serpenttongue
Very Well-Known Member
Thanks, wokka.
DECC minimum enclosure size discussion.
- Thread starter abbott75
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
stannysnake
Not so new Member
Is there website where these proposed minimum sizes are listed? I cant find any info. Im in the process of setting up a room for my snakes but worried about going ahead now if they are going to set new requirements in the near future. Not that my enclosures are going to be small in fact probably a bit more than they need.
W
wokka
Guest
The Code of practice is currently still in draft form and should be available for comment in a couple of months. The draft does not contain minimum cage sizes nor maximums but recommends suitable sizes. The code is a guideline to encourage best practice in reptile keeping. My observation is that the vast majority of cages (probably 95+%) currently used by keepers fall within the recommended sizes. The code recognises that there are no "one size fits all" rules for keeping reptiles with one of the major influences being the keepers experience.There is recognition that cages can be too big as well as too small particularly when dealing with hatchling reptiles.
W
wokka
Guest
They could change or implement rules at any time, but the current discussions involve guidelines not rules.
ShaunMorelia
Very Well-Known Member
Draft Code of Practice Feedback Form
Hey everyone,
I picked this up at our last Shoalhaven Reptile Club meeting.
Thought it may be of intrest of most people.
I dont have a link to it on their website but here's a pdf of it that I scanned in.
Hope everyone can fill it out and send it in. The more people that can send one in the more info they have to use and give out a suitable size.
View attachment Draft Feedback.pdf
Cheers
Hey everyone,
I picked this up at our last Shoalhaven Reptile Club meeting.
Thought it may be of intrest of most people.
I dont have a link to it on their website but here's a pdf of it that I scanned in.
Hope everyone can fill it out and send it in. The more people that can send one in the more info they have to use and give out a suitable size.
View attachment Draft Feedback.pdf
Cheers
Colin
morelia
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,506
- Reaction score
- 9
thanks for that The_S_Word
this is a great step forward in my opinion with the NSW DECC actually asking for some feedback like this..
Its always best when both "sides" can sit down and put forward ideas and come out with a mutually agreeable and satisfactory result.
great move by Daniel Van Dyk from the NSW DECC
this is a great step forward in my opinion with the NSW DECC actually asking for some feedback like this..
Its always best when both "sides" can sit down and put forward ideas and come out with a mutually agreeable and satisfactory result.
great move by Daniel Van Dyk from the NSW DECC
ShaunMorelia
Very Well-Known Member
thanks for that The_S_Word
this is a great step forward in my opinion with the NSW DECC actually asking for some feedback like this..
Its always best when both "sides" can sit down and put forward ideas and come out with a mutually agreeable and satisfactory result.
great move by Daniel Van Dyk from the NSW DECC
no worries Colin.
I thought someone may have already posted it and after a brief search on the DECC website I couldn't find it so thought I'll whack it up.
And i agree with you and I believe that it should come out with a good result for both sides.
Always a good sign to see that they (DECC) are willing to hear what other keepers think are suitable enclosure sizes before finalising.
mungus
Very Well-Known Member
Enclosure sizes are just to small IMO
Main concern is the enclosure sizes for medium and large pythons.
600x450 for a Woma ?? - Try 1000W x 750H x 600WD
900x600 for Diamonds and carpets ?? - Try 1200W x1500H x 600D.
I personally believe these sizes are put forward to keep " large " breeders happy.
Smaller enclosures means more enclosures per sq.m, which equals more reptiles.
Again, just my opinion.
Aleks.
Main concern is the enclosure sizes for medium and large pythons.
600x450 for a Woma ?? - Try 1000W x 750H x 600WD
900x600 for Diamonds and carpets ?? - Try 1200W x1500H x 600D.
I personally believe these sizes are put forward to keep " large " breeders happy.
Smaller enclosures means more enclosures per sq.m, which equals more reptiles.
Again, just my opinion.
Aleks.
jack
Very Well-Known Member
no mention of height for arboreal snakes... no mention of elapids?
Ramsayi
Very Well-Known Member
For anyone considering filling out the draft pdf form and sending it in please have a very good grasp of what minimum sizes should be.The last thing that is needed is people with limited knowledge putting their 2 cents worth in even if they have best intentions in mind when doing it.
Colin
morelia
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,506
- Reaction score
- 9
exactly rams.
minimum size means smaller than you would normally consider using but still ok in a pinch. so theres no need to put down what you actually keep your animals in.. this is for minimum size recomendation and lets face it pythons can live comfortably in pretty small enclosures if the heat and gradient is ok..
Its also really only for NSW keepers too and doesnt apply to other states.
mungus
Very Well-Known Member
Limited knowledge...............:|
I can see my 2 1/2 metre diamonds / bredli's etc living in a 900x600 enclosure.
My best intentions are for my reptiles..............
Draft sent......
Ramsayi
Very Well-Known Member
Limited knowledge...............:|
I can see my 2 1/2 metre diamonds / bredli's etc living in a 900x600 enclosure.
My best intentions are for my reptiles..............
Draft sent......
My post wasn't directed at you,(hence I didn't quote you) or anyone else in particular,sorry if you took it that way.
Not everything is as clear cut regarding sizes.You recommended a 1000W x 750H x 600WD for a woma as an example. Womas come in lots of different sizes, the line I keep being not much bigger than macs.I actually keep them in enclosures measuring 1200x800x600H however there is no way I would recommend that as a minimum standard.
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
You should all be very careful about handing out compliments to DECC for being "consultative". I, and a few other members here, are on the advisory committee, chosen by and currently in discussion with DECC about the Code of Practice, currently in draft form. Collectively this group has at least 200 years of keeping and publishing experience.
The move into animal welfare issues represents a major move sideways for DECC, and if you accept what they are doing at face value, you are handing a whole new range of powers to officers of the DECC to enter your homes and INSTRUCT you on how to keep your animals, or risk prosecution if you don't comply. In most cases these instructions will be issued from a rule book, by a person who has never kept reptiles, and may indeed think you are weird for wanting to do so.
Animal "welfare" is a very useful hook on which to hang a whole range of sentiment grabbing issues, and it is used relentlessly by animal "rights" activists to achieve what can be very considerable constraints on what you do with your animals in your own home. As I pointed out in a recent article in Scales and Tails, we should all have the welfare of our animals in mind whatever we do with them.
One of the big problems with what Daniel van Dyk is doing here is that he has not advised us what weight will be placed on the feedback DECC gets from canvassing the issue as he is doing. Another problem, caused when the questionnaire is scanned and placed here, is that it will create a division of opinion between keepers. This can be very easily exploited by DECC to achieve it's goals. Make no mistake, DECC is not the naive government body seeking advice from a neutral base. DECC has an objective to achieve an outcome which may not be what you expect.
This is a big subject, with potential outcomes which could change the nature of reptile keeping across the country. It disturbs me greatly that many vastly inexperienced members of this site have been invited, and may be tempted to, comment on issues about which they know nothing. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Jamie.
The move into animal welfare issues represents a major move sideways for DECC, and if you accept what they are doing at face value, you are handing a whole new range of powers to officers of the DECC to enter your homes and INSTRUCT you on how to keep your animals, or risk prosecution if you don't comply. In most cases these instructions will be issued from a rule book, by a person who has never kept reptiles, and may indeed think you are weird for wanting to do so.
Animal "welfare" is a very useful hook on which to hang a whole range of sentiment grabbing issues, and it is used relentlessly by animal "rights" activists to achieve what can be very considerable constraints on what you do with your animals in your own home. As I pointed out in a recent article in Scales and Tails, we should all have the welfare of our animals in mind whatever we do with them.
One of the big problems with what Daniel van Dyk is doing here is that he has not advised us what weight will be placed on the feedback DECC gets from canvassing the issue as he is doing. Another problem, caused when the questionnaire is scanned and placed here, is that it will create a division of opinion between keepers. This can be very easily exploited by DECC to achieve it's goals. Make no mistake, DECC is not the naive government body seeking advice from a neutral base. DECC has an objective to achieve an outcome which may not be what you expect.
This is a big subject, with potential outcomes which could change the nature of reptile keeping across the country. It disturbs me greatly that many vastly inexperienced members of this site have been invited, and may be tempted to, comment on issues about which they know nothing. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Jamie.
Colin
morelia
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,506
- Reaction score
- 9
I understand your concerns jamie, and I had the same concerns when I as I understood it the DECC wanted to bring in mandatory minimum regulated enclosure sizes that were enforcable by law.
from what I heard last were that Indications are instead of mandatory regulated minimum enclosure sizes.. there will be a code of best practice or recommended guidelines in regards to minimum sizes for enclosures.
I understood that to mean that the draft will be a guide only with best practice recomendations and suggestions.. which will not be mandatory, compulsory or enforceable?
Is this correct? or has there been some new changes that lead you to think they will bring in these minimum enclosure size changes as mandatory enforcable regulations like we first thought?
if so then thats a real worry..
from what I heard last were that Indications are instead of mandatory regulated minimum enclosure sizes.. there will be a code of best practice or recommended guidelines in regards to minimum sizes for enclosures.
I understood that to mean that the draft will be a guide only with best practice recomendations and suggestions.. which will not be mandatory, compulsory or enforceable?
Is this correct? or has there been some new changes that lead you to think they will bring in these minimum enclosure size changes as mandatory enforcable regulations like we first thought?
if so then thats a real worry..
shiregirl
Not so new Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
So people where complaining the enclosures were to big, when it apparently was going to be enforced and now they are complaining it's to small when it may just be a guideline? :?
I don't have problem with the mimimum requirements listed recently. As has been said earlier all snakes are different. Who is to say that the minimum measurements weren't put there to cover those fussy snakes that just won't go well in a larger enclosure?
I think what has been written here somes it up:
It disturbs me greatly that many vastly inexperienced members of this site have been invited, and may be tempted to, comment on issues about which they know nothing. This is a very dangerous precedent.
*end rant*
I don't have problem with the mimimum requirements listed recently. As has been said earlier all snakes are different. Who is to say that the minimum measurements weren't put there to cover those fussy snakes that just won't go well in a larger enclosure?
I think what has been written here somes it up:
It disturbs me greatly that many vastly inexperienced members of this site have been invited, and may be tempted to, comment on issues about which they know nothing. This is a very dangerous precedent.
*end rant*
Bushfire
Well-Known Member
I dont have a problem with those sizes. Like with alot of other licensing stuff I guess it will come down to what sort of working relationship you have with the DECC Officer. If you are or have been difficult in the past they may use this document against you more strictly than normal. Whereas if you have a good relationship the Officer might say gee that looks alittle small is there a reason for that? You state your reason and he/she might think that makes sense and move on, exactly what they normally do with paperwork indiscretions.
Whether its enforceable or not, if you dont comply with it you run the risk of having to justify your position in court. This document will be the departments benchmark or measure on whether an animal has the proper care or not.
Whether its enforceable or not, if you dont comply with it you run the risk of having to justify your position in court. This document will be the departments benchmark or measure on whether an animal has the proper care or not.
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
Col, the problem is that we haven't seen the final of the new draft, and I suspect that individuals in DECC may be unhappy with the proposals so far, even though they have agreed, on the face of it, to accept them. Hence the canvassing of opinions about enclosure sizes in this very premature manner. It seems to me they want to get "public opinion" on their side, regardless of how ill informed it may be, because they always had an agenda to push for larger cages. One of the biggest points of concern we had when going in to these discussions was the significant weight DECC was keen to give to "public perception."
To me, the only opinion that matters is that of the reptile keeper - the non-keeping members of the public know nothing about reptiles, and their opinions or perceptions should not be supported by DECC. That's about as blunt as I can get.
If we allow the standards, or even recommendations, to be driven by public perception, it will just be the thin end of the wedge. A whole new field of concerns can be generated by interest groups such as the animal rights lobby, and make no mistake, there will be continuing pressure on animal keepers of all sorts, from outside the bureaucracy, and from within.
Daniel has been preemptive in handing out his questionnaire, as the group appointed by DECC has a meeting in Hurstville on August 21st. I am disappointed that he has done this prior to further discussion with us.
The perception you had about the intentions of the document are similar to those members of the advisory group had at the end of our last meeting, but until the final draft has been signed off, nothing is set in concrete.
I am concerned that what we see now may not be what we end up with.
Jamie.
To me, the only opinion that matters is that of the reptile keeper - the non-keeping members of the public know nothing about reptiles, and their opinions or perceptions should not be supported by DECC. That's about as blunt as I can get.
If we allow the standards, or even recommendations, to be driven by public perception, it will just be the thin end of the wedge. A whole new field of concerns can be generated by interest groups such as the animal rights lobby, and make no mistake, there will be continuing pressure on animal keepers of all sorts, from outside the bureaucracy, and from within.
Daniel has been preemptive in handing out his questionnaire, as the group appointed by DECC has a meeting in Hurstville on August 21st. I am disappointed that he has done this prior to further discussion with us.
The perception you had about the intentions of the document are similar to those members of the advisory group had at the end of our last meeting, but until the final draft has been signed off, nothing is set in concrete.
I am concerned that what we see now may not be what we end up with.
Jamie.
- Status
Similar threads
