# Show – public consultation [2005]



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Public challenge to Elaine Tolland and Clifford Warwick, if you believe that shows are so wrong take this opportunity to lay your arguments out for all to see, let’s have some transparency!*

Chris Newman 25 June 2012


Date: 23 June 2005

Dear consultee

The purpose of this letter is to explain how Defra intends to carry forward it’s work on pet fairs and I am writing to you because you responded to Defra’s proposals to regulate these events under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill.

*Background*


Between January and April 2002, Defra consulted publicly on the issue of whether the Government should update the law on animal welfare. The consultation letter also invited people’s views on pet fairs.

The then Minister for Animal Welfare, Elliot Morley, announced in October 2002 that Defra would draft an Animal Welfare Bill. Between October 2002 and January 2003, Defra ran a series of stakeholder meetings with groups with an interest in animal welfare to listen in detail to their views for updating legislation. 

In April 2004, a pet fairs working group (comprising of representatives from animal hobby groups, animal welfare organisations and local authorities) was invited by Defra to put forward recommendations for how pet fairs could be regulated. In July 2004, the working group submitted its recommendations. 

On 14 July 2004, Defra published the draft Animal Welfare Bill and included a proposal to regulate pet fairs. Between July and October 2004, the draft Bill together with the proposals for secondary legislation, including pet fairs, received Pre-Legislative Scrutiny by the House of Commons’ Select Committee on the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (EFRA). As part of the scrutinising process, EFRA took written and oral evidence from interested parties. In December 2004, EFRA published its report on the draft Bill. The Government’s response to the EFRA report was published by EFRA in March 2005.

*Future developments *


We have received a considerable amount of correspondence both for and against the regulation of pet fairs and we are aware of the strong views expressed on this issue. We consider, therefore, that the best way forward is to invite those with an interest in these events, including those on the working group, to clarify their arguments. To assist this, I am enclosing a document that sets out Defra’s understanding of the arguments put forward by both sides. You are invited to respond by either:

(i) confirming that the points listed properly support your position or, if not, by 

(ii) adding to/amending the comments and returning the document to the address given.

The list of addressees is not intended as exhaustive. If there is any organisation that is not included on the list, that you think should contribute, then please make them aware of this letter. I should stress, however, that this is not a public consultation exercise. We are interested in confirming the arguments for and against the regulation of pet fairs rather than how many organisations and individuals support one or more of those views. Once we have received your replies, we will consider further proposals on pet fairs. We will then consult publicly on a range of options, indicating the one we prefer. 

We would be grateful to receive your replies by *4 August 2005*,which should be sent to:


*Ms S Harrison, Animal Welfare Bill Team, Defra, Area 506, 1A Page Street, London, SW1P 4PQ.*​

We look forward to hearing from you.


Yours faithfully



*PHIL ALDER*

Animal Welfare Bill Team

*List of those organisations to whom this letter has been sent*

Animal Aid
Animal Protection Agency
Arkgroup.org
BioVeterinary Group
BirdsFirst
British Koi Keepers’ Society
Cage & Aviary Birds
Captive Animals’ Protection Society
Federation of British Herpetologists
Federation of Companion Animal Societies
International Fund for Animal Welfare
International Herpetological Society
Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services
National Association of Private Animal Keepers
National Council for Aviculture
New Life Parrot Rescue
Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association
Parrot Society
*Pet Care Trust*

Professional Koi Dealers’ Association
Reptilian Magazine
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Society for the Protection of Aviculture
*Sustainable Users Network*


*Pet Fairs – a way forward*


This paper sets out the arguments put forward by those for, and those against, the regulation of pet fairs and the views expressed have been taken from written submissions by organisations with an interest in these events . Please confirm that the views relevant to your position are adequately expressed. If you consider that the relevant arguments do not properly represent your position, then please add/amend accordingly and return to:


*Ms S Harrison, Animal Welfare Bill Team, Defra, Area 506, 1A Page Street, London, SW1P 4PQ.*​

We would be grateful to receive your replies by *4 August 2005*. 

If you have any questions or anything you wish to discuss about this exercise, then please contact: Phil Alder, Animal Welfare Bill Team, tel: 020 7904 6910.


*The views of those who wish to see pet fairs regulated*


Pet fairs should be regulated because:


The 1951 Act, as amended in 1983 is ambiguous on the legality of pet fairs. This has resulted in some local authorities considering that they are prohibited under the current law regulating the sale of pet animals, the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended, 1983)

The 1983 amendment to the 1951 Act was introduced to prohibit the sale of pet animals at open air markets run by commercial operators, not the modern indoor pet fairs we see today.

Animal rights organisations who claim that pet fairs are unlawful under current legislation have never attempted to seek a judicial review of any local authority who issues a licence in respect of a pet fair. If pet fairs were clearly unlawful, animal rights organisations would not hesitate in seeking a judicial review

Pet fairs have been in existence for more than fifty years. Animal rights organisations only campaigned against pet fairs since the late 1990s in order to raise money

Pet fair operators, the RSPCA, Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH), Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and local authority officers were represented on Defra’s working group to look at the regulation of pet fairs. All members accepted the recommendations of the group to regulate pet fairs, where appropriate

Pet fairs are necessary for hobbyists to buy and sell animals and as a meeting point to discuss their hobby. At many events they are also able to see the latest advances in equipment and food technology

To prevent individuals from being able to breed, show and sell animals is a breach of human rights

Pet fairs can and do achieve an acceptable level of welfare for their animals

Some events have veterinary surgeons on site to help ensure good welfare practice and to check health standards

They are an important means of exchanging stock, obtaining fresh bloodlines, disposing of surplus stock and sourcing har-to-find feeds, seeds, equipment and animal health products 
*The views of those who wish to see pet fairs prohibited*


Pet fairs should be prohibited because:


They are already prohibited by the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended, 1983), as supported by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the RSPCA, some independent barristers and some local authorities

Most birds at these events are wild-caught and so they promote the illegal trade in wild caught birds

They have poor levels of animal welfare (birds are commonly confined to cages not large enough to allow them to spread their wings and snakes and lizards are housed in plastic ‘takeaway’ cartons with no appropriate ventilation, temperature control or space) 

There is a risk of spread of infectious diseases. Animals sold at pet markets are imported from all over the world – some from pathogenic ‘hot spots’. Many animals are immuno-compromised due to their sick and stressed state and can act as vectors of disease. Infections can be easily spread to other animals but also to people 

Certain types of bacteria can persist in the general environment for some time after the event and therefore compromise the venue for future events. In addition, bacteria can be carried by people, for instance, on their clothes, shoes and hair, and infect others outside of the event 

Local authorities and the RSPCA lack expertise in exotic animal behaviour to be able to properly inspect pet fairs

Regulation of pet fairs would result in impossible burdens of inspection, evidence-gathering, prosecution and enforcement generally while resolving none of the existing problems associated with pet fair licensing, and pet care information

Pet fairs would be unable to provide care leaflets on the animals that are sold because: 
(i) it is not possible to condense the very detailed and complicated data relating to exotic animal husbandry to a leaflet sized hand-out;
(ii) the proposed authors of these care sheets are not themselves experts in exotic animal care and the industry itself is frequently responsible for imparting dangerous and misleading advice on exotic animal biology and husbandry; 
(iii) pet dealers are not competent to set their own, or the public’s, standards of care


There is a lack of scientific evidence to suggest that pet fairs do not compromise: (i) animal welfare; or (ii) public health

They are a source of animal-to-human and animal-to-animal infectious diseases

Defra has proposed to exclude the selling of domesticated mammals at pet fairs but not exotic animals even though the latter would suffer more at such events

Birds are more prone to illness and their immune system is weakened by the stress of the event and travelling

Birds often die in the first few days after sale and there are no consumer protection measures in operation

Other problems include:
excessive handling stress;
inappropriate thermal variation and temperature extremes & associated stress;
inappropriate moisture environments (artefactual and haphazard humidity);
inappropriate photophase and scotophase conditions;
lack of adequate provision of food and water
absence of appropriate qualified and specialised monitoring personnel
general unhygienic conditions
inappropriately furnished environments;
infirm and unsafe containers;
inappropriate mixing of species and individuals;
public miseducation on animal care by poor example and poor advice

*Animal Welfare Bill Team*
*Defra*
*June 2005*
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Defra


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Federation of British Herpetologists *
_Submission on the stake holder consultation on: _

*Pet Fairs*


Chairman: Chris Newman
Email: [email protected] 
Tel: 023 8044 0999
Submitted: 4th August 2005


*Preamble*

*The Federation of British Herpetologists* (FBH) exists to promote and support the responsible keeping of reptiles and amphibians by individuals in the UK. It is an umbrella organisation to which the majority of herpetological societies have affiliated and represents the largest collective of experienced amateur and professional keepers.

Aims & Objectives


_to represent the legitimate interests of UK keepers at national and_
_international level_


_to oppose unwelcome regulation/ legislation_

_to manage a national information of key facts / issues / statistics relating to_
_reptile and amphibian keeping_


_to create and maintain a strong positive image for private reptile keeping_
*Introduction *

The FBH is astonished that DEFRA are yet again consulting on the issue of pet fairs, or animal shows as they should be more correctly labelled. Nevertheless we have endeavoured to respond to this consolation in a robust and forthright manor. 

We have specifically chosen not to widen the scope of our response beyond the remit of the question asked in the consultation. Questions posed by DEFRA in the consultation to stakeholders dated 23rd June are presented here in blue text and we have endeavoured to specifically answer each question in order.


*The views of those who wish to see pet fairs regulated*


Pet fairs should be regulated because:


The 1951 Act, as amended in 1983 is ambiguous on the legality of pet fairs. This has resulted in some local authorities considering that they are prohibited under the current law regulating the sale of pet animals, the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended, 1983)
*The FBH accepts the issue of legality of licensing of such events which are considered ambiguous by some. We would, however, argue that such events are licensable under the current legislation. We would remind DEFRA of the opinion given by Mike Radford to the EFRA select Committee on the 12th October in response to a question asked by committee member Patrick Hall in respect of the legality of ‘Pet Fairs’ – “My view is that they are not unlawful, that pet fairs are lawful” *


The 1983 amendment to the 1951 Act was introduced to prohibit the sale of pet animals at open air markets run by commercial operators, not the modern indoor pet fairs we see today.
*The FBH would refer DEFRA to Hansard in respect of this question. We would suggest that it is clear from the records that the debate concerns the issue of ‘Street Markets’ and not animal shows, or Pet Fairs as they have recently been labelled. We would also point to that fact the National Cage & Aviary Bird Show was licensed for the first time in 1953 and continued until 2003, a span of some fifty years. It would seem curious that an event that ran for fifty years would have done so illegally. *


Animal rights organisations who claim that pet fairs are unlawful under current legislation have never attempted to seek a judicial review of any local authority who issues a licence in respect of a pet fair. If pet fairs were clearly unlawful, animal rights organisations would not hesitate in seeking a judicial review
*Animal Aid, and other organisations, have repeatedly been challenged to seek a Judicial Review against a council that has issued a licence under the 1951 Act, and have failed to do so. **In March 2003 **a **meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee**of Solihull District Council recommended the granting a License for the National Cage and Aviary Bird Show to be held in December of that year. Animal Aid were challenged but failed to seek a Judicial Review. Their decision not to do so is clear evidence that they did not believe it would have been successful.The full details of this hearing are attached as App. 1.*


Pet fairs have been in existence for more than fifty years. Animal rights organisations only campaigned against pet fairs since the late 1990s in order to raise money

*Many shows, such as the **National Cage and Aviary Bird Show, can trace their roots back considerably longer than fifty years and the National has been in existence well over 100 years. It is also true that the most vocal opponents to shows (or pet fairs) are limited companies, not animal welfare charities. The profits, as declared in Company House records, have increased sharply since the start of the campaign against animal shows in the mid nineteen-nineties. *

Pet fair operators, the RSPCA, Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH), Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and local authority officers were represented on Defra’s working group to look at the regulation of pet fairs. All members accepted the recommendations of the group to regulate pet fairs, where appropriate
*As a participant on the Working Group on Pet Fairs I can confirm that this is correct and the agreement was unanimous. Subsequent to the submission of the report to DEFRA the RSPCA has, in my personal view, endeavoured to take the stance that they did not endorse the recommendation. DEFRA should note that the RSPCA solicitor present on the Working Group has since resigned her position from the RSPCA. *


Pet fairs are necessary for hobbyists to buy and sell animals and as a meeting point to discuss their hobby. At many events they are also able to see the latest advances in equipment and food technology
*Animal shows are important for many keepers as they provide an excellent platform for keepers to meet, exchange information and indeed livestock and enjoy social interaction with other animal lovers. The RSPCA Policy Document (2003), page 10 subsection 3.2.1, would seem to indicate that the RSPCA would support the sale of animals from such events. Clearly with the escalating incidents of criminal damage, livestock releases and theft by animal rights activists the RSPCA could not advocate inviting unknown individuals into a private dwelling for the purposes of sale or exchange of livestock.*

*Animal shows are also an ideal opportunity for manufactures to display and promote the latest development and products relating to the keeping of animals. The pet industry is the thirteenth largest industry within the United Kingdom and the restriction on large multinational companies, such as Rolf C Hagen, from exhibiting and promoting products at such events would have a negative impact on the economy. *


To prevent individuals from being able to breed, show and sell animals is a breach of human rights
*We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.*


Pet fairs can and do achieve an acceptable level of welfare for their animals
*We would concur wholeheartedly with this comment; clearly it would not be in the best interest of the keepers to keep animals in substandard conditions. *


Some events have veterinary surgeons on site to help ensure good welfare practice and to check health standards
*Many events would have vets on site, but not all. For some events, such as fish shows it would not necessary be essential to have a veterinary surgeon present.*


They are an important means of exchanging stock, obtaining fresh bloodlines, disposing of surplus stock and sourcing hard-to-find feeds, seeds, equipment and animal health products 
*We agree unreservedly with the above.*


*The views of those who wish to see pet fairs prohibited*


Pet fairs should be prohibited because:


They are already prohibited by the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended, 1983), as supported by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the RSPCA, some independent barristers and some local authorities
*At best the law is ambiguous. The CIEH legal interpretation is currently that such events are unalienable under the 1951 Act. They do, however, concede that the law is unclear and, most importantly, they support clarifying the law to make such events licensable.*

*Many local authorities, such as Norwich, hold opposing views to that of the CEIH, and continue to licence such events. Other local authorities, such as Barking, have subsequently rejected the views of the CIEH and have now started licensing such events. *

*The fact that those opposing shows have been unwilling to seek a Judicial Review when challenged (see App.1) is widely accepted as categorical evidence that they do not have faith in the legal argument they present. *


Most birds at these events are wild-caught and so they promote the illegal trade in wild caught birds
*This is palpably untrue, and yet another case of “if you throw enough some mud some will stick” tactics adopted by those who are unable to offer intelligent argument. In fact the overwhelming majority of animals at shows, whether they be birds or other taxa, are captive bred. It is also worthy of note that many events, including many reptile shows, are exclusively captive bred animals. *

*Some of the extremist groups opposed to animal shows, and indeed animal keeping, have publicly criticised John Hounslow, head of UK CITES at Global Wildlife Bristol, for attending the National Cage & Aviary Exhibition to promote knowledge of the legal responsibilities of bird keepers under CITES (see App.2). The same group have also lodged a formal complaint against a Police Wildlife Crime Officer who attended a private members’ meeting under the auspices of PAW (Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime).*

*Cleary if extremist groups complain about the regulatory authorities being present at events this must undermine the credibility of their argument that such events are a ‘hot bed’ of illegal activities. *


They have poor levels of animal welfare (birds are commonly confined to cages not large enough to allow them to spread their wings and snakes and lizards are housed in plastic ‘takeaway’ cartons with no appropriate ventilation, temperature control or space) 
*I would suggest that no evidence has been provided that demonstrates that there are major welfare problems for animals at shows. Most shows now have strict standards imposed by the organisers of the shows. The suggestion that animal owners participating at shows would compromise the welfare of their stock simply does not make sense. *

*As many shows have been inspected over the years, both by local authorities and the RSPCA, it would not seem unreasonable that should poor welfare standards be common at such events that a wealth of evidence would be available to substantiate this. No such evidence has been provided.*


There is a risk of spread of infectious diseases. Animals sold at pet markets are imported from all over the world – some from pathogenic ‘hot spots’. Many animals are immuno-compromised due to their sick and stressed state and can act as vectors of disease. Infections can be easily spread to other animals but also to people 
*The zoonoses argument against shows is championed by unqualified laymen who work for various animal rights extremist organisations. Pro-animal groups have commissioned proper research by qualified persons which clearly demonstrate that the risks are negligible and can easily be countered by observing basic hygiene measures. Far greater risk is posed by encounters with domestic animals, farm animals or even free-flying wild birds in parks and gardens. App.3 is the report submitted by the FBH to the EFRA Committee in respect of zoonotic diseases.*


Certain types of bacteria can persist in the general environment for some time after the event and therefore compromise the venue for future events. In addition, bacteria can be carried by people, for instance, on their clothes, shoes and hair, and infect others outside of the event 
*Again this argument has been perpetuated by the extremist animal rights groups, although no independent peer reviewed evidence has been presented to substantiate this argument. As animal shows have been held for over 100 years, it would seem reasonable that if such problems had been prevalent compelling evidence demonstrable. *

*It is also worthy of note that extremist anti-animal-keeping groups have brought substantial media attention to this issue (see App.2) and have advertised for people that have been to an event and developed any symptoms to seek medical attention. As no such issues have been raised by the medial profession it would appear reasonable to suggest that in fact this is not a sustainable argument, but merely a further attempt at a ‘smear campaign’*. 


Local authorities and the RSPCA lack expertise in exotic animal behaviour to be able to properly inspect pet fairs
*If a local authority is deemed competent to inspect a pet shop, then it would appear a little incongruous to suggest they would not be competent to inspect a pet show!*

*The RSPCA concedes that they do not have the expertise in so called ‘exotic’ animals. It does not, however, seem reasonable that simply because an animal welfare charity does not have expertise in animals such as reptiles, which are now widely regarded as common pet animals, that people with the appropriate expertise should be penalised.*

*It must also be pointed out that the RSPCA, which acknowledge their lack of expertise, have refused assistance in the training of the inspectors by knowledgable keepers. After the publication of the infamous report, ‘Handle With Care’ in 2004 a senior RSPCA proposed that the RSPCA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the FBH to assist inspectors with welfare issues. The MoU was proposed by the RSPCA, drafted by their legal department and supported by the inspectorate. The Ruling Council of the RSPCA, however, refused to allow the inspectorate to sign it (see App.4).*

*The FBH is not alone in criticising the ‘Handle With Care’ report, we would draw your attention to a letter published in the Veterinary Record, June 19th 2004 (see App.5).*


Regulation of pet fairs would result in impossible burdens of inspection, evidence-gathering, prosecution and enforcement generally while resolving none of the existing problems associated with pet fair licensing, and pet care information
*The FBH believes that this is a question that should be expressly directed to the relevant authorities. I am not aware that the police, CIEH or LACORS have expressed any difficulties with enforcing or licensing such events. *

*It is perhaps relevant to remind DEFRA of what of what the CIEH stated in response to such a question at the EFRA committee hearings on the 12th October 2004:*

*“Our view is that provided the law is clear and there is a specific licensing regime where conditions can be properly applied and monitored with veterinary support as appropriate then that is something that would be acceptable”.*


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*I would suggest this substantive evidence that regulatory bodies do not envisage that regulating such events would be untenable. *

*To assist the effective regulation of such events the FBH have drafted guidelines for the running of such events, the FBH Code of Practice for Reptile Shows, App.6*


Pet fairs would be unable to provide care leaflets on the animals that are sold because: 
(i) it is not possible to condense the very detailed and complicated data relating to exotic animal husbandry to a leaflet sized hand-out; 

(ii) the proposed authors of these care sheets are not themselves experts in exotic animal care and the industry itself is frequently responsible for imparting dangerous and misleading advice on exotic animal biology and husbandry; 
(iii) pet dealers are not competent to set their own, or the public’s, standards of care

*Under the Animal Welfare Bill it will be incumbent upon vendors to provide care information at the point of sale and it is, therefore, irrelevant if this be at a pet show, pet shop or private sale. The RSPCA, for example, acknowledge that keepers are more expert on their chosen field than inexperienced inspectors. *


There is a lack of scientific evidence to suggest that pet fairs do not compromise: (i) animal welfare; or (ii) public health
*There is, I would suggest, a lack of scientific evidence to suggest that pet shows do pose a problem for animal welfare, or public heath. If the organisations that are opposed to shows believe there is a potential problem then it is incumbent upon them to provide the scientific evidence to support their claims.* 


*We would suggest that DEFRA seek advice upon this issue from the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). At a recent Animal Welfare Forum on the issue of pet fairs, a representative of CAWC made the argument that any regulations or restrictions must be evidentially based. He concluded that at this time no such evidence is available. *


They are a source of animal-to-human and animal-to-animal infectious diseases
*We refer DEFRA to the Zoonotic Diseases report, App.3* 



Defra has proposed to exclude the selling of domesticated mammals at pet fairs but not exotic animals even though the latter would suffer more at such events
*We are not aware of this proposal by DEFRA and as a participant in the Working Group I do not recall this being agreed or discussed. Before comment we would require a definition of the term ‘domesticated mammals’. *



Birds are more prone to illness and their immune system is weakened by the stress of the event and travelling
*The FBH is not qualified to offer comment on this issue. We would, however, ask why would travelling to be sold at a pet shop be less stressful for a bird than travelling to be sold from a pet show. *



Birds often die in the first few days after sale and there are no consumer protection measures in operation
*The FBH would ask what independent peer reviewed data is available to substantiate this claim? It is very easy to make unsubstantiated statements which actually have little or no basis in fact. For example, animal rights extremists commonly state that up to 50% of reptiles die in transit when being shipped. The facts are, however, somewhat different. I**n a study of mortality in transit (2003) conducted at the Animal Reception Center, Heathrow, 501,310 reptiles and amphibians imported/trans-shipped via Heathrow were examined. Mortality on arrival was found to be only 0.47%. *


*In the report commission by the RSPCA, The UK Trade In Live Reptiles & Amphibians, published 1993, a similar low figure of mortality (0.5%) was noted. This survey was conducted between 1980 and 1992.*

*We would suggest that DEFRA be circumspect in accepting any figures on mortality without corroborating evidence. Details of both reports I have cited will be available from the Animal Reception Centre and the RSPCA respectively.*



Other problems include:
excessive handling stress;
inappropriate thermal variation and temperature extremes & associated stress;
inappropriate moisture environments (artefactual and haphazard humidity);
inappropriate photophase and scotophase conditions;
lack of adequate provision of food and water
absence of appropriate qualified and specialised monitoring personnel
general unhygienic conditions
inappropriately furnished environments;
infirm and unsafe containers;
inappropriate mixing of species and individuals;
public miseducation on animal care by poor example and poor advice


*Animals are rarely handled at shows, except by the owner or judge. Some animals actually like being handled. *
*Makes no sense. Why would owners compromise their own animals’ welfare?*
*Ditto*
*Ditto*
*Many animals, for example reptiles, feed infrequently and feeding at a show would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate. Other species, such as small mammals, are fed and watered appropriately during the course of the show.*
*Most shows are run by clubs and societies. The whole room would, therefore, be expected to be full of real experts and specialists – who better to monitor the proceedings? *
*Again, makes no sense. Why would keepers have unhygienic conditions, especially if they wanted to sell an animal? It would put off potential buyers and damage the reputation of the keeper with peers.*
*Makes no sense at all.*
*It would simply not be sensible for a mentally competent keeper to take an animal to a show in an unsafe container. I am unsure what is meant by this suggestion and how exactly the containers are deemed unsafe.*
*Many shows, such as small mammal shows (rabbit, hamster etc.), are specific breed only so no inappropriate of mixing species could possibly take place. Other shows, such as fish, bird or reptile, do have mixed species but it would make no sense for owners to mix inappropriate cage mates in the same enclosure. The suggestion that animals are inappropriately housed with other individuals of the same species is equally bizarre. At most shows animals are housed individually, although some may be housed with compatible cage-mates. *
*Most animal clubs and societies do a fantastic job of public education. This is a great cause which actually helps animals and shows play an important role in this work. We absolutely deplore the tactics employed by animal rights extremists which undermine this valuable conservation initiative. Public perception of many animals (snakes and spiders are two prime examples) is that they are a threat to human health and safety. Our specialist animal clubs and societies do much to dispel these myths and lead to a better understanding of oft-maligned creatures. Around the world (and even in the UK) millions of snakes (for example) are needlessly slaughtered due to illogical and inappropriate human fears. Extremist groups which exploit these fears by exaggerating the threat to human health and safety posed by such creatures are directly fuelling this sickening cruelty and waste of life. *
*Conclusion* 


*Considering such events as animal shows, or pet fairs, as DEFRA has seen fit to call them have been in existence for a considerable period of time, the fears and concerns posed by the anti-animal-keeping lobby seem groundless. We deplore the cynical practice of exaggerating the threat to human health and safety posed by animals in an attempt to gain publicity for a minority cause. We utterly refute the suggestion that animal keepers attending shows abuse or ill-treat their charges at such events and we would suggest that to do so would be utterly illogical. Events at which animals are shown for prize (and may or may not have some sales element) are actually a celebration of excellence of the animals displayed (or for sale). *

*Animal rights extremist groups’ own figures show they have around 20,000 supporters in the UK. By contrast, there are an estimated 27,000,000 animal keepers, many of whom enjoy the social interaction which is such a vital part of the animal “show circuit”. It would seem utterly unjust for the opinions of the few (albeit the verbal and forthright few) to dictate to the vast majority. *

*Yours sincerely,*


*Chris Newman*
*Chairman *





*References*

The UK Trade in Live Reptile and Amphibians Andrew C Smart and Ian G Bride, published by the RSPCA 1993.

Handle With Care published by the RSPCA 2004.


Appendixes

1. A meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, March 2003

2. NEC Bird Fair, Spring 2004 issue of Outrage Magazine, pp 8, 9.

3. Zoonotic Diseases, FBH submission to EFRA, 2004.

4. Memorandum of Understanding – between FBH/IHS/BHS and the RSPCA 

5. Letter to the Editor, Veterinary Record, 19th June 2004.

6. FBH Code of Practice for Reptile Shows


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

At the time I was part of a group running a web site called "The Ark Group" (now long gone)" as you will see from Chris's post, as existing stake holders we were also invited to reply.

Below is the Ark groups reply to DEFRA. 
Click the link below then click on Down Load File to open it.

Error

DEFRA’S set questions are in blue.

Hope it’s of interest to some of you
Gordon

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Chris,

Thanks for the information, a brilliant read!

The dates are obviously quite a while a go, was there any further consultation or decisions from these, or are we expecting somehting soon.

Either way, 

Thanks for the post.

Tarron


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Tarron said:


> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for the information, a brilliant read!
> 
> ...


The important thing to remember is this, shortly after this public consultation the ‘antis’ finally took a Judicial Review, not at their expense despite campaigning and raising funds for years, no it was orchestrated at taxpayers expense!!!! The JR was a disaster for them, whilst it clarified that Section of the Pet Animals Act did in fact prohibit such events being licensed, it also clarified that private breeders meetings were lawful. Indeed the show they challenged, Stafford Bird Show has gone from strength to strength and is double the size it was prior to the action, which is interesting.

*However, the most salient part of the story is this, when the Animal Welfare Act was finally published it has repealed Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act.* What has yet to be done is for the Commencement Order to bring the repeal into effect. Unfortunately when the AWA was brought in lots of the secondary legislation has been let slip, such as Pet Vending Legislation that should have been in place by 2010. Nevertheless, in order that shows can once again be licensed all that is required is for the incumbent government to sign the commencement order - that is now the priority.


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

Natrix said:


> At the time I was part of a group running a web site called "The Ark Group" (now long gone)" as you will see from Chris's post, as existing stake holders we were also invited to reply.
> 
> Below is the Ark groups reply to DEFRA.
> Click the link below then click on Down Load File to open it.
> ...


Just been told the link did not work try this

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4194...-to-defra-410k


If one of the mods could move the link to my original post it would be good (please)


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> The important thing to remember is this, shortly after this public consultation the ‘antis’ finally took a Judicial Review, not at their expense despite campaigning and raising funds for years, no it was orchestrated at taxpayers expense!!!! The JR was a disaster for them, whilst it clarified that Section of the Pet Animals Act did in fact prohibit such events being licensed, it also clarified that private breeders meetings were lawful. Indeed the show they challenged, Stafford Bird Show has gone from strength to strength and is double the size it was prior to the action, which is interesting.
> 
> *However, the most salient part of the story is this, when the Animal Welfare Act was finally published it has repealed Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act.* What has yet to be done is for the Commencement Order to bring the repeal into effect. Unfortunately when the AWA was brought in lots of the secondary legislation has been let slip, such as Pet Vending Legislation that should have been in place by 2010. Nevertheless, in order that shows can once again be licensed all that is required is for the incumbent government to sign the commencement order - that is now the priority.


So now its just a matter of pushing the current government to complete the process started by the previous one.

Btw Chris, previously you mentioned wanting us all to give 15 minutes of our time, has anything come of this yet?

cheers again,

Tarron


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Tarron said:


> So now its just a matter of pushing the current government to complete the process started by the previous one.
> 
> Btw Chris, previously you mentioned wanting us all to give 15 minutes of our time, has anything come of this yet?
> 
> ...


As the repeal of Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act, 1951 has been set in stone under the Animal Welfare Act, 2006 then it is very straight forward for the current government to bring this into effect, and one would expect with the support of the opposition as the AWA was brought in under their administration.

I am in Westminster on Thursday and I have a series of meeting in the Commons and the Lords soliciting assistance on this and other issues. I am not quite as far forward with the “fifteen minuets” of assistance that I requested, but I’m not far off, so please bear with me.

So watch this space!!!!


----------



## penfold (Sep 9, 2007)

:2thumb::2thumb::notworthy:: victory:


----------



## JamesJ (Apr 12, 2008)

:notworthy: Keep up the good work Chris!


----------

