# Exotic animal pet trade. RSPCA page



## harderfasterdarker (Jan 12, 2013)

Randomly browsing the internet as one does and came across this page. 
Might be worth a read if you have a a spare few minutes 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232714006362&mode=prd


----------



## jools (Apr 4, 2009)

I can't open the link. But knowing the RSPCAs attitude towards reptile keeping I can guess the type of content - it is probably very skewed towards anti - and full of atypical horror stories.


----------



## Drayvan (Jul 7, 2010)

I've only skim read about half of it, too tired right now. I'll read it properly in the morning and my opinion may change. But nothing on there is exactly untrue. In fact, considering some of the things published about reptile keeping it's surprisingly truthful.

In the sense of there are far too many vets, pet shops and clueless people owning, caring for or giving out rubbish advice for reptiles, I completely agree with them there. 

I can't see anything about banning the keeping of reptiles, I would gladly see reptiles being more difficult to get hold of if you are just buying them for the sake of it, or on a whim. Granted that should go for all animals, but these aren't as simple to care for as your average pet. You only have to look at the amount of threads on here for 'beginner species' that wont eat, acting weird, won't do this or that or 'what's wrong with my... ' such as beardies, leos, royals etc People just assume you can get a reptile, bung it in a tank and feed it, like you can a hamster or rabbit and thats simply not the case.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

It has actually come across as a balanced report, at no point does it scream out "ban all reptiles" what it does say, though, is that the main problem with reptile welfare starts at source, ie shops, and they have highlighted various issues which, I am sure, we would all agree is an issue. For example shops not asking any questions of potential buyers, giving porr advice, etc. If read with an open mind, it is a constructive report which gives good advice for potential buyers as to what they should be asking about at a shop, and consideration for specialist veterinary care, etc.


----------



## Herpster (Oct 24, 2006)

Hhmmm, the very first sentence states that "The range of pets kept in the uk has dramatically increased over the last ten years" then they base the rest of the article on surverys that are over 10 years old? They really are a shower of idiots.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Herpster said:


> Hhmmm, the very first sentence states that "The range of pets kept in the uk has dramatically increased over the last ten years" then they base the rest of the article on surverys that are over 10 years old? They really are a shower of idiots.


I can't see an actual date when this was published. If the small code "Z3058 5.04" under the RSPCA logo on the last page is a date, then it would suggest that this was published in May 2004. Which, if this is the case, means that the data they used was actually relevant.


----------



## cjd12345 (Nov 2, 2011)

A quick search around the net would indicate that this report was indeed published in 2004. It's surprisingly not overly biased, and despite being 10 years old most of the views on reptile keeping and the sale of reptiles are things I'd agree with.


----------



## Herpster (Oct 24, 2006)

ian14 said:


> I can't see an actual date when this was published. If the small code "Z3058 5.04" under the RSPCA logo on the last page is a date, then it would suggest that this was published in May 2004. Which, if this is the case, means that the data they used was actually relevant.



ah, I need to do more research before opening my big mouth :blush:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

This report was published around 2004, it has been widely discredited for its inaccurate and biased reporting and thankfully has largely ignored. It was a more subtle attack on the reptile trade than the infamous Morbidity & Mortality report of 2001, nonetheless it was a report written to a predetermined agenda.


----------



## Herpster (Oct 24, 2006)

Chris Newman said:


> This report was published around 2004, it has been widely discredited for its inaccurate and biased reporting and thankfully has largely ignored. It was a more subtle attack on the reptile trade than the infamous Morbidity & Mortality report of 2001, nonetheless it was a report written to a predetermined agenda.


Have they produced any similar reports within the last couple of years?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

After getting a bit of bashing over the Morbidity and Mortality, Far from Home, and Handel with Care reports they have been more circumspect about attacking reptile keeping.


----------



## Herpster (Oct 24, 2006)

Chris Newman said:


> After getting a bit of bashing over the Morbidity and Mortality, Far from Home, and Handel with Care reports they have been more circumspect about attacking reptile keeping.


So they do have the capacity to learn then :whistling2:


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

RSPCA have valid and important things to say about the state of the Reptile care in the UK. They should not be dismissed so quickly.

The reason that there is so much tension and antagonism today, between reptile keepers and animal welfare groups, is as much down to the dismissive and aggresive attitudes of many reptile keepers.

You can blame the issues on animal welfare groups as much as you want, but to deny the very real problems which thousands of reptiles face because of ignorance, cruelty and neglect, is just as damaging as the ignorance which drives a minority of animal welfare group members.

Until the reptile community as a whole, comes together and demands better of itself, in a transparent and honest way, we are all at risk of being demonized.




on that note, feel free to ask me about the Best Practice Working Group, in a PM, if you are interested


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

read that report before,some valid points.
Despite the way the hobby views the rspca, i believe its time for a change of attitude,
We should look to work with them,at ground level and not against them.
Many,many times they have done good work re reps,where we as a hobby have stood back and watched.
Time for change


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Herpster said:


> So they do have the capacity to learn then :whistling2:


We made a formal complaint to MORI on how the RSPCA has misused the data collected and interpreted it for a political agenda. I think this caused some embarrassment.

The problem is the RSPCA always prioritise political campaign over hands on animal welfare, I have issues with that..!!

If I recall correctly this was the last report the RSPCA have done specifically on reptiles, so perhaps they have become wiser!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> read that report before,some valid points.
> Despite the way the hobby views the rspca, i believe its time for a change of attitude,
> We should look to work with them,at ground level and not against them.
> Many,many times they have done good work re reps,where we as a hobby have stood back and watched.
> Time for change


The RSPCA have demonstrated they are not interested in working transparently with the reptile community and until this changes then keepers will remain circumspect about their intentions!


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

nelly1 said:


> read that report before,some valid points.
> Despite the way the hobby views the rspca, i believe its time for a change of attitude,
> We should look to work with them,at ground level and not against them.
> Many,many times they have done good work re reps,where we as a hobby have stood back and watched.
> Time for change


agreed! all the members of the RSPCA I have met are wonderfully compassionate people who care a great deal about the animals they have dedicated their lives to.

its time for people to stop being defensive, and accept that problems exist, and recognize that unless we make those changes, eventually the Government will do it for us - and we will have only ourselves to blame.


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> The RSPCA have demonstrated they are not interested in working transparently with the reptile community and until this changes then keepers will remain circumspect about their intentions!


Not going to argue with you,you know my views of your relationship with the rspca.
I will say.not all are tarred with the same brush,ground level are willing to listen and accept help


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> agreed! all the members of the RSPCA I have met are wonderfully compassionate people who care a great deal about the animals they have dedicated their lives to.
> 
> its time for people to stop being defensive, and accept that problems exist, and recognize that unless we make those changes, eventually the Government will do it for us - and we will have only ourselves to blame.


 The issue is not the necessarily with the RSPCA employs in the field with whom keepers have issues with; rather it is their bosses who tell them what to do, or not to do as the case may be. An RSPCA employee has no power or influence over RSPCA political policies, that is done at head office. 

The RSPCA have a long, long history of campaigning against the keeping of reptiles and indeed calling for a ban, just as they are calling for a ban on private ownership of primates today. 

The RSPCA also have long history, of working with ‘selective’ people from the reptile community and refusing to engage in any kind of open and transparent way. This is in my view unacceptable as it facilitates abuse of the system for personal financial gain.

I personally cannot see any reason why the RSPCA would refuse to work with the herpetological community…?


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

Chris Newman said:


> The issue is not the necessarily with the RSPCA employs in the field with whom keepers have issues with; rather it is their bosses who tell them what to do, or not to do as the case may be. An RSPCA employee has no power or influence over RSPCA political policies, that is done at head office.
> 
> The RSPCA have a long, long history of campaigning against the keeping of reptiles and indeed calling for a ban, just as they are calling for a ban on private ownership of primates today.
> 
> ...


reading thru this thread, and with the experience I have of peoples attitudes (with the reptile keeping community) towards them, I can see plenty of reasons why they find it difficult to engage.


but, that it besides the point really, it is upto us to solve the problems, not the RSPCA, and the only reason they get involved at all, is because WE have failed.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Just for the record my concern is quite simply this: what we have seen historically is people who work for the RSPCA in a capacity of ‘experts’, or ‘rescuing or rehoming’ have derived very substantial personal incomes for their services. Being paid to fulfil a service is not an issue, where it become’s an issue is when that individual can finically benefit from decisions they make, that is I would suggest unacceptable.

As a result of this concern the RSPCA suggested that the FBH, and affiliated organisations, should enter into a formal Memorandum of Understanding to provide assistance to them. This agreement was to provide clarity and most importantly transparency and accountability. Thus any decisions made could not have any financial benefit for the individual concerned.

This was originally proposed by the RSPCA, drafted by their legal department (see below) but ultimately rejected by the head office. 

People will have to draw their own conclusions as to why the decisions was taken to discard this and to continue to work private individuals who are unaccountable. 


*Memorandum of Understanding*

This is a memorandum of understanding between the Federation of British Herpetologists, the International Herpetological Society, The British Herpetological Society, the UK Reptile Trade Association and the RSPCA Inspectorate.

*AIMS*

The aim of the document is to outline a constructive relationship between us all, which reflects our mutual desire to work together to improve the welfare of reptiles in England and Wales.

1:1 The number of reptiles owned as pets in England and Wales continues to rise.

1:2 Due in part to the diverse and specialist nature of some reptiles, RSPCA Inspectors are increasingly facing challenges which they are not fully equipped to deal with.

1:3 There is a clear need and opportunity for us to co-operate to improve the:

A. Rehabilitation of sick reptiles
B. Re-homing of species specific reptiles to knowledgeable keepers
C. Boarding of reptiles in appropriate environments with knowledgeable keepers
D. Dispensing of appropriate advice and information to the public, especially at the point of sale.
E. Development of a robust register of independent expert witnesses who are prepared to appear for both defence and prosecution sides without bias.

*Initiatives*


*2:1 Telephone Advisors*

Working together we will develop and co-ordinate a national list of experienced reptile keepers who are capable and prepared to give species specific telephone advice to members of the public, when referred to them by an RSPCA Inspector.

*2:2 Carers and Re-homers*

We will develop a national network of individuals who are capable and equipped to receive healthy stray or unwanted reptiles from Inspectors and Animal Collection Officers, for the purpose of re-homing. When re-homing animals we will exploit the existing network of people within the wider reptile community. No animal will re-enter the retail trade or be sold for profit. The RSPCA will not fund this activity other than exceptionally. The RSPCA will enter into a formal agreement with each establishment.

*2:3 Boarding and Rehabilitation*

We will work together to develop a national network of expert keepers who, with appropriate veterinary assistance, will receive unwell animals from Inspectors, including those animals subject to pending prosecutions. The RSPCA will fund this activity at an agreed daily rate. Veterinary costs will be covered. The RSPCA will enter into a formal agreement with each establishment.

*2:4 Expert Witnesses*

We will aim to develop a national register of qualified experts in the field of herpetology, who are prepared to offer their independent opinion in court. These experts must be prepared to appear for both sides, embracing the true and independent nature of an expert witness. It is desirable to have experts available to cover both the clinical and husbandry aspects of herpetology. Whilst it is accepted that qualified veterinary surgeons who posses significant reptile experience are most desirable, it is acknowledged, due to the nature of the hobby, that experts may become established based on experience and therefore without formal qualification.

*2:4 Public Information*

We will work together to improve the information available to the public at the point of sale. In accord with the recommendations outlined in the proposed Animal Welfare Bill we will develop species specific care sheets which describe the minimum care and equipment requirements for each animal. We will seek industry sponsorship for this activity.

Signed for and on behalf of:


*Federation of British Herpetologists*

*…………………………*
*International Herpetological Society*

*…………………………*
*The British Herpetological Society*

*…………………………*
*UK Reptile Trade Association*

*…………………………*
*RSPCA*

…………………………


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> reading thru this thread, and with the experience I have of peoples attitudes (with the reptile keeping community) towards them, I can see plenty of reasons why they find it difficult to engage.
> 
> 
> but, that it besides the point really, it is upto us to solve the problems, not the RSPCA, and the only reason they get involved at all, is because WE have failed.


So what you are saying is you support the RSPCA decision not to engage with clubs and societies, that it is better they work behind closed doors with ‘selective people’ who are unaccountable..?


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

Chris Newman said:


> Just for the record my concern is quite simply this: what we have seen historically is people who work for the RSPCA in a capacity of ‘experts’, or ‘rescuing or rehoming’ have derived very substantial personal incomes for their services. Being paid to fulfil a service is not an issue, where it become’s an issue is when that individual can finically benefit from decisions they make, that is I would suggest unacceptable.


I suspect there is more to it, than that single document.

considering that there is no financial gain for them, in either direction, I have no reason to suspect that any personal agenda, other than the welfare of animals, came to play in their decision, and think perhaps we need to be a little more open minded, and once again, less defensive.

agreements are not made in one sitting, they take an open minded and inclusive approach, if they have any hope of being formed, and may take many years, especially in such an emotive area as this.



Chris Newman said:


> So what you are saying is you support the RSPCA decision not to engage with clubs and societies, that it is better they work behind closed doors with ‘selective people’ who are unaccountable..?


when did I say that? thats quite a twist of my words.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> I suspect there is more to it, than that single document.
> 
> considering that there is no financial gain for them, in either direction, I have no reason to suspect that any personal agenda, other than the welfare of animals, came to play in their decision, and think perhaps we need to be a little more open minded, and once again, less defensive.
> 
> ...


No, that is it, they declined to formally engage with the herpetological community full stop. It would have saved them thousands and thousands of pounds annually and would have benefited the welfare of reptiles immeasurably. 

I apologise if I have twisted your words, perhaps you could explain what you mean as the herpetological community was prepared to fully engage with RSPCA and had done so over many meeting.

It was not the keepers who walked away from the table without explanation…?


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

as i have said before,start at the bottom,get a foot in the door and work at it
But yo Mr Newman,dismiss this everytime it is mentioned.
Though a few of us are trying something without your help


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

Chris Newman said:


> No, that is it, they declined to formally engage with the herpetological community full stop. It would have saved them thousands and thousands of pounds annually and would have benefited the welfare of reptiles immeasurably.
> 
> I apologise if I have twisted your words, perhaps you could explain what you mean as the herpetological community was prepared to fully engage with RSPCA and had done so over many meeting.
> 
> It was not the keepers who walked away from the table without explanation…?


problems in these kinds of discussions are never one-sided, but unfortunately it is rare for either side to recognize this.

I was not at the discussions, so I cannot speculate on their reasons, only on what I know from my own experience, which has been consistently defensive in nature, and not at all a positive way to approach this kind of difficult topic.


when was that document drawn up and when did discussions start/finish?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> as i have said before,start at the bottom,get a foot in the door and work at it
> But yo Mr Newman,dismiss this everytime it is mentioned.
> Though a few of us are trying something without your help


A foot in what door…? My dialogue continues with the RSPCA on a regular biases, so I’m not sure what you mean…!!


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> A foot in what door…? My dialogue continues with the RSPCA on a regular biases, so I’m not sure what you mean…!!


as i said,not going to argue with you.
Survice to say,you will be informed of what we get sorted.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

CloudForest said:


> problems in these kinds of discussions are never one-sided, but unfortunately it is rare for either side to recognize this.
> 
> I was not at the discussions, so I cannot speculate on their reasons, only on what I know from my own experience, which has been consistently defensive in nature, and not at all a positive way to approach this kind of difficult topic.
> 
> ...


I would absolutely welcome the RSPCA saying privately, or indeed publically, why they decided not to engage in open, transparent and accountable system to benefit the welfare of reptiles and amphibians in captivity, all we received is the rather curt letter below.

We continue to meet and discuss issues and it is certainly not my policy to walk away from the table. Notwithstanding it is very flustering they do not wish to enter and engage with the herpetological community, preferring to engage with clandestine private arrangements. 



28 January 2005

Dear Mr Newman,

The RSPCA Council met on 25th January and decided that the RSPCA 

Should not enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with the Federation of British Herpetologists, International Herpetological Society, British Herpetological Society and the UK Reptile Trade Association. 

However, we still believe that there could be practical animal welfare benefits if we continue to meet and discuss the various relevant issues identified and hope the meeting on Friday can go ahead.

Yours sincerely

XXXX XXXX
Director of Animal Welfare Promotion


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> as i said,not going to argue with you.
> Survice to say,you will be informed of what we get sorted.


 For the record I am aware of your intentions, comes as no surprise…!!


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> For the record I am aware of your intentions, comes as no surprise…!!


My intentions?
You mean our ,as a group of keepers intentions


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> My intentions?
> You mean our ,as a group of keepers intentions


 As you wish..!


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> As you wish..!


If you wish to accuse me of anything,even slyly,lets have the debate on pm like adults.
The newbie section is not for sly digs.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> If you wish to accuse me of anything,even slyly,lets have the debate on pm like adults.
> The newbie section is not for sly digs.


I have not accused you of anything so I am entirely uncertain of the necessity for paranoia..?

The RSPCA is a highly political organisation that has historically campaigned against the keeping of reptiles, and continues to campaign against our interests, you may wish to aquatint yourself with their Policy Document if you are not familiar with it and their objectives/policies contained therein. The fact the RSPCA does not support our activities does not mean we should not engage with them, we should and indeed do. However, it also requires us to be mindful of the fact they are opposed to the keeping and breeding of so called exotics and not to be naïve.

If the RSPCA wish to engage formal with the herpetological community, as I certainly hope they do, then it needs to be with established and credible organisations with long track records, such as the FBH, IHS, BHS, PRAS etc. If they wish to circumvent one would have to be slightly cynical and wonder why..?


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> I have not accused you of anything so I am entirely uncertain of the necessity for paranoia..?
> 
> The RSPCA is a highly political organisation that has historically campaigned against the keeping of reptiles, and continues to campaign against our interests, you may wish to aquatint yourself with their Policy Document if you are not familiar with it and their objectives/policies contained therein. The fact the RSPCA does not support our activities does not mean we should not engage with them, we should and indeed do. However, it also requires us to be mindful of the fact they are opposed to the keeping and breeding of so called exotics and not to be naïve.
> 
> If the RSPCA wish to engage formal with the herpetological community, as I certainly hope they do, then it needs to be with established and credible organisations with long track records, such as the FBH, IHS, BHS, PRAS etc. If they wish to circumvent one would have to be slightly cynical and wonder why..?


I have all ready had 1 meeting with the RSPCA this week,and other booked for early next week.Why should we not start at grass roots,is this not how a revolution starts.?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> I have all ready had 1 meeting with the RSPCA this week,and other booked for early next week.Why should we not start at grass roots,is this not how a revolution starts.?


 Is this a meeting with the head office or local branch out of interest…?


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> Is this a meeting with the head office or local branch out of interest…?


Local Branches,as stated start at the bottom


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> Local Branches,as stated start at the bottom


Let me explain how the RSPCA works, there are approximately 100 independent RSPCA charities (branches). “The RSPCA” is the charity biased at Horsham and the others effectively affiliate to the main RSPCA. Broadly speaking branches are entirely independent and have no influence over the main RSPCA. However, inspectors biased at local branches are employed by the main RSPCA and accountable to them, not the local branch as such. Most branches get no funding from the main RSPCA, indeed they have to pay to use the name. There are a number of local branches that are more directly connect to the main branch but only a handful (it’s complicated).

What this means is what a local branch does is only relevant to that branch and cannot effect RSPCA policy, or indeed any other branch. For example The RSPCA Reptile Rescue at Bright is not connected to the main RSPCA, it’s entirely separate.

What I am pushing for still is implementing the MoU with the main RSPCA at Horsham, what this would do is pull everything together, across all branches. My argument is the knowledge and expertise rests with the clubs and societies spread across the UK. Access to this resource would be highly beneficial to the RSPCA in terms of access to relevant expertise, and indeed to rehome animals. The only perquisite for this is transparent and accountability to their peers, i.e. clubs and societies.


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> Let me explain how the RSPCA works, there are approximately 100 independent RSPCA charities (branches). “The RSPCA” is the charity biased at Horsham and the others effectively affiliate to the main RSPCA. Broadly speaking branches are entirely independent and have no influence over the main RSPCA. However, inspectors biased at local branches are employed by the main RSPCA and accountable to them, not the local branch as such. Most branches get no funding from the main RSPCA, indeed they have to pay to use the name. There are a number of local branches that are more directly connect to the main branch but only a handful (it’s complicated).
> 
> What this means is what a local branch does is only relevant to that branch and cannot effect RSPCA policy, or indeed any other branch. For example The RSPCA Reptile Rescue at Bright is not connected to the main RSPCA, it’s entirely separate.
> 
> What I am pushing for still is implementing the MoU with the main RSPCA at Horsham, what this would do is pull everything together, across all branches. My argument is the knowledge and expertise rests with the clubs and societies spread across the UK. Access to this resource would be highly beneficial to the RSPCA in terms of access to relevant expertise, and indeed to rehome animals. The only perquisite for this is transparent and accountability to their peers, i.e. clubs and societies.


I know how the rspca works ,thank you.
You carry on pushing on your side,its more than welcome,But please dont disrespect what we normal keepers are trying to do.Startinng at branch level,will make a difference,and maybe just maybe it will work its way through to the top dogs.
As for the FBH,IHS etc,do you realise that many hobby keepers,breeders and retailers are so disillusioned with them that it could be difficult for such folk to work along side them


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

nelly1 said:


> I know how the rspca works ,thank you.
> You carry on pushing on your side,its more than welcome,But please dont disrespect what we normal keepers are trying to do.Startinng at branch level,will make a difference,and maybe just maybe it will work its way through to the top dogs.
> As for the FBH,IHS etc,do you realise that many hobby keepers,breeders and retailers are so disillusioned with them that it could be difficult for such folk to work along side them


Unfortunately there are always those who get disillusioned, for what ever reason, but as memberships continue to increase substantially so I’m sure they will mange, but that you for the concern its much appreciated.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

I thought this might be of interest:

 *APGAW meeting 11th Feb 2014*​ Committee room 7, House of Commons, Westminster​

*PRIMATES & EXOTIC SPECIES AS PETS: *​ *SHOULD IT BE BANNED?*​ *Reptiles, a brief overview*​
*Historically:* The earliest documented record of a reptile being kept as a pet in the UK dates back to 1625, when William Laud, Bishop of London, purchased a spur-thighed tortoise which he kept at the Palace of Fulham. 

The first documented breeding took place at the Tower of London Menagerie in 1828 when a pair of (probably) Burmese pythons bred and laid 14 eggs after the snakes had been in the collection for two years.

The first book on reptile keeping in English was the Vivarium, published in 1897 by the Reverend George Bateman.

The growth is popularity of reptile keeping really started in the mid 1970s and at this time the trade was almost exclusively in wild caught animals. It was not until the late 1980s when captive breeding started in earnest and by the 1990s a real explosion in popularity occurred. 

*Numbers of reptiles kept as pets:* How many reptiles are kept in the UK today?
PFMA (Pet Food Manufacturers Association) data for 2013 suggests 1.2 million reptiles and amphibians are kept, although REPTA (Reptile & Exotic Pet Trade Association) estimate the population to exceed 8 million, which is something of a disparity. The PFMA data is gathered from 2,000 interviews with adults over 16, whilst REPTA data is compiled by analysing sales of food for reptiles. 

With the exception of foods for herbivores (tortoises for example) the overwhelming majority of foods for reptiles and amphibians are specifically produced for them. Each week in the UK 25,000,000 crickets, 10,000,0000 locusts and 2 tons of mealworms are sold along with an array of other bugs. In addition, there is a growing market for artificial diets and frozen foods, predominately rats and mice. The reason I have not included numbers of frozen rodents is due to the complexity of supply as many distributors supply both the bird of prey and reptile market, whilst insects are sold through more defined channels. 

In 2013 REPTA looked at other indicators which could be used to determine numbers kept, including sales of enclosures, terrariums and vivariums, although such figures will be a substantial underestimate as many people make their own or adapt other equipment, such as aquaria. Thirteen manufacturers of branded terrariums/vivariums participated in the survey which showed sales totalling 134,038 enclosures, equating to 2,577 enclosures per week sold through pet shops in 2012. 

In the brief time I have to put a counter argument I cannot conceivably address all of the issues (objections) that will/have been raised, so I am going to focus on the top five issues exploited by those who oppose keeping animals in captivity. 

*(1) Ripping animals from the wild *the cornerstone of the Animal Rights argument is the use of emotive language. Sustainable Utilisation of wildlife is actually the cornerstone of conservation, and is supported and endorsed by successive UK governments, as well as the CITES Convention and organisations such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). Ripping animals from the wild in order to put food on your plate (think about that next time you enjoy fish & chips) seems to be viewed very differently to keeping and propagating animals and therein lays a fundamental argument. 

When wild animals are collected for the pet trade, the key objective is to keep that animal alive and indeed for it to thrive in order that it will reproduce. An unhealthy, stressed or otherwise compromised animal is of little or no use as captive companion and traders, therefore, have an absolute vested interest in ensuring high standards of shipping, health and welfare are maintained. A dead or sick animal has no value. 

The trade in reptiles and other exotic pets has changed greatly over the past few years and today over 90% of reptiles in the UK pet industry are bred in captivity, not collected in the wild. Many animals are now many generations away from their wild ancestors and, similar to salmon or a trout farmed for human consumption, can no longer be described as ‘wild’. Many of these animals are now selectively bred for colour pattern, temperament and other characteristics, much the same as other pets, and have, thus, become truly domesticated and accepted as mainstream pets.

*(2) Mortality levels *it is claimed that for every wild animal captured and sold as a pet an ‘estimated’ 50 animals may be killed or die in transit. Once again an emotive argument is used without foundational evidence. Terms such as “it is estimated”, “it is thought”, “we believe” frequently pepper such arguments when I would suggest we should be looking for facts, not speculation.

Heathrow is a major hub for the international trade in animals of all types, wild caught, captive bred, dogs and cats, fish and reptiles etc., and some of you may be familiar with the Animal Airport series which focuses on the Animal Reception Centre. In 2003 the ARC carried out a study on the mortality of animals in transit whereby every shipment of reptiles entering or transhipping via Heathrow was inspected and mortality recorded. Of the 501,310 reptiles that moved through the airport the morality rate was found to be just 0.47%.

The latest claim is that 75% of reptiles die in their first year of captivity which would be shocking were it true. The figure claimed was derived by taking two unknown variables (estimates) and making a hypothesis, which made good headlines but was actually rather poor science. By contrast a study the University of Kent, as part of an Applied Science degree, came up with a far more credible figure of 2.35%. Further work is currently being conducted at the Durrell Institute, based at the University of Kent, which is due for publication shortly. 

*(3) Vets oppose exotics* it is true some veterinary organisations have a rather jaundiced view of reptiles and there are two principle reasons for that in my view. First and foremost, despite their being kept as pets for over two hundred years and with very rapid growth in popularity over the past two decades, vets still receive virtually no training on how to treat reptiles. That is a failing of the veterinary profession, and should not reflect badly on the reptile industry. 

Secondly (and perhaps more controversially) treating reptiles is not a good business proposition for vets. The most common complaint I hear from vets is “the only reptiles I see are sick”, which is actually pretty much what I would expect. Unlike many other pets (principally mammals) reptiles do not require routine minor treatments, such as vaccinations, dental checks etc, and generally tend to have less chronic ailments caused by genetic problems as a result of interbreeding. Long-term treatment plans for chronic ailments, such as arthritis, heart problems, cancers, are actually the lifeblood which supports many veterinary practices and it is, therefore, not surprising that resources are concentrated in this area. 

In October 2012 the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) held a two day conference on “Import & keeping of exotic animals in Europe” but neglected to invite a single speaker from the industry to participate, probably due to the fact that an anti-reptile predetermined agenda was already in place. It is impossible to have a democratic debate if one side of the argument is not permitted to speak and the anti-reptile outcome of this conference was, therefore, a forgone conclusion.

*(4) Positive lists*: I am not going to touch much on the issue of Positive Lists (white lists) other than to make two points. Belgium is a prime example of failure of the white list strategy and welfare of animals (mammals) has been severely compromised by the introduction of a Positive List. It has generated massive non-compliance, which is highly damaging to animal welfare as people in possession of banned species cannot take their animals to a vet if they become sick or suffer injury. 

White lists also have the very negative effect of rendering certain species maintained in captivity extinct in private collections which is hugely damaging to conservation efforts to maintain gene pools.

*(5) Human health *Reptiles can be dangerous, may carry exotic diseases and can have salmonella. All of this is true, but needs to be put into context. All pets can be dangerous, all carry exotic diseases and many have salmonella (even the humble goldfish). 

It is true that salmonella is a common gut flora of reptiles, but not all salmonellas are zoonotic and good hygiene practice reduces risk to negligible levels. If we are truly concerned about the danger posed to human health by pets then let’s debate the real threat posed by cats and dogs. I am sure we are all aware of the massive rise in attacks and deaths caused by dogs in recent years and in 2012 alone 6,450 people were admitted to hospital from dog attacks, of which a number were fatal.

Perhaps we are not so aware of the significant rise in diseases caught from cats, an estimated 350,000 people a year in the UK become infected with toxoplasmosis alone, and there has also been a massive rise in cat scratch disease, which can have catastrophic long-term affects and can be fatal. 

All animals kept as pets can be dangerous and may carry diseases so any debates on the human health risk posed reptiles must be kept in context and be proportionate to the health issues posed by other pets. 

*Conclusion: *If we are going to debate these issues further, which I think we should, we need to do so with impartially and objectivity. We need to look for facts, hard empirical data and credible scientific evidence, not speculation and accusation. 

Why has there been such a massive growth in popularity of reptiles as pets? My suggestion would be they are the choice of the more informed pet owner today. Lifestyles are changing and increasing numbers of households are empty for large parts of the day, rendering animals which need a high level of companionship unsuitable if welfare is not to be compromised. 

More people are now living in densely occupied areas (cities) and smaller homes (flats) than ever before and the choice of pet is evolving to fit this lifestyle. No sensible person would argue that it is appropriate to keep a dog alone for hours every day or to keep a large and active mammal, such as a cat, locked in a small flat. Reptiles, however, need no human companionship and may be left to their own devices without compromising welfare. 

Keeping and breeding exotic pets, including reptiles and amphibians, is enjoyed by millions of people throughout the UK who wish to carry on enjoying their hobby without interference form the animal rights lobby. In just the past ten years some 4,000 species and subspecies of reptiles and amphibians have been legally traded and more species of reptile and amphibians are kept and bred by specialist keepers in the UK than all the zoos in Europe and USA combined. 

Far more species are also bred for the first time in captivity in private hands than in institutions and the contribution to science by private keepers is, therefore, truly priceless. These animals also represent an invaluable gene pool which is insurance against wild population crashes due to habitat destruction.

The UK trade in reptiles as ‘pets’, however, centres around handful of key species: bearded dragons, leopard geckos, crested geckos, corn snakes (colubrids), royal (ball) pythons and Mediterranean tortoises, all of which are captive bred apart from a tiny number of pythons which may be ranched in their countries of origin. Most of these species have now reached a high level of domestication [excluding tortoises] and are produced by selective breeding in forms which bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. 

Finally, to put things into a political perspective, in 2013 the livefood market in the UK grew by 11% and the value of the reptile industry exceeded £250m. The industry employs thousands of people directly and indirectly, all of whom are potential voters and political supporters. The value of the reptile industry in the EU exceeded over a billion Euros in the same period. 

Chris Newman
Reptile & Exotic Pet Trade Association
Federation of British Herpetologists


----------



## nelly1 (Oct 27, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> Unfortunately there are always those who get disillusioned, for what ever reason, but as memberships continue to increase substantially so I’m sure they will mange, but that you for the concern its much appreciated.


you are a condescending old sod some times. 



Chris Newman said:


> I thought this might be of interest:
> 
> *APGAW meeting 11th Feb 2014*​ Committee room 7, House of Commons, Westminster​
> 
> ...


read that the other day
Its just old news regurged again


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> I would absolutely welcome the RSPCA saying privately, or indeed publically, why they decided not to engage in open, transparent and accountable system to benefit the welfare of reptiles and amphibians in captivity, all we received is the rather curt letter below.
> 
> We continue to meet and discuss issues and it is certainly not my policy to walk away from the table. Notwithstanding it is very flustering they do not wish to enter and engage with the herpetological community, preferring to engage with clandestine private arrangements.
> 
> ...


I don't think it really needs pointing out, but the MOU and reply was over/nearly 10 years ago. 

Even in the few years I have been keeping, 'exotics' are much more mainstream. 


Surely it must be time to try again to open dialogue along the same lines as 10 years ago?


----------



## CloudForest (Nov 27, 2013)

Lord Vetinari said:


> I don't think it really needs pointing out, but the MOU and reply was over/nearly 10 years ago.
> 
> Even in the few years I have been keeping, 'exotics' are much more mainstream.
> 
> ...


long over due imo

reptile care has come a long way in 10 years, and with some very positive developments, most notably the massive increase in availability of CB animals and the awareness in the general population of the need for conservation and protection of wild habitats and species

although in some ways, unfortunately, I think it has also gone backwards, but thats a topic for another thread.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Lord Vetinari said:


> I don't think it really needs pointing out, but the MOU and reply was over/nearly 10 years ago.
> 
> Even in the few years I have been keeping, 'exotics' are much more mainstream.
> 
> ...


There are some big changes happening at the RSPCA so who knows, only time will tell, as they say you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…!!


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> There are some big changes happening at the RSPCA so who knows, only time will tell, as they say you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…!!


So are you waiting for the RSPCA to approach the fbh based on something submitted 10 years ago? 

In all honesty.... I think they may have forgotten.... :lol2:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Lord Vetinari said:


> So are you waiting for the RSPCA to approach the fbh based on something submitted 10 years ago?
> 
> In all honesty.... I think they may have forgotten.... :lol2:


What would be a bit silly really would it not..? We have regular dialogue at meetings and I never miss the opportunity to raise the issue. It was one of the points I made at Westminster recently, a number of MPs and Peer’s were somewhat surprised at the rejection of the MoU by the RSPCA. There is an important conference on the reptile trade next month in London, both myself and the RSPCA are speaking so it will be another opportunity to prod them.


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> What would be a bit silly really would it not..? We have regular dialogue at meetings and I never miss the opportunity to raise the issue. It was one of the points I made at Westminster recently, a number of MPs and Peer’s were somewhat surprised at the rejection of the MoU by the RSPCA. There is an important conference on the reptile trade next month in London, both myself and the RSPCA are speaking so it will be another opportunity to prod them.


I long ago realised that anyone is capable of being a bit silly and its generally a good idea not to take anything for granted....


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Lord Vetinari said:


> I long ago realised that anyone is capable of being a bit silly and its generally a good idea not to take anything for granted....


 Fair point well made…


----------



## Hannah81 (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> There is an important conference on the reptile trade next month in London, both myself and the RSPCA are speaking so it will be another opportunity to prod them.


Can anyone attend this conference Chris?
I would be interested in listening to the points put out.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Unfortunately it’s a closed forum but I would hope a report will be published, I will certainly make my presentation available in due course.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

I have to admit, I too would like to see certain reptiles become more difficult to obtain, it deffo gives people the kick in the backside to research and commit to something.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can say in my expirinece, both raising and rescuing, I honestly would say that captivity does work against some species in more than a few ways, suppose that is a discussion for another time though. 

I think everyone should be able to enjoy reptiles, to be able to take a part of nature and apply it to the home is something I am passionate about, but I would like to see certain reptiles (iguanas, boscs, the larger snakes) become more difficult to obtain, I see enough of these guys suffering daily, in a way I agree with dramen, again.. but the rspca generally just don't want us keeping reptiles full stop.

Usually it isn't the fault of the owner, this is where I really do agree with dramen, there is some serious crap out there being regurgitated as some kind of fact.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> I have to admit, I too would like to see certain reptiles become more difficult to obtain, it deffo gives people the kick in the backside to research and commit to something.
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but I can say in my expirinece, both raising and rescuing, I honestly would say that captivity does work against some species in more than a few ways, suppose that is a discussion for another time though.
> 
> ...


 If we look at iguanas the numbers imported today they are a fraction of what they use to be, I think this is a good indication of how the trade has improved year on year.

Back in 1995 when this was first taken on as an issue the UK imported 13,007 green iguanas. In 2012 the number was 2,303. This may appear a large number but when you conceder the keeping of reptiles has probably quadrupled since 1995, this puts things into perspective.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> If we look at iguanas the numbers imported today they are a fraction of what they use to be, I think this is a good indication of how the trade has improved year on year.
> 
> Back in 1995 when this was first taken on as an issue the UK imported 13,007 green iguanas. In 2012 the number was 2,303. This may appear a large number but when you conceder the keeping of reptiles has probably quadrupled since 1995, this puts things into perspective.


I totally agree that things are nowhere as near as bad as they used to be, but there is still a problem and there could be improvements I feel. : victory:


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> If we look at iguanas the numbers imported today they are a fraction of what they use to be, I think this is a good indication of how the trade has improved year on year.
> 
> Back in 1995 when this was first taken on as an issue the UK imported 13,007 green iguanas. In 2012 the number was 2,303. This may appear a large number but when you conceder the keeping of reptiles has probably quadrupled since 1995, this puts things into perspective.


chris to help put things into perspective for why I feel this way, we had 17 iguanas come through our door last year, around 12 of them needed vet intervention, 5 died on the table, some I still have here awaiting homes, so it may not be a large number considering, but for me it is a good indication, there is room for improvements, conversing with other rescues on here, my friend john rescued nearly 22 last year, dwarf had its fair share, greg too, so I would probably say, half of that number, probably did end up in a rescue somewhere just as guesstimate from conversing on groups. : victory:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> I totally agree that things are nowhere as near as bad as they used to be, but there is still a problem and there could be improvements I feel. : victory:


 The drive is always to make tomorrow better than today, it is a slow process and it will never be perfect. Regards to the numbers of animals that need rescuing or rehoming the numbers are very modest compared to dogs, cats and rabbits, so the reptiles are, by enlarge the choose of responsible keepers. Notwithstanding there is always room for improvement.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Chris Newman said:


> The drive is always to make tomorrow better than today, it is a slow process and it will never be perfect. Regards to the numbers of animals that need rescuing or rehoming the numbers are very modest compared to dogs, cats and rabbits, so the reptiles are, by enlarge the choose of responsible keepers. Notwithstanding there is always room for improvement.


I hope something comes of it in the end, I understand the amount of cats, dogs etc are much larger, and I would like to see this regulated a bit better too, one of our cats came from the RSPCA interestingly, but cats and dogs don't really have the same temperments, specialist requirements, as these tropical reptiles do, they are much easier to keep norushed, and hydrated properly, (this goes back to one of my above points, some things either through the outlook of the keeper, or lack of research, there is alot that works against them, I'm not saying people shouldn't own them, but it is far too easy to get them, I could go out and buy one now, for £30, and no questions would be asked, thats a pretty scary thought.


----------



## legallyblonde (May 13, 2013)

They have a point to a point. Too many people breed, too many people buy on a limb and too many standard pet stores don't understand the needs. I'm against the term "beginner reptile" because they all have specific requirements some are just easier and/or cheaper to create and maintain. Although you can do everything right and because reptiles hide illness well still lose a pet. I would just like to see per stores taking more responsibility for understanding the needs and ensuring the people buying them also do. You can't always prevent an RI but something like MBD in a beardie is completely avoidable IMHO. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harderfasterdarker (Jan 12, 2013)

Definetly agree with the ease of the larger reptiles becoming more restricted. People are very naive when it comes to such animals. And the fact you can pick something like a retic or anaconda for less this you can a television makes people think this is an affordable pet. Didn't think this thread would get much attention tbh. what is everyone's job exactly as it seems to be getting quite heated between views ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

