Dangerous Snakes
Posted by Kerry McCarthy, MP for Bristol East, at 16:27, Tue 11 August 2009:
There have been two incidents in Bristol recently, involving non-venemous snakes kept as pets. The first one involved a pet cat wandering into a neighbour's garden in Brislington where it was consumed by a 13 foot Burmese Python. The second was a racially motivated attack on a 14 year old boy in Bradley Stoke where a 4 foot Boa Constrictor or python was thrust at him and subsequently bit his arm.
The owner's of the cat have launched a campaign called 'Justice for Wilbur' and are petitioning the Government to revise the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, to include Pythons, Boa Constrictors and any non venomous but lethal snake. This would require potential keepers to obtain a licence and liability insurance. Please see www.justiceforwilbur.co.uk for more information.
Do you think the law should be amended? Or are there any other animals you think should be included?
Please also take the time to vote on this issue on my online poll here: www.kerrymccarthymp.org/
To sign up for my monthly newsletter, please send a blank email to mccarthyk@parliament.uk with the word 'Newsletter' as the subject
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Chris Cooper, 16:42, Tue 11 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I would rather see the the time and effort go towards licensing of dogs above a certain size reintroduced and enforced. These two incidents were unfortunate but very rare. Problems with dogs are much more common. Regards, Chris Cooper
Posted by Elaine Chamberlain, 16:56, Tue 11 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Whilst I sympathise with Wilbur's owner - a cat is no respecter of property lines and takes its chances. The other incident - if not the snake then it would have been something else possibly more lethal. I do not feel the law should be amended. Equally I am at loss as to why dogs above a certain size should be singled out for special attention - any dog has teeth - and to be frank it is not the dog, it is the owner who is almost always at fault due to lack of understanding, lack of respect for the dog or lack of responsibility, having a license won't change human nature.
Posted by Jack Whittaker, 18:16, Tue 11 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Should we have a law requiring cats to be kept on leashes because a cat eats someone's loved pet mouse? I suspect not. While I am sympathetic towards the cat-owner in question, the snake in question is simply behaving as snakes will.
In the second case I think you missed the key word "allegedly", a racial motivation has not yet been proved. On the substantive point, there is an existing law against assault, there is an existing law against racially motivated attacks. We don't need an extra law governing racially motivated assault with a snake.
Posted by Rob Telford, 22:33, Tue 11 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I don't care in the slightest.
Climate change, global poverty, overpopulation, human rights abuses, etc. etc. etc.
They're only animals. They kill each other. Grow up.
Posted by Andy Coogan, 07:50, Wed 12 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Cats kill millions of wild birds every year. I am not concerned in the slightest when a cat gets killed in this way
Posted by Owen Williams, 14:46, Fri 14 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
A 13ft python could easily kill a child. It is a predator, not native to this country and their possession should be controlled. If I found one in my garden I would take a shovel to it then let the dog have some fun with it. On the point of controlling dogs above a certain size, Pit Bulls are not large dogs, are we looking at legislature covering everything larger than a yorkshire terrier? It would be easier to psychologically profile potential owners to judge if they are fit to own a dog.