Ramsayi
Very Well-Known Member
Not baiting at all.Just replying to your comment about being able to tell the length of a snake,especially to a few cm.
NSW code of practice about to be released
- Thread starter girdheinz
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
Not baiting at all.Just replying to your comment about being able to tell the length of a snake,especially to a few cm.
B
borntobnude
Guest
Having jus read this " code "of practice and knowing that the good folks that wrote it are monitoring us ( or at least are members/subscribers ) I think it would be polite if one or more of them made us aware of their presence and joined in our "discussions ". Probably all three or four threads going on should become involved , As there seems to be a lot of questions NOT being answered or being answered in lots of different ways -- none of which really are the answer or make sense to others .
And dont go asking me any real specifics because i was happily distracted by a baby bluey wandering around my backyard ,eating my cherry tomatoes , Without a Cage !!
And dont go asking me any real specifics because i was happily distracted by a baby bluey wandering around my backyard ,eating my cherry tomatoes , Without a Cage !!
jacorin
Well-Known Member
lolol born
jairusthevirus21
Active Member
I don't see this as a problem... I just hope that the research will be available to the public. Crosses and Jags are no problem to ME but it might be handy when it comes to having to prove 'pure lines'. I'm sure many may be advantaged by this.
What about the keepers who don't come on forums? Will the DPI be sending actual paper copies of the "standard" to the postal addresses of license holders?
The way I see it is you don't know about a new law how are you expected to follow it and bare the penalties if you don't know?
The way I see it is you don't know about a new law how are you expected to follow it and bare the penalties if you don't know?
Last edited by a moderator:
christopherR
Not so new Member
Can some one please help?? I can't for the life of me work the min enclosure size for 3 Angle headed dragon hatchlings also what size for when they are adults?. I am planing to house 3 adults in 122cm high, 122cm long, 61 cm deep.
thanks
thanks
Three Angle Headed Dragons under the age of 6 months would require and enclosure 0.034m2 in floor space with the smallest dimension being SVL of the animals. Between 6-12 months an enclosure must have an area of 0.051m2 with the minimum dimension being SVL of the animals, and as adults over 12 months they require and enclosure 0.408m2 with the smallest dimension being SVL of the animals. The adult size enclosure your suggesting would be larger than the minimum. A 10L tub would fit the bill for the juveniles.
Regards
Wing_Nut
Last edited:
benjamind2010
Well-Known Member
I'll have to sell my rack (which can house 4 animals) and get a couple of 4 x 2 enclosures to house what will eventually be my collection of 2 womas. I'll be donating one woma to that poor bloke who lost his collection of what was it? 300 animals? So it will basically come down to 2 enclosures. I can build them myself but I'd prefer to get them ready made.
Just one thing I must ask...no price gouging on the enclosures...please please please
Just one thing I must ask...no price gouging on the enclosures...please please please
christopherR
Not so new Member
Thanks Wing_Nut, appreciate it.
Umbral
Very Well-Known Member
Here's the reply I received.
Dear Mr,
Thank you for your email dated 26[SUP]th[/SUP] of March regarding the recently released OEH Code of Practice for the Private Keeping of Reptiles.
As I’m sure you’re aware, there are a number of different ways in which minimum enclosure sizes for reptiles can be specified. The Queensland code of practice for reptile keepers establishes minimum enclosure sizes based on species and size (e.g. A python of 200cm total length will require a cage with floor space at least 50cm by 100cm). The Victorian code does what you suggest and uses a formula based on the length of the reptile (e.g. Arboreal snakes – For two adult specimens up to 4 m in total length (L = length of the longest specimen): enclosure length = 0.45 L, width = 0.3 L and height = 0.5 L).
The NSW Code adopts a slightly different approach. The Code bases minimum enclosure sizes on reptile body size; however rather than applying a formula (which means the minimum area would increase continually as the animal grows), species are grouped according to their average adult length and each group is assigned a single enclosure size (e.g. a category A python requires a minimum floor area of 0.15 m[SUP]2[/SUP]).
This approach has a number of advantages over a formula. Firstly, it is easier for keepers to understand and comply with as the minimum area remains constant throughout the animal's adult life. Keepers don’t have to worry about their enclosure falling below the minimum standard for area as the animal grows.
It is also easier from a compliance perspective as it is not necessary to measure the animal to determine whether the floor area is appropriate. This has important animal welfare benefits as it would be difficult to maintain effective quarantine controls if multiple reptiles were being handled. Also, there would be safety implications if dangerously venomous snakes and large varanids had to be handled.
The NSW approach also improves on the limited species-specific scheme used by Queensland as it covers the full suite of reptile species in captivity rather than just a subset.
As you correctly point out, this approach also means that species which grow to different sizes can have the same minimum enclosure requirements. The range of body sizes in each category was selected so that the difference between the smallest and largest species was not too large and the total number of categories was manageable (i.e. there weren’t hundreds of categories).
On the issue of varying sizes between localities, if there is a locality that is significantly shorter than the species average and readily identifiable then there may be a case for placing it in a different category. NPWS is happy to consider these issues as the Code is reviewed and updated in the future.
The Code sets standards for a wide range of different reptiles and therefore has to be fairly general. It does not attempt to account for every individual reptile in every circumstance. Rather it establishes a simple baseline which is designed to assist keepers with providing appropriate housing and care for their pet reptiles.
Should you have any further enquiries please contact us on[email protected]
Sounds like they are open to ideas so I'm pretty happy with the response. Like I said I'm pretty happy with the code but there should be some minor changes.
Dear Mr,
Thank you for your email dated 26[SUP]th[/SUP] of March regarding the recently released OEH Code of Practice for the Private Keeping of Reptiles.
As I’m sure you’re aware, there are a number of different ways in which minimum enclosure sizes for reptiles can be specified. The Queensland code of practice for reptile keepers establishes minimum enclosure sizes based on species and size (e.g. A python of 200cm total length will require a cage with floor space at least 50cm by 100cm). The Victorian code does what you suggest and uses a formula based on the length of the reptile (e.g. Arboreal snakes – For two adult specimens up to 4 m in total length (L = length of the longest specimen): enclosure length = 0.45 L, width = 0.3 L and height = 0.5 L).
The NSW Code adopts a slightly different approach. The Code bases minimum enclosure sizes on reptile body size; however rather than applying a formula (which means the minimum area would increase continually as the animal grows), species are grouped according to their average adult length and each group is assigned a single enclosure size (e.g. a category A python requires a minimum floor area of 0.15 m[SUP]2[/SUP]).
This approach has a number of advantages over a formula. Firstly, it is easier for keepers to understand and comply with as the minimum area remains constant throughout the animal's adult life. Keepers don’t have to worry about their enclosure falling below the minimum standard for area as the animal grows.
It is also easier from a compliance perspective as it is not necessary to measure the animal to determine whether the floor area is appropriate. This has important animal welfare benefits as it would be difficult to maintain effective quarantine controls if multiple reptiles were being handled. Also, there would be safety implications if dangerously venomous snakes and large varanids had to be handled.
The NSW approach also improves on the limited species-specific scheme used by Queensland as it covers the full suite of reptile species in captivity rather than just a subset.
As you correctly point out, this approach also means that species which grow to different sizes can have the same minimum enclosure requirements. The range of body sizes in each category was selected so that the difference between the smallest and largest species was not too large and the total number of categories was manageable (i.e. there weren’t hundreds of categories).
On the issue of varying sizes between localities, if there is a locality that is significantly shorter than the species average and readily identifiable then there may be a case for placing it in a different category. NPWS is happy to consider these issues as the Code is reviewed and updated in the future.
The Code sets standards for a wide range of different reptiles and therefore has to be fairly general. It does not attempt to account for every individual reptile in every circumstance. Rather it establishes a simple baseline which is designed to assist keepers with providing appropriate housing and care for their pet reptiles.
Should you have any further enquiries please contact us on[email protected]
Sounds like they are open to ideas so I'm pretty happy with the response. Like I said I'm pretty happy with the code but there should be some minor changes.
Last edited:
ShaunMorelia
Very Well-Known Member
Very interesting.
I wonder what Code I should comply with for my Diamond x Jungle. C? or D?
Difference being I can keep C's in a 1000x500 and D's need a 1250x500.
I wonder what Code I should comply with for my Diamond x Jungle. C? or D?
Difference being I can keep C's in a 1000x500 and D's need a 1250x500.
Umbral
Very Well-Known Member
What is it listed as on your records?
Red-Ink
Very Well-Known Member
A decent explanaition on their stance on it.... at least they responded and we know where they're coming from now (thanks for sourcing it).
Point in red is up to you guys up ther now in proactively keeping them on their toes, may fall on deaf ears, may not. Hell it could be a token gesture for all we know. But with the other states that have reviews in place as well, from history some changes can be made when it's up for review.
ShaunMorelia
Very Well-Known Member
It's listed as a Diamond x Jungle.
I don't have an issue at all with the enclosure sizes, just don't like the idea of making these changes (some people may have to spend thousands to comply) and then with the possibility of a change again in 5 years time.
See attachment of The draft code.
This is what everyone should be worried about.
The fact that the intention of the code was to be able to impose new regulations at a drop of a hat and as the feel, now that it's been passed into a "standard"
I cant find that statement in the final version of the COP. Has it been removed or did I just miss it?
ShaunMorelia
Very Well-Known Member
It's not in the final document, but if they wanted to keep the "advisory committee" out of discussion since the draft code, then I wouldn't put it past them that this is still their intention.
DPI or NSW I&I were the main push behind this code being released.
DPI or NSW I&I were the main push behind this code being released.
This document may be subject to revision without notice and readers should ensure they are using the latest version. I don't think people understand how much easier it is to make amendments/changes to a code of practice. I wouldn't be surprised if the allowed to keep list starts getting smaller with much tougher regulations for the reptiles that are allowed to be kept... the job of parks and wildlife is to protect ''parks and wildlife'' not ''pet reptiles'' which actually pose a risk to native reptiles to the area. It might not happen this year or next but the noose is getting tighter. Like I said earlier SA parks and wildlife are mapping DNA to be able to use it in a court of law against cross breed Morelia sub species they wouldn't be wasting the money if they weren't going to get convictions or try to anyway....
Ime guessing that the agenda would be to initially sell a limited number of common species in petshops then in a few years add more speciesto class 1s and add class2s as some would of proved their keeping skills. (that would be the plan anyway)
By that time DPI can bump up the cage sizes etc so it looks nice and cuddly in the press release.
They are just putting the foot in the door now.
By that time DPI can bump up the cage sizes etc so it looks nice and cuddly in the press release.
They are just putting the foot in the door now.
or keep the common species on low class license and move more to a much high class of license like the WA license system.... most monitors and larger pythons on a class nearly as high or the same class as venomous
I'm glad I live in Queensland pretty relaxed... they have some stupid rules ''need to pay extra to keep green tree pythons or womas because you need more experience to keep them and yes paying more money means you have more experience, but you can go out and buy 10 scrub pythons or lace monitors with no experience at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
