# Latest diatribe from the APA



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*From:* Kat Stuart [mailto:[email protected]] 
*Subject:* Reptile and amphibian markets, and unlawful animal trading

Dear Venue Manager

Re: *Reptile and amphibian markets, and unlawful animal trading*

The Animal Protection Agency is an organisation that focuses on the trade in wild animals as pets. We aim to work alongside local councils in preventing unlawful trading in animals such as reptiles and amphibians at markets, and gather evidence of potential offences.

We write regarding a recent development that involves reptile and amphibian markets taking place at racecourse venues and agricultural showgrounds. Not only is trading in animals as pets at market events unlawful (including at racecourse venues and agricultural showgrounds) but these events also pose a significant and major public health risk both to those who attend the markets and to subsequent venue users. Because councils are increasingly declining permission for exotic pet markets, prospective event organisers are now seeking out large venues that are not directly controlled by local authorities on the presumption of there being less stringent controls. We would hope that as a responsible venue manager, and after studying this email and attachments, you will adopt a policy of not allowing reptile and amphibian markets on your premises.

The commercial sale of pet animals is governed by the Pet Animals Act 1951. This Act requires that animals are kept ‘in accommodation suitable as respects size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness’. In 1983, an amendment to the Act outlawed the carrying on of a business of selling pet animals ‘in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market’. The PAA 1951(1983) provision was necessary because it was felt that suitable accommodation for pet animals could not be provided in temporary conditions. In 2007, the findings of a Judicial Review (R Haynes V Stafford BC) confirmed that these events should be defined as ‘markets’, which are specifically referred to in the 1983 amendment.

Please find attached a report entitled ‘Amphibian and reptile pet markets in the EU: An investigation and assessment’, which constitutes an authoritative, comprehensive and independent scientific study of exotic pet markets by three specialised and highly regarded scientists. The report’s findings, which we stress are independent, firmly conclude that these events are fundamentally commercial in nature, that conditions for animals were ‘tantamount to animal abuse’ and that these events involve ‘unresolvable’ risks to public health. This latter point is also firmly supported in another independent scientific peer-reviewed paper (attached) entitled ‘A review of captive exotic animal-linked zoonoses’ in a recent issue of the Journal of Environmental Health Research, published by the CIEH. These independent findings present overwhelming evidence that if these events involve selling multiple animals (carrying on a business) as pets from a concourse of stalls (a market) then it is likely to involve contraventions of the law, and is also unlikely to meet acceptable animal welfare and public health safeguards. We would strongly urge that you read both these reports in detail.

A further scientific paper (attached) entitled ‘Visitor behaviour and public health implications associated with exotic pet markets: an observational study’ was published recently in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Observations of visitor behaviour at amphibian and reptile markets were carried out to assess the potential risk of germs transferring from animals to people. The results showed that, within a relatively brief period, all attendees were potentially subject to some level of contamination. Visitors to an exotic pet market could then leave the venue, carrying with them (e.g. on their clothes and hair) a raft of germs with the potential to spread disease far beyond the source of original contamination. The authors warned of the health hazards associated with hiring out venues for exotic pet markets where germs may persist for weeks or months after the event. There is an obvious increased risk to venue users who consume food on these premises during or following the events. Vulnerable groups such as young children, the elderly and pregnant women are at particular risk from exotic animal-linked disease.

The nature of these events in relation to the prohibitions under PAA 1951(1983), animal suffering and serious public health risks, are attracting increasing concerns and adverse publicity. Venues that permit these types of events in the knowledge that unlawful trading may take place may be seen as aiding and abetting in the commissioning of offences. 

If your venue should be approached by an exotic pet market organiser (please be warned that exotic pet markets are often misleadingly referred to as ‘fairs’, ‘shows’, ‘expos’ or ‘breeders meetings’) then we would urge you to consider your position very carefully before accepting any booking. If, however, you are still in any doubt, then we would recommend that you seek advice from legal counsel especially with regard to your potential liabilities.

We very much hope that you will assist us in this endeavour to prevent improper animal selling and would be very grateful if you would let us know of your commitment not to host exotic pet markets on your premises.

We look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards

Kat Stuart

Animal Protection Agency 
Brighton Media Centre
15-17 Middle Street
Brighton
BN1 1AL
__________________________
Tel: 01273 674253
Fax: 01273 674927
[email protected]
www.apa.org.uk
**************************


----------



## Moshpitviper (Oct 21, 2005)

Pish.


----------



## Janine00 (Sep 20, 2008)

Moshpitviper said:


> Pish.


:lol2: That's a very restrained response I have to say!!!! :whistling2:

Would love to be a fly on the wall when they read the upcoming report from the organizers of Terraristika.... Warwick will have a dicky fit and Toland is likely to drop a cork leg! :2thumb:


----------



## Graham (Jan 27, 2007)

The usual scare tactics, misinformation, suspect "scientific" studies etc..., unfortunately though, as we know, too many venue owners and operators, and local councils, are all too ready to believe them. We really need to use the same tactics as the APA and get our message across to venues and councils before they do, but using factual information that will stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## pete-vtr (Sep 16, 2009)

I read the first 2 paragraphs and stopped, what aload of bollocks!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Graham said:


> The usual scare tactics, misinformation, suspect "scientific" studies etc..., unfortunately though, as we know, too many venue owners and operators, and local councils, are all too ready to believe them. We really need to use the same tactics as the APA and get our message across to venues and councils before they do, but using factual information that will stand up to scrutiny.


Venues are generally not the issue, they will do as they usually with junk mail, bin it. The issue I suspect is that they will also have target the Local Authorities with this misinformation. If a venue or Local Authority tried to prevent one of the established breeders meeting based on this information then we would have to take the same action as we did back in June! What we need is to finally draw a line under this issue, and that is what I am working on, lets kill the golden goose once and for all and end their gravy train!

Shows as they strand are lawful, that is supported by the fact that despite Local Authorities up and down the country being forced to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of rate payers £££££ investigating spurious claims made by Elaine & her colleagues for getting for nearly two decades. However, in that time not one single prosecution has ever been brought [let alone be successful]. If as the fanatics [our side & theirs] claim shows are illegal is it really credible that after nearly twenty years lobbying by the ‘antis’ shows continue, not only continue but go from strength to strength – is this really credible if they are illegal? 

Shows are legal that is clear, however, fanatics endeavour to exploit loopholes in the legislation for their own political and financial objectives, so those loopholes need closing. The Animal Welfare Act set for repeal the loophole that the nutcases cling to so lets pressure the government to complete the repeal, allows shows to be licensed thus killing the golden goose that Elaine and her cronies have exploited for long enough! 

Sound fair?


----------



## Hannah81 (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> within a relatively brief period, all attendees were potentially subject to some level of contamination. Visitors to an exotic pet market could then leave the venue, carrying with them (e.g. on their clothes and hair) a raft of germs with the potential to spread disease far beyond the source of original contamination.


I love this bit. :roll2:
Where do I get one of these vacuum bubbles they live in? So I can prevent the world from contaminating me.........


----------

