 with 120 being the height.

By my calculation this should be ok


----------



## Khagan (Jun 3, 2011)

Thought i'd bring this question up in here rather than a new thread seen as it's somewhat relevant to the code of practice.

Been looking at converting a tv unit into an enclosure, but having trouble find any with atleast 600 depth. If the snake falls under the category that has to be kept in 1200x600x600, would something that is only in the 500's depth but more height/width be ok under this code of practice?


----------



## saximus (Jun 3, 2011)

The code, if it goes through, doesn't have specific dimension rules like that. It concentrated on overall floor or wall area. So in your case, if it's smaller in one dimension but you make up for it in another you're fine


----------



## Khagan (Jun 3, 2011)

saximus said:


> The code, if it goes through, doesn't have specific dimension rules like that. It concentrated on overall floor or wall area. So in your case, if it's smaller in one dimension but you make up for it in another you're fine


 
Yeah i kinda thought that was the case, just wanted to clarify before i went ahead then only have to replace it if i was wrong. Thanks.


----------



## mayamaya (Jun 3, 2011)

Lol weird, the government take reptile keeping way too seriously. And very likely just for extra money from people.... Reptiles are normal pets just like cats, dogs, fish, horses, etc. Just not as popular since everyone has different interests in pets. This licensing, fee stuff is bull*****. They want us to pay them to keep our own pets and making everything more & more complicated even if the animal is clearly in a good environment, happy, healthy. Far out it costs enough just for the pet alone 
Yes, you need to make sure you have all the correct equipment for your reptile but come on.. they are taking it way too far. Its not like people are keeping them cruely. People put a lot of time, money and effort in to make sure their pet has the best life possible. I think people should just make sure they can look after their reptile responsibly, and be over 18 when they purchase etc. and have proof of the right equipment... then leave it at that. And if someone sees or knows of a reptile (or just like any pet at all anyway) being mistreated or in poor condition/environment, then report it and THAT should be when the law comes in. Making people pay to keep them constantly and bothering them about changing things and unneccessarily buying different things, charging all these fees etc, is just ridiculous! The only reason people REALLY need licenses is for emergency/vet purposes. Otherwise its just pointless..... They're normal pets! And people who cant provide all their things dont even bother getting them! (well I havent seen it anyway) Ughh.. >_>


----------



## S&M Morelia (Jun 4, 2011)

saximus said:


> The code, if it goes through, doesn't have specific dimension rules like that. It concentrated on overall floor or wall area. So in your case, if it's smaller in one dimension but you make up for it in another you're fine


 According to the "standard" it says that the smallest dimension of the enclosure cannot be smaller than 20% of the total length of the occupant (this is for snakes) so if you had a 2.5m coastal, the smallest side you can have is 500mm.

The way that DECCW have gone about this is very very sneaky...
There are a number of things in the code that was posted that I do not agree with.
But I will re-read the latest one posted by pythoninfinate again tonight and post my comments up when I get a chance.


----------



## Waterrat (Jun 4, 2011)

S&M Morelia said:


> According to the "standard" it says that the smallest dimension of the enclosure cannot be smaller than 20% of the total length of the occupant (this is for snakes) so if you had a 2.5m coastal, the smallest side you can have is 500mm.


 
If this is true, it borders on animal cruelty. Would anyone keep a 2.5m python in a 50x50x50cm cage?


----------



## saximus (Jun 4, 2011)

No I don't think that would be allowed Michael. I'd missed the 20% bit but there is also a minimum floor/wall area requirement as well. So if one side was 50cm you'd have to make another dimension bigger to still get the overall area required as well. I know it's been said but it just seems like all just a bunch of office workers pulling numbers out of their rectums with no regard for what people like Jamie have been telling them


----------



## S&M Morelia (Jun 4, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> If this is true, it borders on animal cruelty. Would anyone keep a 2.5m python in a 50x50x50cm cage?


 Sorry Waterrat, I was only referring to just the smallest side, you will still need to meet the "standard" floor/wall area for that sized python.


----------



## Chris1 (Jun 6, 2011)

momo93 said:


> Lol weird, the government take reptile keeping way too seriously. And very likely just for extra money from people.... Reptiles are normal pets just like cats, dogs, fish, horses, etc. Just not as popular since everyone has different interests in pets. This licensing, fee stuff is bull*****. They want us to pay them to keep our own pets and making everything more & more complicated even if the animal is clearly in a good environment, happy, healthy. Far out it costs enough just for the pet alone
> Yes, you need to make sure you have all the correct equipment for your reptile but come on.. they are taking it way too far. Its not like people are keeping them cruely. People put a lot of time, money and effort in to make sure their pet has the best life possible. I think people should just make sure they can look after their reptile responsibly, and be over 18 when they purchase etc. and have proof of the right equipment... then leave it at that. And if someone sees or knows of a reptile (or just like any pet at all anyway) being mistreated or in poor condition/environment, then report it and THAT should be when the law comes in. Making people pay to keep them constantly and bothering them about changing things and unneccessarily buying different things, charging all these fees etc, is just ridiculous! The only reason people REALLY need licenses is for emergency/vet purposes. Otherwise its just pointless..... They're normal pets! And people who cant provide all their things dont even bother getting them! (well I havent seen it anyway) Ughh.. >_>



really?

you think people having large collections of large snakes in tubs/racks they can barely move in isnt cruel?
...theres a bucket load of people who do that,...

spend a week in a toilet cubicle and tell me u still think thats ok,.....

a vet has never asked me for my license,.....its their job to help the animals, not to monitor who is and isnt licenced,...


----------



## killimike (Jun 6, 2011)

Chris1 said:


> really?
> 
> you think people having large collections of large snakes in tubs/racks they can barely move in isnt cruel?
> ...theres a bucket load of people who do that,...
> ...


 
I know it's all been said before, but I kinda disagree. There already exists animal cruelty legislation, why not use that when the case arises, and not spend so much money on a system like this that makes everyone pay, tax payer and law abiding reptile keeper as well? Do you have legal minimum size requirements for the enclosure of your cat/dog/fish/hermit crab? 

The old 'would you like to spend the time in a tiny space?' is rather anthropomorphic. Would you like to eat only once a week? No? Then feed your snake more, don't be cruel!

The use that is being made of the licensing system to control keepers is another story. As is the vet nurse who told me her practice reported a person who brought in a corn snake.


----------



## Focus (Jul 14, 2011)

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but I'm looking at soon getting some adult enclosures for some carpets. According to the Code, does that mean that the standard 4x2x2 is no longer acceptable? I've read it as it is, but admit to not making any sense of the numbers and as a newbie to the scene I'm not sure what to do.


----------



## wokka (Jul 14, 2011)

Focus said:


> I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but I'm looking at soon getting some adult enclosures for some carpets. According to the Code, does that mean that the standard 4x2x2 is no longer acceptable? I've read it as it is, but admit to not making any sense of the numbers and as a newbie to the scene I'm not sure what to do.


 At the moment the code is a draft so you dont know what or if cage sizes will be included.


----------



## Focus (Jul 14, 2011)

Ok, might just hold off on new enclosures for the moment. Thanks wokka.


----------



## Sissy (Aug 21, 2012)

Wow this is still floating around... I was selected, I was told randomly to comment on this document at least 5/6 years ago... I appreciate your efforts in posting it up for the whole community to look at as that was what my original suggestion was... we only had the two snakes and said I was the least likely person to consult... we had Noodles and Gorgeous one lives in a long cage and one lives in a tall cage.. pretty common sense stuff... end of conversation.... However back then we didn't have the import/export crap going on either... what a mess... I doubt that there is any way of publicly enacting any of these policies unless they have been released for public consultation and discussion... perhaps that's what's been taking them so long... It could be noted that the original document included diagrams with dimensions to assist us poor numbnuts in making our calculations.. does anyone else recall this...I've changed computers otherwise I'm sure I'd still have it on there somewhere...


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Aug 21, 2012)

If you're in Qld SissyMum, this doesn't apply to you guys... yet...

The matter is still being pushed in NSW however...

Jamie


----------



## Morgan_dragon (Oct 4, 2012)

mayamaya said:


> Lol weird, the government take reptile keeping way too seriously. And very likely just for extra money from people.... Reptiles are normal pets just like cats, dogs, fish, horses, etc. Just not as popular since everyone has different interests in pets. This licensing, fee stuff is bull*****. They want us to pay them to keep our own pets and making everything more & more complicated even if the animal is clearly in a good environment, happy, healthy. Far out it costs enough just for the pet alone
> Yes, you need to make sure you have all the correct equipment for your reptile but come on.. they are taking it way too far. Its not like people are keeping them cruely. People put a lot of time, money and effort in to make sure their pet has the best life possible. I think people should just make sure they can look after their reptile responsibly, and be over 18 when they purchase etc. and have proof of the right equipment... then leave it at that. And if someone sees or knows of a reptile (or just like any pet at all anyway) being mistreated or in poor condition/environment, then report it and THAT should be when the law comes in. Making people pay to keep them constantly and bothering them about changing things and unneccessarily buying different things, charging all these fees etc, is just ridiculous! The only reason people REALLY need licenses is for emergency/vet purposes. Otherwise its just pointless..... They're normal pets! And people who cant provide all their things dont even bother getting them! (well I havent seen it anyway) Ughh..
> >_>



wow

there are plenty of people around that need to be educated about what their 'pet' needs. If you dont believe it I am sure both myself and many others could show you pics that would make your blood boil.

Secondly, not wanting to join the ranks of haters and trolls on here but seriously you want to make licensing an age issue? I know plenty of keepers under 18 that take better care of their reps then alot of others, including my 8yr old daughter who is already taking an interest in herps. I take serious offense to the age issue coming up when it shouldn't. We got my daughter a spotted for her 8th Birthday, not because it was a spur of the moment thing (I personally dont really like spotteds) and not because she begged...because she has taken such an interest in the last couple of years in our herping and helped me week in and week out to do things like clean out enclosures and help with rats and mice bins etc. Seriously? Don't make it about age, there are plenty that are both young and old that take plenty of interest and others that need to take more! We are now looking at giving her one of our reduced pattern womas for Christmas...oh and by the way, we have mates for these and as far as I'm concerned if she is cleaning out the enclosures, feeding them, weighing them etc and looking after their general day to day stuff...she gets half the sale price for anything she manages to breed. Not bad for an 8yr old I must say....

On the original subject of enclosures...yep if you go for something that is a decent height/dimension mix you are fine. The legislation they are talking about is making sure the snakes have plenty of room to grow etc this will be different from a ground dweller to something that spends most of its time hunting around to something that is fairly static in its enclosure...have fun regulating it!

Goodluck with the enclosures


----------



## Sissy (Oct 4, 2012)

No technically we're in NSW and I am very aware of this draft document that has literally been floating around for years.



Pythoninfinite said:


> If you're in Qld SissyMum, this doesn't apply to you guys... yet...
> 
> The matter is still being pushed in NSW however...
> 
> Jamie



- - - Updated - - -

Jamie technically we're in NSW Tweed Coast (just easier to say Gold Coast) and I am very aware of this draft document that has literally been floating around for years, as I said the original even had diagrams.
Not to sure about the age limit thing tho as I made my daughter wait until she was ten to get her licence in her name, she had an interest in all things snake since being a toddler - I on the other hand had to be convinced and back then, the age to get a licence was 10 not sure what it is now? She also helped me for the first 5 or 6 years until she got a boyfriend lol... 
Then he helped for a couple of years and now they live between houses and aren't always home to help, they're 19 & 18 & it's all up to mum lol... However that is the point children don't live in isolation and like any pet, parents know the associated housing, feeding, care, vet expenses etc. prior to agreeing to purchasing, although we take particular care of our animals so as to not have the vet bills lol.. and I've always been taught that a pet is for life and in most snakes that's a long time 20-30 year commitment.
My youngest 7 loves lizards so here we go again with the Beardies mum you clean the poop, chop salad, make sure we have crickets, feed and water and I'll just play with them lol... and tell everyone about my pets lol...

I would like licencing to be like with dogs perhaps a lifetime registration with the a six month grace period so that they are viable. None of this renew every five years crap and I've already had my say about the import/export licencing fees... argghhh
I suppose however that this one way they can keep track of those who are serious about their animals and the other fly by nighters that think there's money to be made in this hobby.. Not even sure if the most popular breeders would ever say they ever really make money? 



Pythoninfinite said:


> If you're in Qld SissyMum, this doesn't apply to you guys... yet...
> 
> The matter is still being pushed in NSW however...
> 
> Jamie


----------



## wokka (Oct 4, 2012)

Morgan_dragon said:


> wow
> 
> there are plenty of people around that need to be educated about what their 'pet' needs. If you dont believe it I am sure both myself and many others could show you pics that would make your blood boil.
> 
> ...


You need to be over 18 so they can fine you or send you to jail. They can hardly jail an 8 year old, now can they.


----------



## Sissy (Oct 6, 2012)

Ummm No Wokka - You have to be over the age of 16 not sure where you got 18 from for NSW applicants? 
and the fine for false and misleading information is up to $3300.
Just checked my daughters original application and licence from the beginning of 2005 and it clearly stated that: 
"a person who is over the age of 10 years, but a person under the age of 16 years must have the consent of a parent or guardian who will be legally responsible for all activities of the licensed person. The parent or guardian must counter sign the application where indicated below." 
So what these means is she had her 5 year licence renewal by the age of 15 years. This seemed to be perfectly acceptable terms and conditions at the time, so wonder what happened to change it?
Licences also changed there prefix from RK to ALK around then...


----------



## dragonlover1 (Oct 6, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> If this is true, it borders on animal cruelty. Would anyone keep a 2.5m python in a 50x50x50cm cage?


this is govt "intelligence" for you


----------



## Sissy (Oct 7, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> If this is true, it borders on animal cruelty. Would anyone keep a 2.5m python in a 50x50x50cm cage?


Is it not 20% less than length therefore the tank would have to be 200x 50 x 50? This would mean people had all these huge tanks everywhere. 
There is no way they can possible enforce or regulate these tank dimensions as we all know that tank requirements are species specific - they either are like the BHP's and long, wide with not too much height required or tall for climbers 
or downright huge; wide and tall for coastals etc.

- - - Updated - - -



saximus said:


> No I don't think that would be allowed Michael. I'd missed the 20% bit but there is also a minimum floor/wall area requirement as well. So if one side was 50cm you'd have to make another dimension bigger to still get the overall area required as well. I know it's been said but it just seems like all just a bunch of office workers pulling numbers out of their rectums with no regard for what people like Jamie have been telling them



Like what he said!...


----------



## Kurto (Jan 15, 2013)

It has been quite some time since this was proposed and I have been well out of the loop.. Does anyone have any new information on the DECC draft? thanks.


----------



## saximus (Jan 15, 2013)

From my understanding, it was canned after the change of government


----------

